Auf Voxeu findet sich heute ein Beitrag über die Wiederkehr verschiedener Denkrichtungen in der Makroökonomie, nachdem sich in den 1990er Jahren der Mainstream auf eine Konsensblickrichtung auf die Ökonomie "geeinigt" hatte. Ein paar Zitate:
"But then [in den 1990ern] things began to change. The discipline appeared to become much more unified. It would be going much too far to suggest that there was a general consensus, but to use a tired cliché, most macroeconomists started talking the same language, even if they were not saying the same thing."Wir werden sehen, wie sich das in den nächsten Jahren (Dekaden) entwickelt. Ich denke, dass die Modelle der New Neoclassical Synthesis die makroökonomische Dynamik in ruhigen, "normalen" Zeiten ganz gut abbildet, d. h. wenn die Produktion in der Nähe des Potentials ist, die Geldpolitik die Möglichkeit hat, das Zinsniveau in beide Richtungen zu verändern, und die Finanzmärkte ohne Probleme funktionieren. Ganz klar ist aber auch: Sind diese Bedingungen nicht erfüllt, dann wirken ganz andere Mechanismen ... und über die Theorien dazu herrscht eben noch alles andere als Konsens.
"There were two main factors behind this synthesis. The first was microfoundations, ie deriving the components of macro models from standard optimisation applied to representative agents. This gave macroeconomics the potential to achieve the same degree of unity as microeconomics. The second was the development of New Keynesian theory, which allowed an analysis of aggregate demand within a microfounded framework, and which integrated ideas like rational expectations and consumption-smoothing into Keynesian analysis. All models were now ‘dynamic stochastic general equilibrium’ models.
Following the Great Recession, things seem rather different. In popular discussion of macroeconomics, schools of thought in macro are definitely back."
"So why have schools of thought within mainstream macroeconomics returned? One simple story is that schools of thought are associated with macroeconomic crises, and macro synthesis follows periods of calm."
"So, perhaps unlike the first (postwar) neoclassical synthesis, the New Neoclassical Synthesis was partial in terms of its coverage among academics. This incompleteness was not apparent during the Great Moderation, because in central banks the synthesis was uncontested. The fault lines only became evident when monetary policy became relatively impotent at the zero bound after the Great Recession, and fiscal stimulus was used both in the US and UK. Once that happened, what might be called the Anti-Keynesian school re-emerged."