Professional Documents
Culture Documents
qr321 PDF
qr321 PDF
, Spring 1979
# * S
3 ^ £
c
For the applied economist, the confident and appar- ments involved) to other advanced countries and in
ently successful application of Keynesian principles many cases have been amplified. These events did
to economic policy which occurred in the United not arise from a reactionary reversion to outmoded,
States in the 1960s was an event of incomparable "classical" principles of tight money and balanced
significance and satisfaction. These principles led to budgets. On the contrary, they were accompanied by
a set of simple, quantitative relationships between massive government budget deficits and high rates of
fiscal policy and economic activity generally, the ba- monetary expansion, policies which, although bear-
sic logic of which could be (and was) explained to the ing an admitted risk of inflation, promised according
general public and which could be applied to yield to modern Keynesian doctrine rapid real growth and
improvements in economic performance benefitting low rates of unemployment.
everyone. It seemed an economics as free of ideologi- That these predictions were wildly incorrect and
cal difficulties as, say, applied chemistry or physics, that the doctrine on which they were based is fun-
promising a straightforward expansion in economic damentally flawed are now simple matters of fact
possibilities. One might argue as to how this windfall involving no novelties in economic theory. The task
should be distributed, but it seemed a simple lapse of now facing contemporary students of the business
logic to oppose the windfall itself. Understandably cycle is to sort through the wreckage, determining
and correctly, noneconomists met this promise with which features of that remarkable intellectual event
skepticism at first; the smoothly growing prosperity called the Keynesian Revolution can be salvaged and
of the Kennedy-Johnson years did much to diminish put to good use and which others must be discarded.
these doubts. Though it is far from clear what the outcome of this
We dwell on these halcyon days of Keynesian process will be, it is already evident that it will neces-
economics because without conscious effort they are sarily involve the reopening of basic issues in mone-
difficult to recall today. In the present decade, the tary economics which have been viewed since the
U.S. economy has undergone its first major depression thirties as "closed" and the reevaluation of every
since the 1930s, to the accompaniment of inflation aspect of the institutional framework within which
rates in excess of 10 percent per annum. These events monetary and fiscal policy is formulated in the ad-
have been transmitted (by consent of the govern- vanced countries.
This paper is an early progress report on this
*A paper presented at a June 1978 conference sponsored by the
process of reevaluation and reconstruction. We begin
Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and published in its After the Phillips by reviewing the econometric framework by means
Curve: Persistence of High Inflation and High Unemployment, Con- of which Keynesian theory evolved from disconnect-
ference Series No. 19. Edited for publication in this Quarterly Review.
The authors acknowledge helpful criticism from William Poole
ed, qualitative talk about economic activity into a
and Benjamin Friedman. system of equations which can be compared to data
J
3
Aj's and Bj's to zero. of money). This division was intended to reflect the
(b) Restrictions on the orders of serial correlation ordinary meanings of the words endogenous—
and the extent of cross-serial correlation of the "determined by the [economic] system" —and
disturbance vector e t , restrictions which amount exogenous— "affecting the [economic] system but
to a priori setting of many elements of the Rj's to not affected by it."
zero. By the mid-1950s, econometric models had been
(c) A priori classifying of variables as exogenous and constructed which fit time series data well, in the
endogenous. A relative abundance of exogenous sense that their reduced forms (3) tracked past data
variables aids identification. closely and proved useful in short-term forecasting.
Moreover, by means of restrictions of the three types
Existing large Keynesian macroeconometric models
reviewed above, their structural parameters A-v Bj, R k
are open to serious challenge for the way they have
could be identified. Using this estimated structure,
introduced each type of restriction.
the models could be simulated to obtain estimates of
Keynes' General Theory was rich in suggestions
the consequences of different government economic
for restrictions of type (a). In it he proposed a theory
policies, such as tax rates, expenditures, or monetary
of national income determination built up from
policy.
