John Cochrane machte auf dem diesjährigen NBER-Summer-Meeting folgende Beobachtung:
"A last thought. Economic Fluctuations merged with Growth [in terms of meetings at the NBER-Summer-Institute] in the mid 1990s. At the time there was a great confluence of method as well as interest. Growth theorists were studying growth with Bellman equations, dynamic general equilibrium models of innovation and transmission of ideas, thinking about where productivity shocks came from. Macroeconomists were using Bellman equations, and studying dynamic general equilibrium models with stochastic technology, along with various frictions and other propagation mechanisms.
That confluence has now diverged. I enjoyed spending an hour or two thinking about how religion has blocked or adapted to ideas over the centuries, and Paul's view on social norms or neuroeconomics. But I don't really have any expertise to contribute to that debate. Questions like whether young CEOs head more innovative companies, or whether, like deans, what matters is the age of the faculty are a little closer to home, since I spend a lot of time consuming corporate finance. But the average sticky-price macro type does not. Likewise, when Daron Acemoglu, who seems to know everything about everything, has to preface his comments on macro papers with repeated disclaimers of lack of expertise, it's clear that the two fields really have gone their separate ways. Perhaps it's time to merge fluctuations with finance, where we seem to be talking about the same issues and using the same methods, and growth to merge with institutions and political or social economics."
Ich war nicht dort und kann die Plausibilität dieses Eindrucks nicht beurteilen. Während der letzten Jahre hatte ich allerdings den Eindruck, dass sich mehr und mehr Leute Gedanken darüber machen, wie zyklische Entwicklungen auch langfristige Gleichgewichte beeinflussen ...