WikiProject iconEconomics Template‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis template has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Who and why[edit]

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

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 (IS/LM) occurred soon after Keynes published the General Theory, and the people who did this were (apparently) called 'Neo-Keynesians'. This explains why the most memorable immediate followers of Keynes are typically classified as 'Neo-Keynesians' instead of just 'Keynesians'. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Keynesians

This term (aparently) refers primarily to those who built the IS/LM model and its extensions (also called the 'Neoclassical synthesis'), thus tying in the short-run implications of Keynes' theory to a long-run equilibrium assumed to have neoclassical behavior. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major contributors to the mainstream postwar Keynesian theory

Other possible names to include in the list

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]

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 microfounded dynamic general equilibrium framework based on monopolistic competition, sticky prices and/or wages, and sometimes other frictions like credit market imperfections or labor market frictions, as a response to criticisms of the traditional Keynesian framework by 'new classical' economists. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major contributors to New Keynesian theory (explain contribution!)

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]

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

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]
Sure, but what aspect of his contributions is New Keynesian? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:18, 10 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 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 'second generation' models of currency crises where fluctuations in investor expectations might drive crises... which makes him more 'classical' than 'Keynesian' in that debate). One international finance debate where he has done some academic work along clearly Keynesian lines is in advocating a strong countercyclical policy against Japan's 'liquidity trap' over the last ten years or so. But that is not central to his academic contributions. Also, it could be pointed out that the main theoretical element in Krugman'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]
Notable figure in my mind, just like Robert Shiller. --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 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]

Remove red links?[edit]

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]

Sorted by Age?![edit]

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]
Categories