several simple relationships, each involving a few
variables only. One of these, for example, was the This Keynesian solution to the problem of identi-
"fundamental law" relating consumption expenditures fying a structural model has become increasingly
to income. This suggested one "row" in equations (1) suspect as a result of both theoretical and statistical
involving current consumption, current income, and developments. Many of these developments are due
no other variables, thereby imposing many zero- to efforts of researchers sympathetic to the Keynes-
restrictions on the Aj's and B-s. Similarly, the liquidity ian tradition, and many were advanced well before
preference relation expressed the demand for money the spectacular failure of the Keynesian models in the
as a function of only income and an interest rate. By 1970s.6
translating the building blocks of the Keynesian Since its inception, macroeconomics has been
theoretical system into explicit equations, models of criticized for its lack of foundations in microeco-
the form (1) and (2) were constructed with many nomic and general equilibrium theory. As was recog-
theoretical restrictions of type (a). nized early on by astute commentators like Leontief
(1965, disapprovingly) and Tobin (1965, approvingly),
Restrictions on the coefficients Rj governing the
the creation of a distinct branch of theory with its
behavior of the error terms in (1) are harder to moti-
own distinct postulates was Keynes' conscious aim.
vate theoretically because the errors are by definition
Yet a main theme of theoretical work since the Gen-
movements in the variables which the economic the-
eral Theory has been the attempt to use microeco-
ory cannot account for. The early econometricians
nomic theory based on the classical postulate that
took standard assumptions from statistical textbooks,
agents act in their own interests to suggest a list of
restrictions which had proven useful in the agricul-
variables that belong on the right side of a given
tural experimenting which provided the main impetus
behavioral schedule, say, a demand schedule for a
to the development of modern statistics. Again, these
factor of production or a consumption schedule. 7 But
restrictions, well-motivated or not, involve setting
many elements in the R-s equal to zero, thus aiding
identification of the model's structure. 6
Criticisms of the Keynesian solutions of the identification prob-
The classification of variables into exogenous lem along much the following lines have been made in Lucas 1976, Sims
and endogenous was also done on the basis of prior forthcoming, and Sargent and Sims 1977.
considerations. In general, variables were classed as 7
Much of this work was done by economists operating well within
the Keynesian tradition, often within the context of some Keynesian
endogenous which were, as a matter of institutional macroeconometric model. Sometimes a theory with optimizing agents
fact, determined largely by the actions of private was resorted to in order to resolve empirical paradoxes by finding
agents (like consumption or private investment ex- variables omitted from some of the earlier Keynesian econometric
formulations. The works of Modigliani and Friedman on consumption
penditures). Exogenous variables were those under are good examples of this line of work; its econometric implications
governmental control (like tax rates or the supply Continued on next page
5
exogeneity can be tested. That is, Sims showed that of 4 percent as consistent with a 4 percent annual rate
the hypothesis that x t is strictly econometrically exog- of inflation. Based on this prediction, many econo-
enous in (1) necessarily implies certain restrictions mists at that time urged a deliberate policy of infla-
that can be tested given time series on the y's and x's. tion. Certainly the erratic "fits and starts" character
Tests along the lines of Sims' ought to be used rou- of actual U.S. policy in the 1970s cannot be attributed
tinely to check classifications into exogenous and to recommendations based on Keynesian models, but
endogenous sets of variables. To date they have not the inflationary bias on average of monetary and fiscal
been. Prominent builders of large econometric mod- policy in this period should, according to all of these
els have even denied the usefulness of such tests. models, have produced the lowest average unem-
(See, for example, Ando 1977, pp. 209-10, and L. R. ployment rates for any decade since the 1940s. In
Klein in Okun and Perry 1973, p. 644.) fact, as we know, they produced the highest unem-
ployment rates since the 1930s. This was econometric
Failure of Keynesian Macroeconometrics failure on a grand scale.
There are, therefore, a number of theoretical reasons
for believing that the parameters identified as struc- This failure has not led to widespread conver-
tural by current macroeconomic methods are not in sions of Keynesian economists to other faiths, nor
fact structural. That is, we see no reason to believe should it have been expected to. In economics as in
that these models have isolated structures which will other sciences, a theoretical framework is always
remain invariant across the class of interventions that broader and more flexible than any particular set of
figure in contemporary discussions of economic pol- equations, and there is always the hope that if a
icy. Yet the question of whether a particular model is particular specific model fails one can find a more
structural is an empirical, not a theoretical, one. If successful model based on roughly the same ideas.
the macroeconometric models had compiled a rec- The failure has, however, already had some impor-
ord of parameter stability, particularly in the face of tant consequences, with serious implications for both
breaks in the stochastic behavior of the exogenous economic policymaking and the practice of eco-
variables and disturbances, one would be skeptical as nomic science.
