Galapagos (who proves that no man is an island) writes:
> thanks for your reply.
it's a pleasure.
> 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
?
it's not a Darwinian-style evolution. There are two main forces at work
in the evolution of neoclassical economics and varieties of economics associated
with it. The first is the need to force all theory into a micro-economic
optimization framework, with equal exchange between individuals being the
dominant vision, though game theory can allow some flexibility here. More
generally, the use of math is rewarded, while non-mathematical approaches are
punished. This encourages all sorts of Chicago-school type inanity (such as
Robert Lucas or Robert Barro). The second, especially for macroeconomics, is the
real world of business fluctuations, inflation, etc., a lot of which don't fit
into the neoclassical orthodoxy.
> I knew that Mankiw is associated
with the new Keynesians. Who could be
> associated with the neo Keynesians
?
James Tobin and Franco Modigliani.
> P.S. I saw your
web site. There is a lot of interesting stuff !!!
thanks. Comments are always
welcome, even for stuff that's already been published.
jim devine
