EDMOND MALINVAUD’S CRITICISMS OF THE NEW CLASSICAL ECONOMICS: RESTORING THE NATURE AND THE RATIONALE OF THE OLD KEYNESIANS’ OPPOSITION

Unlike standard accounts, recent research in the history of macroeconomics has given increasing attention to the Old Keynesians’ criticisms of the New Classical Economics. In this paper, I address the case of Edmond Malinvaud, who began opposing the New Classical Economics from the early 1980s and did so throughout the following thirty years. This study shows that his opposition was radical, i.e., multi-dimensional and systematic, and owes to the methodology and the practice of macroeconometric modeling. In turn, this twofold result sheds light on the nature and the rationale of the Old Keynesians’ opposition to the New Classical Economics from the 1970s onwards, which can be interpreted along the same lines.

Journal of the History of Economic Thought Preprints – Edmond Malinvaud's Criticisms of the New Classical Economics: Restoring the Nature and the Rationale of the Old Keynesians' Opposition

Unlike standard accounts, recent research in the history of macroeconomics has given increasing attention to the Old Keynesians’ criticisms of the New Classical Economics. In this paper, I address the case of Edmond Malinvaud, who began opposing the latter from the early 1980s and did so throughout the following thirty years. This study shows that his opposition was radical, i.e., multidimensional and systematic, and owes to the methodology and the practice of macroeconometric modeling. In turn, this twofold result sheds light on the nature and the rationale of the Old Keynesians’ opposition to the New Classical Economics from the 1970s onwards, which can be interpreted along the same lines.

The ordinary business of macroeconometric modeling: working on the Fed-MIT-Penn model (1964-1974)

The FMP model exemplifies the Keynesian models later criticized by Lucas, Sargent and others as conceptually flawed. For economists in the 1960s such models were “big science”, posing organizational as well as theoretical and empirical problems. It was part of an even larger industry in which the messiness for which such models were later criticized was endorsed as providing enabling modelers to be guided by data and as offering the flexibility needed to undertake policy analysis and to analyze the consequences of events. Practices that critics considered fatal weaknesses, such as intercept adjustments or fudging, were what clients were what clients paid for as the macroeconometric modeling industry went private.