IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

What can civil society expect from academic macroeconomics?

Listed author(s):
  • Michel DE VROEY

    ()

    (UNIVERSITE CATHOLIQUE DE LOUVAIN, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES))

Academic macroeconomics as it has been practiced for the last three decades has a bad reputation, especially after the onset of the 2008 recession. The aim of this paper is to reflect on this state of affairs. To begin, I draw a comparison between Keynesian and Lucasian macroeconomics, bringing to light that they are based on different tenets. Next, I claim that because of its higher internal consistency, Lucasian macroeconomics is superior to Keynesian. However, I also claim that espousing it bears a heavy price — in particular a limited usefulness for policymaking and an inability to come to grips with economic crises.

If 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.

File URL: http://sites.uclouvain.be/econ/DP/IRES/2013022.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES) in its series Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) with number 2013022.

as
in new window

Length: 20
Date of creation: 31 May 2013
Handle: RePEc:ctl:louvir:2013022
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Place Montesquieu 3, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)

Fax: +32 10473945
Web page: https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/immaq/ires
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as
in new window


  1. Weinstein, David E., 1992. "Competition and unilateral dumping," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3-4), pages 379-388, May.
  2. Carmine ORNAGHI & Ilke VAN BEVEREN, 2011. "Using proxy variables to control for unobservables when estimating productivity: A sensitivity analysis," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 2011029, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
  3. Hall, Robert E, 1988. "The Relation between Price and Marginal Cost in U.S. Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(5), pages 921-947, October.
  4. Ottaviano, Gianmarco & Melitz, Marc, 2008. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," Scholarly Articles 3229096, Harvard University Department of Economics.
  5. Roeger, Werner, 1995. "Can Imperfect Competition Explain the Difference between Primal and Dual Productivity Measures? Estimates for U.S. Manufacturing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 316-330, April.
  6. Iacovone, Leonardo & Javorcik, Beata, 2012. "Getting Ready: Preparation for Exporting," CEPR Discussion Papers 8926, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  7. Bombardini, Matilde, 2008. "Firm heterogeneity and lobby participation," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 329-348, July.
  8. Justin R. Pierce, 2011. "Plant-level responses to antidumping duties: evidence from U.S. manufacturers," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2011-40, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
  9. Mayer, Thierry & Zignago, Soledad, 2006. "Notes on CEPII’s distances measures," MPRA Paper 26469, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  10. Brander, James & Krugman, Paul, 1983. "A 'reciprocal dumping' model of international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3-4), pages 313-321, November.
  11. Veysel Avsar, 2013. "Antidumping, Retaliation Threats, and Export Prices," World Bank Economic Review, World Bank Group, vol. 27(1), pages 133-148.
  12. Gruenspecht, Howard K., 1988. "Dumping and dynamic competition," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(3-4), pages 225-248, November.
  13. Moore, Michael O, 1992. "Rules or Politics? An Empirical Analysis of ITC Anti-dumping Decisions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 30(3), pages 449-466, July.
  14. Herguera, Inigo & Kujal, Praveen & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2002. "Tariffs, quality reversals and exit in vertically differentiated industries," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 467-492, December.
  15. repec:cup:cbooks:9780521848053 is not listed on IDEAS
  16. Robert Baldwin & Jeffrey Steagall, 1994. "An analysis of ITC decisions in antidumping, countervailing duty and safeguard cases," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 130(2), pages 290-308, June.
  17. Laura ROVEGNO, 2010. "Trade Protection and Market Power: Evidence from US Antidumping and Countervailing duties," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 2010043, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
  18. Gallaway, Michael P. & Blonigen, Bruce A. & Flynn, Joseph E., 1999. "Welfare costs of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 211-244, December.
  19. Corinne M. Krupp & Patricia S. Pollard, 1996. "Market Responses to Antidumping Laws: Some Evidence from the U.S. Chemical Industry," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(1), pages 199-227, February.
  20. Ackerberg, Daniel & Caves, Kevin & Frazer, Garth, 2006. "Structural identification of production functions," MPRA Paper 38349, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  21. Prusa, Thomas J., 1992. "Why are so many antidumping petitions withdrawn?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1-2), pages 1-20, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ctl:louvir:2013022. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anne DAVISTER-LOGIST)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.