The MONIAC, Modeling, and Macroeconomics
AbstractModels can have pedagogical, scientific, policy, exploratory, and metaphoric uses, among many other possible uses. The uses overlap, and when thinking about the usefulness of models it is necessary to be clear about the use to which the model is being put. One can define usefulness of a model only in relations to its intended use. This paper argues that Phillips' intended use of his MONIAC was pedagogical, and used as «a» model, it can serve a useful pedagogical purpose. But it cannot serve as «the» model for framing policy since it does not capture the complexities of non-linear dynamics that can affect the aggregate economy. It argues (1) that Keynes understood this distinction, but that the distinction was lost by later economists, and that it needs to be rediscovered and (2) that the profession should train economists to specialize in developing, interpreting, teaching, and applying models to policy.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Società editrice il Mulino in its journal Economia politica.
Volume (Year): (2011)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
A11; A20; B12;
Other versions of this item:
- A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists
- A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
- B12 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - History of Economic Thought through 1925 - - - Classical (includes Adam Smith)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Colander, David, 1984. "Was Keynes a Keynesian or a Lernerian?," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 22(4), pages 1572-75, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.