Round Table Discussion: A Retrospective View
The title of this session is “An End-of-Century Retrospective View of the Keynesian Revolution”. In this century we are 90% of the way, so it is only a 10% error, but if you start with the beginning of the Christian Era, and our target is the year 2000, then we are only one half of a percent away; so we are alright … a fraction of a percent.
KeywordsBusiness Cycle Real Wage Rational Expectation Imperfect Competition Round Table Discussion
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Alesina, A. and N. Roubini (1990) “The Political Business Cycle in Industrial Countries: A Survey”. Harvard University. Mimeograph.Google Scholar
- Barro, R. (1989a) “The New Classical Approach to Fiscal Policy”, in R. Barro (ed.), Modern Business Cycles, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Frankel, J. and K. Froot (1989) “Forward Discount Bias: Is it an Exchange Risk Premium?” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104(2): 139–62,Google Scholar
- Johnson, H. G. (1970) “The Keynesian Revolution and the Monetarist Counterevolution”, American Economic Review, 61(2; May): 1–14.Google Scholar
- Lucas, R. and T. Sargent (1978) “After Keynesian Macroeconomics”, in Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, After the Phillips Curve: Persistence of High Inflation and High Unemployment, Conference Series No. 19, June, Boston, pp. 49–72.Google Scholar
- Masson, P. et al. (1988) “Multimod — A Multiregion Econometric Model”, International Monetary Fund, Staff Studies for the World Economic Outlook, July.Google Scholar
- Okun, A. (1983) “Rules and Roles for Fiscal and Monetary Policy”, in J. Pechman (ed.), Economics for Policy Making. Selected Essays of Arthur M. Okun, Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
- Persson, T. and G. Taneliini (1989) “Macroeconomic Policy, Credibility and Politics”. Unpublished manuscript, UCLA.Google Scholar
- Shiller, R. (1990) Market Volatility. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Tobin, J. (1982) “How Dead is Keynes?” in Essays in Economics, Theory and Policy, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar