Lucas on the relationship between theory and ideology

This paper concerns a neglected aspect of Lucas’s work: his methodological writings, published and unpublished. Particular attention is paid to his views on the relationship between theory and ideology. I start by setting out Lucas’s non-standard conception of theory: to him, a theory and a model are the same thing. I also explore the different facets and implications of this conception. In the next two sections, I debate whether Lucas adheres to two methodological principles that I dub the ‘non-interference’ precept (the proposition that ideological viewpoints should not influence theory), and the ‘non-exploitation’ precept (that the models’ conclusions should not be transposed into policy recommendations, in so far as these conclusions are built into the models’ premises). The last part of the paper contains my assessment of Lucas’s ideas. First, I bring out the extent to which Lucas departs from the view held by most specialized methodologists. Second, I wonder whether the new classical revolution resulted from a political agenda. Third and finally, I claim that the tensions characterizing Lucas’s conception of theory follow from his having one foot in the neo- Walrasian and the other in the Marshallian-Friedmanian universe.Lucas, new classical macroeconomics, methodology

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 theoryKeynes, Lucas, history of macroeconomics

New classical/real business cycle macroeconomics. The anatomy of a revolution

The aim of the present paper is to assess the new classical/real business cycle revolution, which dethroned Keynesian macroeconomics. In its first part, I critically discuss the microfoundations requirement that constitutes a cornerstone of the new approach and suggest an alternative, softer, formulation of it. The conclusion of this discussion is that the new classical/real business cycle revolution marked a transition from a soft to a demanding understanding of the microfoundations requirement. In the second part of the paper, I present additional salient traits of the new classical and the real business cycle stages of the revolution. While each of these stages brought a specific contribution to the revolution, I emphasize the decisive role played by Kydland and Prescott in re-orienting the type of work in which macroeconomists were engaged. Finally, in part three, I ponder upon the causes of this revolution. After presenting and assessing Prescott’s and Lucas’s accounts of the factors which gave rise to the new approach, I venture into muddier waters by raising the question of whether a political agenda underpinned the NC/RBC revolution.

The History of Macroeconomics Viewed Against the Background of the Marshall-Walras Divide

Analysing the recent history of macroeconomics, my paper claims that the new classical revolution should be viewed as a substitution of Walrasian macroeconomics to the earlier prevailing Marshalian macroeconomics. The first part of the paper is concerned with two conceptual prerequisites, the relationship between macroeconomics and general equilibrium, the meaning of the “Keynesianism” modifier. In a second part, the different facets of the Marshall-Walras divide are expounded. My general claim is substantiated in the third paper of the paper. Herein, I claim that the IS-LM model is a simplified Marshallian general equilibrium model while real business cycle models belong to the Walrasian reserach programme. Finally, I express my scepticism as to the possibility of a New Neoclassical Synthesis.History of macroeconomics; Neoclassical Synthesis; New Neoclassical Synthesis; Keynesianism; Monetarism

Lucas on the Lucasian transformation of macroeconomics: an assessment

Robert Lucas is rightfully credited with having changed the course of macroeconomic theory. The aim of this paper is to document his transformation from a potential contributor to Keynesian macroeconomics to the master builder of an alternative paradigm, equilibrium macroeconomics. I reconstruct Lucas’s theoretical journey as involving seven steps: (1) his pre-macroeconomic years, (2) his early work as a macroeconomist, jointly with Rapping, (3) the ‘Expectations and the Neutrality of Money’ 1972 article, (4) his inaugural equilibrium model of the business cycle, (5) his all-out attack on Keynesian macroeconomics, (6) the passing of the baton to Kydland and Prescott, and (7) his standpoint after the victory of the approach he so much contributed to launchLucas, new classical macroeconomics

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

Have new classicists invented market clearing or have they rehabilited 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 à la Walras and market clearing à 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 Marshall’s theory and for present-day Marshallian models. As to the latter, I take Friedman’s 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 !market clearing; equilibrium; Lucas; Marshall; Friedman