Template talk:Keynesians

Economics Template‑class High‑importance

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

It would be helpful to make clear who we include in this template, under which classification, and why. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally it just replicated the contents of Category:Keynesians; I agree that it inclusion criteria would be a good idea.  Skomorokh  12:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founder

• John Maynard Keynes -- of course

Other early Keynesians?

It seems strange to go directly from Keynes himself to the 'Neo-Keynesians', but nonetheless this appears accurate. The development of the standard Keynesian textbook model (

• Alvin Hansen -- include for foundations of IS/LM theory
• John Hicks -- include for foundations of IS/LM theory
• Abba P. Lerner -- include for foundations of IS/LM theory
• A.W. Phillips -- discoved Phillips curve
  and advocated its use in stabilization policy
• Paul Samuelson -- include for foundations of IS/LM theory
• James Tobin -- include for foundations of IS/LM theory
• Franco Modigliani -- include for foundations of IS/LM theory
• Don Patinkin -- tried to tie up the loose ends of the theory in his classic 'Money, Interest, and Prices'
• Arthur Melvin Okun -- include for Okun's law, related to Phillips curve
• Robert Mundell -- include for extension of IS/LM to international context
• William Poole
  -- include for IS/LM analysis under uncertainty
• large empirical macroeconomic models
  based on IS/LM-like theory, later criticized by Robert Lucas, which then spurred development of New Keynesian theory
• Trygve Haavelmo -- include for his "balanced budget multiplier theorem", which is to Keynesianism what the Laffer curve is to Supply-side economics
• James Duesenberry -- include for his contribution to the Keynesian analysis of income and employment

Other possible names to include in the list

• Robert Eisner -- include for??
• William Baumol -- include for??
• John G. Gurley -- include for??
• Edward S. Shaw -- include for??

Post Keynesians

This term (apparently) refers to a less-mainstream group of postwar economists that sought an alternative to the Neoclassical synthesis, objecting specifically to the notion that the economy is more 'Keynesian' in the 'short run' and more 'neoclassical' in the 'long run'. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Paul Davidson
• Joan Robinson
• Richard Kahn
• James Meade
• Roy Harrod
• Evsey Domar
• Michał Kalecki
• Nicholas Kaldor
• Hyman Minsky
• Alain Barrère
• Lloyd Metzler
• Sidney Weintraub
• Gordon growth model

Some one added Steve Keen to the template. Should he be there? --LK (talk) 11:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Keynesians

This term refers to those, starting in the 1980s, who developed a

• Edmund Phelps -- include for clarifying microfoundations of Phillips curve
• Robert J. Gordon -- include for 'triangle model' that summarizes implications of microfounded Phillips curve
• George Akerlof -- include for work on microfoundations involving informational frictions
• Joseph Stiglitz -- include for work on microfoundations involving informational frictions
• Stanley Fischer -- include for solving early sticky-price models under rational expectations
• John B. Taylor -- include for solving early sticky-price models under rational expectations and for his model of sticky wages and for his empirical and theoretical analysis of interest rate rules

Taylor has recently criticized the Keynesian policies of the US government (see [1][2]). Should he still be considered a Keynesian? -Temporal User (Talk) 10:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a major contributor to New Keynesian theory, for the reasons cited. Whether he always supports more stimulus is a totally different issue. Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Olivier Blanchard -- include for methods of solving rational expectations models, and proposing empirical methods for distinguishing demand and supply shocks, and studying relation between monopolistic competition and sticky prices
• Jordi Galí -- include for empirical work on demand and supply shocks to distinguish between New Keynesian and RBC viewpoints, and theoretical work on monetary policy
• Real Business Cycle theory
  '
• Alan Blinder -- include for theoretical work on sticky prices
• N. Gregory Mankiw
  -- include for work on menu costs and sticky information
• David Romer -- include for work on sticky prices, effects of monetary shocks, and alternative to IS/LM that assumes interest rate rule instead of money supply decision
• Michael Woodford
  -- include for putting together the microfoundations into first New Keynesian DSGE model, and for wide variety of research on monetary policy implications of the New Keynesian DSGE model
• Julio Rotemberg -- include for collaboration with Woodford on the first New Keynesian DSGE model, especially on monopolistic competition; also known for an alternative model of sticky prices
• Huw Dixon -- -contribution to early new Keynesian theory on the role of imperfect competition and the multiplier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byronmercury (talk • contribs) 15:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Maurice Obstfeld -- include for work on extending the New Keynesian framework to open-economy models
• Nobuhiro Kiyotaki -- include for work on microfoundations, such as relation between monopolistic competition, price stickiness, and multipliers; transactions demand for money; credit market frictions and the role of collateral
• Ben Bernanke -- include for historical work on effects of monetary policy, and theoretical work on the role of credit market frictions and on demand fluctuations caused by postponement of investment

Other influential economists who might be included in list of New Keynesians (explain why!)