to the importance of prior theoretical objections of For policy, the central fact is that Keynesian
the sort we have raised. policy recommendations have no sounder basis, in a
In fact, however, the track record of the major scientific sense, than recommendations of non-Keynes-
econometric models is, on any dimension other than ian economists or, for that matter, noneconomists.
very short-term unconditional forecasting, very poor. To note one consequence of the wide recognition of
Formal statistical tests for parameter instability, this, the current wave of protectionist sentiment
conducted by subdividing past series into periods directed at "saving jobs" would have been answered
and checking for parameter stability across time, ten years ago with the Keynesian counterargument
invariably reveal major shifts. (For one example, see that fiscal policy can achieve the same end, but more
Muench et. al. 1974.) Moreover, this difficulty is im- efficiently. Today, of course, no one would take this
plicitly acknowledged by model builders themselves, response seriously, so it is not offered. Indeed, econo-
who routinely employ an elaborate system of add- mists who ten years ago championed Keynesian fiscal
factors in forecasting, in an attempt to offset the policy as an alternative to inefficient direct controls
continuing drift of the model away from the actual increasingly favor such controls as supplements to
series. Keynesian policy. The idea seems to be that if people
Though not, of course, designed as such by any- refuse to obey the equations we have fit to their past
one, macroeconometric models were subjected to behavior, we can pass laws to make them do so.
a decisive test in the 1970s. A key element in all Scientifically, the Keynesian failure of the 1970s
Keynesian models is a trade-off between inflation and has resulted in a new openness. Fewer and fewer
real output: the higher is the inflation rate, the higher economists are involved in monitoring and refining
is output (or equivalently, the lower is the rate of the major econometric models; more and more are
unemployment). For example, the models of the late developing alternative theories of the business cycle,
1960s predicted a sustained U.S. unemployment rate based on different theoretical principles. In addition,
7
involves the attempt to discover a particular, econo- 1975). The key step in obtaining such models has
metrically testable equilibrium theory of the business been to relax the ancillary postulate used in much
cycle, one that can serve as the foundation for quanti- classical economic analysis that agents have perfect
tative analysis of macroeconomic policy. There is no information. The new classical models still assume
denying that this approach is counterrevolutionary, that markets clear and that agents optimize; agents
for it presupposes that Keynes and his followers were make their supply and demand decisions based on
wrong to give up on the possibility that an equilibrium real variables, including perceived relative prices.
theory could account for the business cycle. As of However, each agent is assumed to have limited infor-
now, no successful equilibrium macroeconometric mation and to receive information about some prices
model at the level of detail of, say, the Federal Re- more often than other prices. On the basis of their
serve-MIT-Penn model has been constructed. But limited information—the lists that they have of current
small theoretical equilibrium models have been con- and past absolute prices of various goods—agents
structed that show potential for explaining some key are assumed to make the best possible estimate of all
features of the business cycle long thought inexplic- of the relative prices that influence their supply and
able within the confines of classical postulates. The demand decisions.
equilibrium models also provide reasons for under- Because they do not have all of the information
standing why estimated Keynesian models fail to hold necessary to compute perfectly the relative prices
up outside the sample over which they have been they care about, agents make errors in estimating the
estimated. We now turn to describing some of the pertinent relative prices, errors that are unavoidable
key facts about business cycles and the way the new given their limited information. In particular, under
classical models confront them. certain conditions, agents tend temporarily to mis-
For a long time most of the economics profession take a general increase in all absolute prices as an
has, with some reason, followed Keynes in rejecting increase in the relative price of the good they are
classical macroeconomic models because they seemed selling, leading them to increase their supply of that
incapable of explaining some important characteris- good over what they had previously planned. Since
tics of time series measuring important economic on average everyone is making the same mistake,
aggregates. Perhaps the most important failure of the aggregate output rises above what it would have been.
