Issues of modern macroeconomics: new post-crisis perspectives on the world economy
International Economics and Economic Policy, ISSN: 1612-4812, Vol: 11, Issue: 4, Page: 481-527
2014
- 5Citations
- 21Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Modern macroeconomics has failed in the analysis of both the US banking and the euro crises, respectively, and there is also a rather inadequate view on a range of relevant policy issues. The approach presented herein looks at the reasons for analytical failure and suggests means of improvement – picking up proposals from the literature as well as contributing new ones. The economics profession did not anticipate the banking crisis and there is reluctance to switch to a new paradigm for stabilization policy analysis. Beyond this, there are several analytical challenges which should be integrated into a post-crisis approach: for example, the question of the true degree of economic openness and the role of multinational companies. Moreover, the macroeconomic impact of the digital economic expansion is largely underestimated. The traditional view on asset bubbles has become doubtful. A new paradigm should emphasize the triple analytical challenge of short-term financial market analysis, the routine new questioning of the systemic stability of economic systems and standard macroeconomic modeling – with some refinements; a “Schumpeterian Mundell-Fleming-Solow-Akerlof-model” and sustainability aspects are important on the one hand, on the other hand NKM models have to integrate a broader array of market imperfections. The perspectives presented could jump-start a new paradigm that combines a more realistic macro perspective with a complementary critical institutional analysis.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know