Nicholas J. Theocarakis wrote:
>I confess that I have not read the Frisch article in question, this is why I
>wrote that this is "the standard reference", sort of a folk attribution.


I agree that the claim "Frisch first used the term macroeconomics" is 
widely accepted. 
For example:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Frisch.html
http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/frisch.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroeconomics

The three sources above rely on the 1933 article.

Although this doesn't seem the most important thing in the world to me,
I had some business at the library so I picked up the Cassel book and
found Frisch's 1933 article.  Here's what Frisch wrote on pp 172-73:

When we approach the study of business cycle with the intention
of carrying through an analysis that is truly dynamic and determinate
in the above sense, we are naturally led to distinguish between two
types of analyses: the micro-dynamic and the macro-dynamic types.
The micro-dynamic analysis is an analysis by which we try to explain
in some detail the behaviour of a certain section of the huge economic
mechanism, taking for granted that certain general parameters are given.
Obviously it may well be that we obtain more or less cyclical fluctuations
in such sub-systems, even though the general parameters are
given. The essence of this type of analysis is to show the details of the
evolution of a given specific market, the behaviour of a given type of
consumers, and so on.
The macro-dynamic analysis, on the other hand, tries to give an
account of the fluctuations of the whole economic system taken in its
entirety. Obviously in this case it is impossible to carry through the
analysis in great detail. Of course, it is always possible to give even a
macro-dynamic analysis in detail if we confine ourselves to a purely
formal theory. Indeed, it is always possible by a suitable system of
subscripts and superscripts, etc., to introduce practically all factors
which we may imagine: all individual commodities; all individual
entrepreneurs, all individual consumers, etc., and to write out various
kinds of relationships between these magnitudes, taking care that the
number of equations is equal to the number of variables. Such a theory,
however, would only have a rather limited interest. In such a theory
it would hardly be possible to study such fundamental problems as the
exact time shape of the solutions, the question of whether one group
of phenomena is lagging behind or leading before another group, the
question of whether one part of the system will oscillate with higher
amplitudes than another part, and so on. But these latter problems are
just the essential problems in business cycle analysis. In order to attack
these problems on a macro-dynamic basis so as to explain the movement
of the system taken in its entirety, we must deliberately disregard
a considerable amount of the details of the picture. We may perhaps
start by throwing all kinds of production into one variable, all consumption
into another, and so on, imagining that the notions "production,"
"consumption," and so on, can be measured by some sort of total indices.

Ragnar Frisch, "Propagation Problems and Impulse Problems in Dynamic 
Economics." 
In Economic Essays in Honor of Gustav Cassel. 1933.


I think most people would agree that the definitions of "micro-dynamic" and
"macro-dynamic" are pretty close to the modern terms, microeconomics 
and macroeconomics.
At any rate, this would seem to be the source for the "folk attribution."


As for the Bohm-Bawerk quote ("One cannot eschew studying the microcosm
if one wants to understand the macrocosm of a developed country"), the source
given by Skousen is:

Bohn-Bawerk, Eugen, 1962. "The Austrian Economists." In
_Shorter Classics of Bohm-Bawerk_. South Holland, IL: Libertarian 
Press. Originally
appeared in _Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences_
(January 1891).

Humberto Barreto