classical model was its apparent inability to explain This increase of output above what it would have
the positive correlation in the time series between been occurs whenever this period's average economy-
prices and/or wages, on the one hand, and measures wide price level is above what agents had expected
of aggregate output or employment, on the other. A it to be on the basis of previous information. Sym-
second and related failure was its inability to explain metrically, aggregate output decreases whenever the
the positive correlations between measures of aggre- aggregate price turns out to be lower than agents had
gate demand, like the money stock, and aggregate expected. The hypothesis of rational expectations is
output or employment. Static analysis of classical being imposed here: agents are assumed to make the
macroeconomic models typically implied that the best possible use of the limited information they have
levels of output and employment were determined and to know the pertinent objective probability distri-
independently of both the absolute level of prices and
of aggregate demand. But the pervasive presence of
positive correlations in the time series seems consis- fication in Sargent 1978. In applied problems that involve modeling
tent with causal connections flowing from aggregate agents' optimum decision rules, one is impressed at how generalizing
demand and inflation to output and employment, the specification of agents' objective functions in plausible ways
quickly leads to econometric underidentification.
contrary to the classical neutrality propositions. A somewhat different class of examples c o m e s from the diffi-
Keynesian macroeconometric models do imply such culties in using time series observations to refute the view that agents
only respond to unexpected changes in the money supply. In the
causal connections. equilibrium macroeconometric models we will describe, predictable
We now have rigorous theoretical models which changes in the money supply do not affect real G N P or total employ-
illustrate how these correlations can emerge while ment. In Keynesian models, they do. At a general level, it is impossible
to discriminate between these two views by observing time series drawn
retaining the classical postulates that markets clear from an e c o n o m y described by a stationary vector random process
and agents optimize (Phelps 1970 and Lucas 1972, (Sargent 1976b).
9
The result of this connection between predictability Keynesian models, thereby making concrete the
and exogeneity has been that in equilibrium macro- point that the good fits of the Keynesian models
econometric models the distinction between endog- provide no good reason for trusting policy recom-
enous and exogenous variables has not been drawn mendations derived from them.
on an entirely a priori basis. Furthermore, special
cases of the theoretical models, which often involve Criticism of Equilibrium Theory
side restrictions on the R-s not themselves drawn from The central idea of the equilibrium explanations of
economic theory, have strong testable predictions as business cycles sketched above is that economic
to exogeneity relations among variables. fluctuations arise as agents react to unanticipated
A key characteristic of equilibrium macroecono- changes in variables which impinge on their deci-
metric models is that as a result of the restrictions sions. Clearly, any explanation of this general type
across the A/s, B/s, and C/s, the models predict that must imply severe limitations on the ability of govern-
in general the parameters in many of the equations ment policy to offset these initiating changes. First,
will change if there is a policy intervention that takes governments must somehow be able to foresee
the form of a change in one equation that describes shocks invisible to private agents but at the same time
how some policy variable is being set. Since they be unable to reveal this advance information (hence,
ignore these cross-equation restrictions, Keynesian defusing the shocks). Though it is not hard to design
models in general assume that all other equations theoretical models in which these two conditions are
remain unchanged when an equation describing a assumed to hold, it is difficult to imagine actual situa-
policy variable is changed. We think this is one tions in which such models would apply. Second, the
important reason Keynesian models have broken governmental countercyclical policy must itself be
down when the equations governing policy variables unforeseeable by private agents (certainly a fre-
or exogenous variables have changed significantly. quently realized condition historically) while at the
We hope that the new methods we have described same time be systematically related to the state of the
will give us the capability to predict the consequences economy. Effectiveness, then, rests on the inability of
for all of the equations of changes in the rules govern- private agents to recognize systematic patterns in
ing policy variables. Having that capability is neces- monetary and fiscal policy.
sary before we can claim to have a scientific basis To a large extent, criticism of equilibrium models
for making quantitative statements about macroeco- is simply a reaction to these implications for policy.
nomic policy. So wide is (or was) the consensus that the task of
So far, these new theoretical and econometric macroeconomics is the discovery of the particular
developments have not been fully integrated, al- monetary and fiscal policies which can eliminate fluc-
though clearly they are very close, both conceptually tuations by reacting to private sector instability that
and operationally. We consider the best currently the assertion that this task either should not or cannot
existing equilibrium models as prototypes of better, be performed is regarded as frivolous, regardless of
future models which will, we hope, prove of practical whatever reasoning and evidence may support it.
