None of the above. Macro was already fragmented and remained fragmented after the 70s. Hard core monetarism probably did pick-up some adherents due to the events of the 70s, but the internal dynamic of the profession - - the relentless march of the rational actor model into all aspects of the work of economists - - was probably only speeded by these events. What stagflation did was convince people of the correctness of the Friedman/Lucas critique. This set nearly everyone off on a much more determined search for micro foundations for macro theory. I'll go out on a limb and say we still haven't gotten there. Thus Keynesian theory is still taught to undergraduates and it is what is behind most commercial forecasting models (though they may have some new-classical tweaks here and there). This is why I don't think this was a paradigm shift in the sense of Kuhn because there was no alternative paradigm to take the place of the Keynesian model. — Bill Dickens
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/01/03 02:06PM >>> What would be the most accurare description of the economic profession's response to stagflation: 1) Everybody dropped Keynesianism and adopted a new model (monetarism?). 2) Macroeconomics broke up into competing schools, with different concepts and theories. 3) Keynesians kept going, but new economists adopted one or more models. Fabio
