The standard history of macroeconomics considers Lucas (1976)-"the Lucas Critique"-as a path-breaking innovation for the discipline. According to this view Lucas's article dismissed the traditional macroeconometric practice calling for new ways of conceiving the quantitative evaluation of economic policies. The Lucas Critique is considered, nowadays, as a fundamental principle of macroeconomic modeling (Woodford, 2003). The interpretation and the application of the Critique, however, represent still unsolved issues in economics (Chari et al., 2008). Even if the influence of Lucas's contribution cannot be neglected, something seems to be missing in the narrative: the reactions of the economists that were directly targeted by the Critique. Modeling practices of economic policy evaluation were not overthrown immediately after Lucas (1976), creating a divide between theoretical and applied macroeconomics (Brayton et al., 1997).The purpose of this paper is to study the reactions of the macroeconometricians criticized by Lucas. We focus especially on those macroeconometricians who worked on policy evaluation and who held an expertise position in governmental institutions. We categorize the
The International Seminar on Macroeconomics (ISoM) is an annual conference, which was co-sponsored during 15 years (1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993) by the French EHESS and the NBER. This article uncovers the scientific and institutional dynamics unrolling from this cooperation. We argue that the ISoM contributed greatly to the making of a European network of economists sharing similar professional and intellectual standards: indeed, the Seminar gathered macroeconomists who were leading the development of this European network.We illustrate how the ISoM stood at the crossroad of two types of 'internationalisation' of economics: the integration of European national communities and the process of 'Americanisation' of economics. While existing literature on 'internationalisation' focuses on the national level, our contribution investigates the European level. Moreover, we unveil how two research programmes in macroeconomics (namely the disequilibrium theory and large-scale macroeconometric modelling) played a significant role in this process.
In 1976, Robert Lucas explicitly criticized Keynesian macroeconometric models for their inability to correctly predict the effects of alternative economic policies. Today, most contemporary macroeconomists and some historians of economics consider that the Lucas’s critique led forcefully to immediate disqualification of the Keynesian macroeconometric approach. This narrative is based on the interpretation of the Lucas Critique as a fundamental principle for economic reasoning that was (and still is) logically unquestionable. We consider that this narrative is problematic both in terms of historiography and of the effects that it can have in the field as a way of assigning importance and credit to particular macroeconomists. Indeed, the point of view of the Keynesian economists is missing despite the fact that they were the target of Lucas’s paper and that throughout the 1970s and 1980s they produced a fierce reaction against it. In this paper, we analyze the reactions by a broad set of authors (that we label as “Keynesians”) that disputed the relevance of the critique. In spite of their diversity in methodological, theoretical, and policy issues, these reactions were characterized by their common questioning of the empirical and practical relevance of the Lucas critique.
This article investigates the matrimonial web of migrants by first focusing on the economy of ethnic profiling which underlies it. Such ethnicization of the 'love' encounter is closely dependant on a complex articulation of gender, nationality and mobility (migration), which is called here an 'international distribution of gender'. Finally, the migrant matrimonial web suggests a new form of 'ethnic business', in which the source of value does not result from the activation of pre-existing networks but from the very creation of ethnic networks.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.