use in the formulation of policy. Certainly one must have some sympathy with this
But we should not understate the econometric reaction: an unfounded faith in the curability of a
success already attained by equilibrium models. particular ill has served often enough as a stimulus to
Early versions of these models have been estimated the finding of genuine cures. Yet to confuse a possi-
and subjected to some stringent econometric tests by bly functional faith in the existence of efficacious,
McCallum (1976), Barro (1977, forthcoming), and reactive monetary and fiscal policies with scientific
Sargent (1976a), with the result that they do seem evidence that such policies are known is clearly dan-
able to explain some broad features of the business gerous, and to use such faith as a criterion forjudging
cycle. New and more sophisticated models involving the extent to which particular theories fit the facts is
more complicated cross-equation restrictions are in worse still.
the works (Sargent 1978). Work to date has already There are, of course, legitimate questions about
shown that equilibrium models can attain within- how well equilibrium theories can fit the facts of the
sample fits about as good as those obtained by business cycle. Indeed, this is the reason for our in-
11
seems to us unlikely that major modifications of the are the aggregate demand impulses are serially un-
implications of these models for monetary and fiscal correlated, it is certainly logically possible that propa-
policy will follow from this. gation mechanisms are at work that convert these
impulses into serially correlated movements in real
Persistence
variables like output and employment. Indeed, de-
A second line of criticism stems from the correct ob-
tailed theoretical work has already shown that two
servation that if agents' expectations are rational and
concrete propagation mechanisms do precisely that.
if their information sets include lagged values of the
variable being forecast, then agents' forecast errors One mechanism stems from the presence of costs
must be a serially uncorrelated random process. That to firms of adjusting their stocks of capital and labor
is, on average there must be no detectable relation- rapidly. The presence of these costs is known to make
ships between a period's forecast error and any pre- it optimal for firms to spread out over time their
vious period's. This feature has led several critics to response to the relative price signals they receive.
conclude that equilibrium models cannot account for That is, such a mechanism causes a firm to convert
more than an insignificant part of the highly serially the serially uncorrelated forecast errors in predicting
relative prices into serially correlated movements in
correlated movements we observe in real output,
factor demands and output.
employment, unemployment, and other series. Tobin
(1977, p. 461) has put the argument succinctly: A second propagation mechanism is already
present in the most classical of economic growth
One currently popular explanation of variations in models. Households' optimal accumulation plans for
employment is temporary confusion of relative and claims on physical capital and other assets convert
absolute prices. Employers and workers are fooled serially uncorrelated impulses into serially correlated
into too many jobs by unexpected inflation, but only
demands for the accumulation of real assets. This
until they learn it affects other prices, not just the
prices of what they sell. The reverse happens tempo-
happens because agents typically want to divide any
rarily when inflation falls short of expectation. This unexpected changes in income partly between con-
model can scarcely explain more than transient dis- suming and accumulating assets. Thus, the demand
equilibrium in labor markets. for assets next period depends on initial stocks and on
So how can the faithful explain the slow cycles of unexpected changes in the prices or income facing
unemployment we actually observe? Only by arguing agents. This dependence makes serially uncorrelated
that the natural rate itself fluctuates, that variations in surprises lead to serially correlated movements in
unemployment rates are substantially changes in vol- demands for physical assets. Lucas (1975) showed
untary, frictional, or structural unemployment rather how this propagation mechanism readily accepts er-
than in involuntary joblessness due to generally defi- rors in forecasting aggregate demand as an impulse
cient demand.
source.
The critics typically conclude that the theory only A third likely propagation mechanism has been
attributes a very minor role to aggregate demand identified by recent work in search theory. (See, for
fluctuations and necessarily depends on disturbances example, McCall 1965, Mortensen 1970, and Lucas
to aggregate supply to account for most of the fluctua- and Prescott 1974.) Search theory tries to explain why
tions in real output over the business cycle. "In other workers who for some reason are without jobs find it
words," as Modigliani (1977) has said, "what hap- rational not necessarily to take the first job offer that
pened to the United States in the 1930's was a severe comes along but instead to remain unemployed for
attack of contagious laziness." awhile until a better offer materializes. Similarly, the
This criticism is fallacious because it fails to dis- theory explains why a firm may find it optimal to wait
tinguish properly between sources of impulses and until a more suitable job applicant appears so that
propagation mechanisms, a distinction stressed by vacancies persist for some time. Mainly for technical
Ragnar Frisch in a classic 1933 paper that provided reasons, consistent theoretical models that permit
many of the technical foundations for Keynesian this propagation mechanism to accept errors in fore-
macroeconometric models. Even though the new casting aggregate demand as an impulse have not yet
classical theory implies that the forecast errors which been worked out, but the mechanism seems likely
13
derive optimum linear decision rules with time de- and not at all on whether the models can successfully
pendent coefficients. In this framework, the Kalman be caricatured by terms such as "long-run" or "short-
filter permits a neat application of Bayesian learning run."
