We attempt to make a comparative evaluation of modern
macroeconomic schools: Monetarism and New Classical School based on the
Classical System that
envisage automatic full employment or natural rate of unemployment (NRU)
equilibrium (AFNE or ANRUE) vs. New Keynesian and PostKeynesian Economics based
on the Keynesian System which gives unemployment equilibrium (UNE) or
non-automatic NRU equilibrium (NANRUE) due to insufficiency of aggregate
demand. In order to determine which school is relevant, first the basic
assumptions of these systems are compared: i) rational vs. adjusted vs.
heterogeneous expectations, ii) existence of perfect competition in all markets
leading to flexibility of prices and wages vs. imperfect competition giving
rise to rigidities, and iii) presence or lack of coordination between markets.
In the final phase of our evaluations the performance of the developed
economies are surveyed to establish whether we meet with AFNE or ANRUE or else
UNE or NANRUE; and whether policy prescriptions devised by respective schools
solve or alleviate the problem at hand when implemented. Our investigations
point out that New Keynesian and Post-Keynesian schools are more relevant
compared to Monetarism and New Classical School. The choice between New Keynesian
and Post-Keynesian Economics, however, is more difficult to make although New
Keynesian Economics seems more widespread than Post-Keynesian Economics.
Objectively, Post-Keynesian assumptions seem more realistic; normatively,
however, New Keynesian stands seems more fit to the present day move towards
globalization.
Modern Macroeconomic Schools (Neo-)Classical System Keynesian System New Keynesian Economics Post-Keynesian School Monetarism New Classical School
Primary Language | English |
---|---|
Journal Section | Articles |
Authors | |
Publication Date | June 30, 2017 |
Published in Issue | Year 2017 |
PressAcademia Procedia (PAP) publishes proceedings of conferences, seminars and symposiums. PressAcademia Procedia aims to provide a source for academic researchers, practitioners and policy makers in the area of social and behavioral sciences, and engineering.
PressAcademia Procedia invites academic conferences for publishing their proceedings with a review of editorial board. Since PressAcademia Procedia is an double blind peer-reviewed open-access book, the manuscripts presented in the conferences can easily be reached by numerous researchers. Hence, PressAcademia Procedia increases the value of your conference for your participants.
PressAcademia Procedia provides an ISBN for each Conference Proceeding Book and a DOI number for each manuscript published in this book.
PressAcademia Procedia is currently indexed by DRJI, J-Gate, International Scientific Indexing, ISRA, Root Indexing, SOBIAD, Scope, EuroPub, Journal Factor Indexing and InfoBase Indexing.
Please contact to procedia@pressacademia.org for your conference proceedings.