Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/324926 
Year of Publication: 
2022
Citation: 
[Journal:] Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch [ISSN:] 2568-762X [Volume:] 142 [Issue:] 3 [Year:] 2022 [Pages:] 247-272
Publisher: 
Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Abstract: 
Generating verisimilous and policy-relevant models of the macroeconomy in a democracy is a challenge. Three broad theoretical perspectives are considered: (A) the orthodox Keynesian Synthesis; (B) the Austrian response; and (C) the Public Choice response. The orthodox view is inaccurate, but has the advantage of being "a model." The Austrian critique, while largely correct, generates no usable political advice. The Public Choice critique provides a model for understanding the likely form and effects of government policies. But Public Choice scholars have missed the policy thrust of Progressivism, which accounts for the problem of political equilibrium, and insulates technocratic power from voters and interest groups. Keynesian orthodoxy has consistently won because it is playing a different game.
Subjects: 
Models
Public Choice
Keynesianism
Austrian School
Equilibrium
JEL: 
B22
P11
Persistent Identifier of the first edition: 
Creative Commons License: 
cc-by Logo
Document Type: 
Article

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.