to updating optimal forecasting rules from period to It is worth reemphasizing that we do not wish our
period as new information becomes available. The responses to these criticisms to be mistaken for a
Kalman filter also permits the derivation of optimum claim that existing equilibrium models can satisfac-
decision rules for an interesting class of nonstation- torily account for all the main features of the ob-
ary exogenous processes assumed to face agents. served business cycle. Rather, we have simply argued
Equilibrium theorizing in this context thus readily that no sound reasons have yet been advanced which
leads to a model of how process nonstationarity and even suggest that these models are, as a class, in-
Bayesian learning applied by agents to the exogenous capable of providing a satisfactory business cycle
variables leads to time-dependent coefficients in theory.
agents' decision rules.
While models incorporating Bayesian learning
Summary and Conclusions
and stochastic nonstationarity are both technically Let us attempt to set out in compact form the main
feasible and consistent with the equilibrium modeling arguments advanced in this paper. We will then com-
strategy, we know of almost no successful applied ment briefly on the main implications of these argu-
work along these lines. One probable reason for this ments for the way we can usefully think about eco-
is that nonstationary time series models are cumber- nomic policy.
some and come in so many varieties. Another is that Our first and most important point is that existing
the hypothesis of Bayesian learning is vacuous until Keynesian macroeconometric models cannot pro-
one either arbitrarily imputes a prior distribution to vide reliable guidance in the formulation of mone-
agents or develops a method of estimating param- tary, fiscal, or other types of policy. This conclusion
eters of the prior from time series data. Determining a is based in part on the spectacular recent failures of
prior distribution from the data would involve esti- these models and in part on their lack of a sound
mating initial conditions and would proliferate nui- theoretical or econometric basis. Second, on the lat-
sance parameters in a very unpleasant way. Whether ter ground, there is no hope that minor or even major
these techniques will pay off in terms of explaining modification of these models will lead to significant
macroeconomic time series is an empirical matter: improvement in their reliability.
it is not a matter distinguishing equilibrium from Third, equilibrium models can be formulated
Keynesian macroeconometric models. In fact, no which are free of these difficulties and which offer a
existing Keynesian macroeconometric model incor- different set of principles to identify structural econo-
porates either an economic model of learning or an metric models. The key elements of these models are
economic model in any way restricting the pattern of that agents are rational, reacting to policy changes in
coefficient nonstationarities across equations. a way which is in their best interests privately, and
The macroeconometric models criticized by that the impulses which trigger business fluctuations
Friedman and Modigliani, which assume agents have are mainly unanticipated shocks.
caught on to the stationary random processes they Fourth, equilibrium models already developed
face, give rise to systems of linear stochastic differ- account for the main qualitative features of the busi-
ence equations of the form (1), (2), and (4). As has ness cycle. These models are being subjected to con-
been known for a long time, such stochastic differ- tinued criticism, especially by those engaged in
ence equations generate series that "look like" eco- developing them, but arguments to the effect that
nomic time series. Further, if viewed as structural equilibrium theories are in principle unable to ac-
(that is, invariant with respect to policy interven- count for a substantial part of observed fluctuations
tions), the models have some of the implications for appear due mainly to simple misunderstandings.
countercyclical policy that we have described above. The policy implications of equilibrium theories
Whether or not these policy implications are correct are sometimes caricatured, by friendly as well as
depends on whether or not the models are structural unfriendly commentators, as the assertion that "eco-
nomic agents. Only in such a setting will economic Brunner, K., and Meltzer, A. H., eds. 1976. The Phillips Curve and
Labor Markets. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public
theory help predict the actions agents will choose to Policy, vol. 1. Amsterdam: North Holland.
take. This approach will also suggest that policies Crawford, Robert. 1971. Implications of Learning for Economic Mod-
which affect behavior mainly because their conse- els of Uncertainty. Manuscript. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon
quences cannot be correctly diagnosed, such as University.
monetary instability and deficit financing, have the Debreu, Gerard. 1959. The Theory of Value. New York: Wiley.
capacity only to disrupt. The deliberate provision of Fischer, Stanley. 1977. Long-Term Contracts, Rational Expectations,
misinformation cannot be used in a systematic way to and the Optimal Money Supply Rule. Journal of Political Econ-
omy 85 (February): 191-205.
improve the economic environment.
