I am surprised that nobody has mentioned Hicks’s suggestion of plutocracy and catallactics as an alternative dichotomy. Like macro and micro it is a teaching tool rather than an analytical instrument, but it has some advantages for economic historians and historians of economic thought. The Hicks references are his paper in S. Latsis (ed) Method and Appraisal in Economics (CUP 1976) and hi paper in Oxford Economic Papers NS 27 (1975).

Gary Hawke

Emeritus Professor Gary Hawke
7 Voltaire St.,
Karori,
Wellington 6012,
New Zealand.
Phone + 64 (0)4 476 9109  + 64 (0)27 563 5794
http://eastasiaforum.org/author/garyhawke/




On 23/09/11 12:57 AM, "Colander, David" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I totally concur with Kevin.  The one addition I would suggest is that in terms of use of the word macro as distinct from micro, what really cemented it in was the institutional structure related to the teaching of economics. What I mean is the decision that there should be two introductory courses—macro and micro, rather than just one—economics.   Initially macro came first, because it “sold” better. That cemented in two separate models, since they were different courses.  I think there is an interesting story to be told there—partially about rent seeking, and partially about internal fights within academia for slots of required courses.  I’ve spoken with some people who have told me that the two intro courses increased the demand for economic teachers.


Dave



David Colander
CAJ Distinguished Professor of Economics
Department of Economics
Middlebury College
Middlebury, Vermont, 05753
(802-443-5302)

From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin Hoover
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 4:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] is macro prior to micro?

There is a real danger of misunderstanding the history of the micro/macro distinction when we insist on reading it with Keynes as the central player.  He did not originate the distinction; that honor belongs to Frisch.  It appears to have been transmitted mainly through the Econometric Society, an organization to which Keynes gave nodding support, but which did not much engage his interests.  As far as I know, Keynes himself never uses the terminology anywhere in his writings.  It is a back reading -- though a legitimate one, I think -- to see Keynes's distinction between the economics of the individual person or firm and the economics of output as a whole as drawing a micro/macro distinction.  Nevertheless, it is not identical to the distinction as drawn by Frisch and subsequently by Tinbergen and other econometricians.  As we know from Keynes's review of Tinbergen's econometric business-cycle model, he was not completely sympathetic with their enterprise.  Looking at it through Keynes-foremost lens tempts us to overplay the Marshallian aspects of macroeconomics.  But it is doubtful that Frisch or Tinbergen found as much resonance in Marshall as did Keynes.  Lawrence Klein would appear to be a central locus in uniting Keynes with the hitherto non-Keynesian macroeconomics tradition of the econometricians.  Klein adopts an explicitly Walrasian approach to Keynes, in part through an appreciation of Hicks's IS-LM (or LL for the purists) model and Value and Capital.    While I am sure that Keynes thought is rich enough that this particular line of appropriation is not illegitimate, Post Keynesians are surely right that Keynes would not have been an enthusiast for these developments had he lived long enough to engage them fully.  I have tried to deal with some of these issues in my paper:  "Microfoundational Programs <http://econ.duke.edu/%7Ekdh9/Source%20Materials/Research/Microfoundational%20Programs1-14-10.pdf> "

Kevin Hoover

On 9/20/2011 11:38 AM, Gary Mongiovi wrote:
I'd wager the formalization of the distinction was a 'symptom' rather than a cause. Nothing in the Marshallian toolbox was up to the task of explaining the Great Depression. Routine fluctuations in aggregate employment did not raise the spectre of a contradiction or serious tension between the until-then traditional distinction between "the theory of value and distribution" and "the theory of money and the trade cycle". But the crisis of the 1930s certainly posed a challenge to the idea that wages & employment are regulated by the interaction of price-elastic labor demand & supply functions.

The tension could be camouflaged, at least in the classroom, by making a sharp distinction between "microeconomics" (which tells the Marshallian story without having to confront the troublesome counterevidence of persistent unemployment) and "macroeconomics" (which in its Keynesian cross manifestations discretely kept the Marshallian story off center stage). This is not to deny that economists worked hard to reconcile the two branches via the neoclassical synthesis, the microfoundations of macroeconomics project, New Keynesian economics and so forth. The upshot of those efforts was, as Robin Neill suggests, to leave macroeconomics somewhat marginalized, as somehow less rigorous or less robust than microeconomics.

Gary

Gary Mongiovi, Co-Editor
Review of Political Economy
Economics & Finance Department
St John's University
Jamaica, NEW YORK 11439 (USA)

Tel: +1 (718) 990-7380
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

________________________________
From: Societies for the History of Economics [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robin Neill [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 9:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] is macro prior to micro?

Colleagues:

     It has puzzled me that  one should think that the distinction
between micro and macro should begin with Keynes.  Surely,
given the definitions of micro and macro, one can look back
into the history of Economics and find examples of both, as
well as examples of when the two were discussed at the same
time -- a very reasonable thing.  What happens "after" Keynes
is a formalization of the distinction, a bringing of the distinction
into prominence in the information environment of those
interested in Economics.

     I leave with the question,  did the formalization of the
distinction lead to an unfortunate separation of the two
branches of the discipline, and a consequent attempt on
the part of some to have the one branch reduce the other
to non existence.?