Michel De Vroey

Getting Rid of Keynes? A Survey of the History of Macroeconomics from Keynes to Lucas and Beyond

The aim of this paper is to recount the ebbs and flows of Keynesianism over the history of macroeconomics. The bulk of the paper consists of a discussion of the main episodes of the unfolding of macroeconomics (Keynesian macroeconomics, monetarism, new classical macroeconomics, real business cycle models and new neoclassical synthesis models) against the background of a distinction between Keynesianism as a ‘moderately conservative’ (Keynes’s words) vision about the working of the market system and as a conceptual apparatus. Particular attention is given to the contrast between Keynesian and Lucasian macroeconomics. The paper ends with a few remarks about the impact of the present crisis on the development of macroeconomic theory.

The Marshallian Market and the Walrasian Economy. Two Incompatible Bedfellows

The aim of this paper is to question a view which is usually taken for granted, namely that the Marshallian partial equilibrium and Walrasian general equilibrium analysis stand in a relationship of continuity. It will be claimed that the contrary is true : the generalisation of the Marshallian market does not lead to a Walrasian economy or, conversely, the Walrasian economy is not composed of Marshallian markets. To bring this point home, the basic methodological choices underpinning the analysis of the Marshallian market and of the Walrasian economy will be compared. The issue of why no full-fledged Marshallian representation of the economy has arisen which might stand as an alternative to the Walrasian account will also be investigated and a series of reasons for this lack of generalisation of the Marshallian market will be considered. It will be shown that the very assumptions which serve to make the market equilibrium result tractable constitute the stumbling-blocks to its generalization. Finally, it will be claimed that if the Marshallian economy concept has no explicit existence, it has nonetheless an implicit one. It forms the background against which a series of reasoning about the working of the economy as a whole, which cannot fit the Walrasian economy framework, are developed. No less prestigious names than those of Keynes, Hicks, Patinkin, Friedman, Clower and Leijonhufvud will be adduced as witnesses.

Equilibrium and Disequilibrium in Walrasian and Neo-Walrasian Economics

In his 1989 Cambridge doctoral dissertation, The Concept of Equilibrium in Neoclassical Theory, Franco Donzelli observed that, “The history of the neoclassical approach over the last one hundred and twenty years can be interpreted as a history of the relationship between instantaneous and stationary equilibrium models, on the one hand, and of the developments internal to either class of models, on the other†(Donzelli 1989, p. 31).

In Search of Lost Time: The Neoclassical Synthesis

Abstract Present-day macroeconomics has sometimes been dubbed “the new neoclassical synthesis”, suggesting that it constitutes a reincarnation of the neoclassical synthesis of the 1950s. This paper assesses this understanding. To this end, we examine the contents of the “old” and the “new” neoclassical syntheses. We show that the neoclassical synthesis originally had no fixed content, but two meanings gradually became dominant. First, it designates the program of integrating Keynesian and Walrasian theory. Second, it designates the methodological principle that in macroeconomics it is better to have alternative models geared towards different purposes than a hegemonic general equilibrium model. The paper documents that: (a) the first program was never achieved; (b) Lucas’s criticisms of Keynesian macroeconomics eventually caused the neoclassical synthesis program to vanish from the scene; (c) the rise of DSGE macroeconomics marked the end of the neoclassical synthesis mark II; and (d) contrary to present-day understanding, the link between the old and the new synthesis is at best weak.

Marshall on equilibrium and time: a reconstruction

This papers aim is to offer a reconstruction of the Marshallian conception of equilibrium and time. Its main features are as follows. First, I argue that the hallmark of this conception is to posit an interrelationship between two equilibrium concepts — market-day and normal equilibrium. I claim that they are part and parcel and cannot be analysed separately. Second, my reconstruction gives a central role to the market period. Third, I argue that the so-called short and long-period equilibrium concepts refer to the same unique concept of normal equilibrium. Fourth, I argue that Marshall’s value theory admits the effective existence of disequilibrium states. A Marshallian disequilibrium refers to cases where market-day and normal values fail to coincide, this state of affairs going along, however, with market clearing. I also propose an alternative interpretation of Marshalls corn model wherein perfect information is considered the linchpin of achieving equilibrium. Finally, I argue that my reconstruction avoids a series of interpretative pitfalls.