• Huw Dixon --contribution to early new Keynesian theory on the role of imperfect competition and the multiplier.Byronmercury (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Case-Shiller index

OK, that might be considered a contribution to New Keynesian economics, since bubbles are one possible interpretation of Keynes' concept of animal spirits. And he has a book with George Akerlof that interprets bubbles that way. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrei Shleifer -- include for his research on financial econonomics and behavioral finance (and by the way, he's No. 2 of the most cited economists in the world, according to Ideas/RePEc)

Sure, but what aspect of his contributions is New Keynesian? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• J. Bradford DeLong -- notable, like Jason Furman, as an influential political advisor. (in my mind --bender235 (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

-- If we include political leaders, these lists will be endless. I would strongly suggest including only those who have contributed substantially to the development of these theories, either through theoretical work or empirical testing. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• New Trade Theory. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

New Trade Theory is not a school of thought. Also, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, which should give him some sort of notability, don't you think? --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's extremely notable, of course. I just don't think he's notable as a New Keynesian. Arguably almost any mainstream contemporary economist who thinks the macroeconomy frequently deviates from efficiency due to price stickiness or other frictions is a New Keynesian. But if we include every famous economist or political leader or commentator who takes that point of view, the navegation bar will be miles long. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Robert Barro, Krugman "has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics" [3] Has Krugman ever done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics? -- Vision Thing -- 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He conducted some highly influential studies on currency crises and exchange rates, which were essentially New Keynesian. --bender235 (talk) 07:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything New Keynesian about Krugman's work on currency crises and exchange rates. By 'New Keynesian' I mean microfounded macroeconomic modeling of the way that Keynesian mechanisms like sticky prices, monopolistic competition, credit market frictions, labor market frictions, or fluctuations in investor expectations might cause the economy to fall into inefficient recessions or depressions. None of that enters into Krugman's work on currency crises (in fact, I think he argued strongly against Obstfeld and Rogoff's

New Trade Theory is monopolistic competition, which is indeed an important theoretical element of New Keynesian economics

too. But personally I don't see why that would suffice to classify him as a contributor to New Keynesian economics.

Of course, I agree that Krugman is an extremely notable economist, and I agree that his discussions of contemporary macroeconomic policy issues are strongly Keynesian. Therefore he could be included in the 'category' of New Keynesians, on the basis of his policy advice. But the list of notable economists who approach macroeconomic policy issues from a Keynesian perspective is huge. Therefore, I think the 'New Keynesians' template should list the main contributors to New Keynesian theory. And I don't see any reason to include Krugman in that list. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think you got a point. Let's remove Krugman from this template. --bender235 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krugman has been the preeminent economic commentator of his era. Identifying the school of thought he subscribes to is extremely important if only to have a rough approximation for what constitutes "mainstream economics" at this point in time. If New Keynesianism is a dominant school of economic thought and Krugman subscribes to it, even if strictly speaking he did not exactly contribute a theory to it, his speaking of it and dissemination of it is still of great value to the school of thought. I'm also unconvinced he has made no contributions to New Keynesian theory. His guarded support of intervention during the Asian Crisis in the case of Malaysia and his discussion of the liquidity trap in relation to Japan certainly look Keynesian and got people talking and provided theoretical cover for politicians making decisions. Rinconsoleao acknowledges this but fails to explain why he considers it insufficient. To lump him together with the huge cast of other economists who hold Keynesian views is misleading. They haven't had the same influence he has had in publicly championing its ideas and defending it thereby staking his reputation on his ability to do so. Lambanog (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nouriel Roubini -- should not include. His approach to macroeconomic issues is broadly New Keynesian, but he is not known as a contributor to New Keynesian theory; instead he is an expert on international financial flows. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable figure in my mind, just like Robert Shiller. --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeffrey Sachs -- should not include. His approach to macroeconomic issues is broadly New Keynesian, but he is not known as a contributor to New Keynesian theory; instead he is an expert on stabilizing current accounts of developing economies. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--By the way, I would certainly support including many policy makers in the category 'New Keynesian economists'. But what's shown in the navigation bar should be much more selective, shouldn't it? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There's no shortage in space here. --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shortage of space, but there is a shortage of eyeball time. From the way I have seen them used, I assume categories are intended to include all relevant links related to that category, but navegation panels seem to be used to provide the most important links. Do you know if there is a Wiki policy about what the navegation panels are for? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) An editor remarked that Sachs does not seem to identify with 'New Keynesian': "Professor Krugman and Crude Keynesianism" However, note the existence of the article "Keynesian Economist, Jeffrey Sachs Says President Obama’s Stimulus has Failed". --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest removing economists without articles, as including them seem pointless. If anyone want to include a particular economist, I suggest making at least a stub article first. LK (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting the list by age seems slightly crazy in that it assumes information that is only accessible from visiting the page and makes adding new people very difficult. Either the birthdates should be added in comments or, much more reasonably I think, the lists should just be sorted alphabetically. The current sorting mechanisms is undiscoverable, largely arbitrary, and makes working the list unweildy. —mako๛ 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alphasort is the way to go. jonkerz ♠talk 04:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]