Friedman, Milton. 1948. A Monetary and Fiscal Framework for Eco-
The objectives of equilibrium business cycle the- nomic Stability. American Economic Review 38 (June): 245-64.
ory are taken, without modification, from the goal Frisch, Ragnar. 1933. Propagation Problems and Impulse Problems in
which motivated the construction of the Keynesian Dynamic Economics. Reprinted in 1965. Readings in Business
macroeconometric models: to provide a scientifi- Cycles, ed. R. A. Gordon and L. R. Klein. American Economic
Association, 10: 155-85. Homewood, 111.: Irwin.
cally based means of assessing, quantitatively, the
G e w e k e , John. 1977. The Dynamic Factor Analysis of Economic Time
likely effects of alternative economic policies. With- Series. In Latent Variables in Socio-Economic Models, ed.
out the econometric successes achieved by the D. Aigner and A. Goldberger, pp. 365-83. Amsterdam: North
Keynesian models, this goal would be simply incon- Holland.
ceivable. However, unless the now evident limits of Gordon, R. A., and Klein, L. R., eds. 1965. Readings in Business
Cycles. American Economic Association, vol. 10. Homewood,
these models are also frankly acknowledged and radi- 111.: Irwin.
cally different new directions taken, the real accom- Grossman, Sanford. 1975. Rational Expectations and the Econometric
plishments of the Keynesian Revolution will be lost as Modeling of Markets Subject to Uncertainty: A Bayesian Ap-
surely as those we now know to be illusory. proach. Journal of Econometrics 3 (August): 255-72.
Hall, Robert E. 1978. The Macroeconomic Impact of Changes in
Income T a x e s in the Short and Medium Runs. Journal of Political
Economy 86 (April): S71-S85.
Harris, S., ed. 1965. The New Economics: Keynes'Influence on Theory
and Public Policy. Clifton, N. J.: Kelley.
10
A main source of this belief is probably Sargent and Wallace 1975, Keynes, J. M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and
which showed that in the context of a fairly standard macroeconomic Money. London: Macmillan.
model, but with agents' expectations assumed rational, the c h o i c e of a Leontief, W. 1965. Postulates: Keynes' General Theory and the Classi-
reactive monetary rule is of no c o n s e q u e n c e for the behavior of real cists. In The New Economics: Keynes' Influence on Theory and
variables. The point of this example was to show that within precisely Public Policy, ed. S. Harris. Clifton, N. J.: Kelley.
that model used to rationalize reactive monetary policies, such policies
could be shown to be of no value. It hardly follows that all policy is Lucas, R. E., Jr. 1972. Expectations and the Neutrality of Money.
ineffective in all contexts. Journal of Economic Theory 4 (April): 103-24.
15
. 1975. A n Equilibrium Model of the Business Cycle. Journal of Sonnenschein, Hugo. 1973. D o Walras Identity and Continuity Char-
Political Economy 83 (December): 1113-44. acterize the Class of Community Excess Demand Functions?
. 1976. Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique. In The Journal of Economic Theory 6 (August): 345-54.
Phillips Curve and Labor Markets, ed. K. Brunner and A. H. Tobin, James. 1965. Money Wage Rates and Employment. In The
Meltzer. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy New Economics: Keynes 'Influence on Theory and Public Policy,
1: 19-46. Amsterdam: North Holland. ed. S. Harris. Clifton, N. J.: Kelly.
Lucas, R. E., Jr., and Prescott, Edward C. 1974. Equilibrium Search and . 1977. How Dead is Keynes? Economic Inquiry 15 (October):
Unemployment. Journal of Economic Theory 7 (February): 459-68.
188-209.
McCall, John J. 1965. The E c o n o m i c s of Information and Optimal
Stopping Rules. Journal of Business 38 (July): 300-317.
McCallum, B. T. 1976. Rational Expectations and the Natural Rate
Hypothesis: Some Consistent Estimates. Econometrica 44 (Janu-
ary): 43-52.