Keynes and the Marshall-Walras Divide

This paper is a sequel to De Vroey (1998d) and (1998e). In these papers, I pondered upon the relationship between the Marshallian and the Walrasian research programs and defended the view that a divide should be drawn between them, contrary to the opinion of the majority of economists who see no need for such. I argued that these research programs differ on two scores. First, they are based on different conceptions of equilibrium. Second, they differ on the way in which they broach the issue of the working of the decentralized economy. The hallmark of the Marshallian approach is that it proceeds in two steps. The working of particular markets is analyzed in a first stage whereas the issue of their coordination is assigned to the second stage of the inquiry. Contrarily, the hallmark of the Walrasian approach is to immediately start the analysis at the level of the economy as a whole. Put differently, in the Marshallian approach, partial equilibrium analysis is seen as a first preliminary step to general equilibrium analysis, whereas in the Walrasian approach one immediately proceeds with the latter. The aim of the present paper is to show the incidence of this twofold difference on the interpretation of Keynesian theory.

Real Business Cycle Theory and the Great Depression: The Abandonment of the Abstentionist Viewpoint

Is the Great Depression amenable to real business cycle theory? In the 1970s and 1980s Lucas and Prescott took an abstentionist stance. They maintained that, because of its exceptional character, an explanation of the Great Depression was beyond the grasp of the equilibrium approach to the business cycle. However, while Lucas stuck to this view, Prescott changed his mind at the end of the 1990s, breaking his earlier self-imposed restraint. In this paper we document this evolution of opinion and produce a first assessment of real business cycle models of the Great Depression. We claim that the fact of having constructed an equilibrium model of the Great Depression constitutes a methodological breakthrough. However, as far as substance is concerned, we argue that the contribution of real business cycle literature on the Great Depression is slim, and does not gain the upper hand over the work of economic historians.

Equilibrium and Disequilibrium in Economic Theory: A Confrontation of the Classical, Marshallian and Walras-Hicksian Conceptions

When the economic theory of the last decades becomes a subject of reflection for historians of economic theory, a striking feature which they will have to explain is the demise of the disequilibrium concept. Previously, economists had no qualms concerning the view that the market or the economy was exhibiting disequilibria. Amongst many possible quotations, the following, drawn from Viners well-known article on Marshall, illustrates that:

Did the market-clearing postulate pre-exist new classical economics ? The case of Marshallian theory

Have new classicists invented market clearing or have they just rehabilitated it? This is the question addressed in the present paper. It is generally agreed that market clearing underpins Walrasian theory, so my exploration is limited to the question of whether this is also true for Marshallian theory. I will claim that this is broadly the case: once Marshallian theory is properly reconstructed, it exhibits market clearing as a constantly present result. Still, an important difference between market clearing a la Walras and market clearing a la Marshall exists: in the former market clearing is equilibrium, while in the latter market clearing can coexist with disequilibrium. Next, I investigate whether my conclusion extends to the labour market. Again the conclusion reached is affirmative both for Marshalls theory and for present-day Marshallian models. As to the latter, I take Friedmans Phillips curve model as a case study. I show that this is a market-clearing model in which, strictly speaking, there is no place for the concept of unemployment - quite an ironical result for the paper that introduced the notion of the natural rate of unemployment!

PART I: The Corporation and The Labor Process

The importance of the idea of a divorce of control from ownership can be properly understood only if placed in a larger context which takes into consideration the alleged consequences of the phenomenon. Indeed, according to the Managerial writersl, this divorce has radically modified the working of the capitalist system and has thereby constituted one of the major changes in the economic institutions of the twentieth century. The separation of ownership and control is also often used by bourgeois economists as an attack against Marxism, by which they hope to refute what is often presented as its core, i.e. the assertion of a contradiction in capitalism between the private property of the means of production and the socialization of productive forces. To quote Nichols again, &dquo;most managerialists have assumed that property is the cause of conflict and that it therefore follows that the interests of (non-propertied) managers are not in conflict with those of employees&dquo; [44, p. 46]. In so far as ownership has simply become a ’legal fiction’, to borrow the expression of the well known sociologist Daniel Bell [4, p. 21], the bases of conflicts on interests in capitalist society would thus be suppressed. This ideological utilization of the thesis of a separation of ownership and control is well demonstrated by Sweezy in his criticism of Galbraith’s book, &dquo;Economics and the Public Purpose&dquo;, In that case, control over the key sector of the economy has slipped out of the grip of the owning or capitalist class into the relatively weak hands of a new technocratic stratum.