----- Original Message ----- From: "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Neokeynesian-Neoclassical synthesis
>the neoclassical synthesis arose after WW2, with Paul >Samuelson: the idea was that the government and the >central bank would maintain rought full employment, so >that neoclassical notions -- based on scarcity -- would >apply. >neo-Keynesianism (often contrasted with the post->Keynesianism of Paul Davidson, et al) is based on the >synthesis but puts more emphasis on microfoundations, >the use of Walrasian general equilibrium theory in >macroeconomics. This developed over time. >new Keynesianism (associated with Greg Mankiw, now >Bush's CEA chair) is a response to the Robert >Lucas/new classical school, which criticized the >inconsistencies of the neo-Keynesian school in light of >the concept of "rational expectations." The new >classicals combined a unique equilibrium (at ful >employment, natch) with rational expectations. The new >Keynesians say: we have all sorts of "microfoundations" >that indicate that markets don't clear because of price >stickiness, so there's no unique equilibrium in the short >run, so the rational expectations-based critique doesn't >apply. Hello James, thanks for your reply. Finally, I have understood that both neo Keynesians and new Keynesians have a kind of common roots in the neoclassical synthesis. Could they be considered a kind of evolution of the neoclassical synthesis ? I knew that Mankiw is associated with the new Keynesians. Who could be associated with the neo Keynesians ? Thanks Galapagos P.S. I saw your web site. There is a lot of interesting stuff !!!
