Krugman über den Status Keynesianischer (alt und neu) Modelle in der Makroökonomik.
"[...] it is true that there has been a divergence between what gets published in the journals and what people in policy-related positions believe. Keynesian models — even New Keynesian models — remain hard to get past referees. Meanwhile, places like the Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund continue to do economic analysis with a strong Keynesian flavor. (There was plenty of Keynesian storytelling at last week’s big IMF event, and I did not exactly get laughed out of the room …)
But look at who we’re talking about here. We’re not talking about dumb politicians who still do sort of Keynesian stuff. We’re talking about people like Olivier Blanchard and Janet Yellen — smart economists with plenty of technical knowledge and credentials, who continue to find Keynesian concepts useful even as such concepts are rarely published in academic journals. And it’s not just the people at the top: there’s a lot of Keynesian stuff going on in the research departments of these institutions.
So consider two hypotheses. One — which Cochrane appears to believe — is that being inside the Beltway has rotted Janet’s and Olivier’s brains, not to mention that of all their researchers, causing them to revert to primitive concepts that “everyone” knows are false. The other — which is what I hear from young economists — is that there is an equilibrium business cycle claque in academic macroeconomics that has in effect blockaded the journals to anyone trying to publish models and evidence that stress the demand side.
Obviously you know which story I believe. The main point, though, is that trying to argue from authority is even sillier here than in most situations. There’s a huge difference between “nobody believes that” and “none of my friends will let that get published in the journals they control”."
Zugespitzt (wie immer bei Krugman) - aber wahrscheinlich eine wahre Kernaussage (wie oft bei Krugman).