The Central Banker as ‘Regulator of Conflict’: A ‘Reversed’ Reading of the Solow and New Consensus Models

Abstract

Macroeconomics has undergone numerous changes over the last 30 years as regards both research and teaching. With respect to the trends prevailing since the 1970s, the field of theoretical and applied studies has seen enormous growth in the influence of the neoclassical school as against very limited dissemination of alternative approaches. In the sphere of teaching, the consolidation of a neoclassical mainstream has led to significant standardization of study programmes. Unlike the situation in the past, these appear to be increasingly based on the adoption of American manuals, which are characterized by clarity of exposition and abundance of information but also by systematic acceptance of the dominant neoclassical paradigm. One of the reasons prompting numerous ‘non-orthodox’ teachers to use this type of course book is the conviction that students must receive a preliminary grounding in the mainstream and should be introduced to heterodox approaches only at a later stage. While this view is understandable and indeed acceptable to a large degree, there is some risk of stunting the growth of a critical spirit. The major American manuals prove in fact to be characterized by a typically ‘progressive’ approach to the discipline based on the simplistic idea of macroeconomics undergoing practically linear development toward an increasingly precise and unanimous understanding of reality.²

DASES — Università del Sannio. Address for correspondence: Via delle Puglie 82, 82100 Benevento, Italy. Email: emiliano.brancaccio@unisannio.it. I would like to thank the editors of this book, Guglielmo Forges Davanzati and Antonella Stirati, for their helpful comments. Any remaining errors are my own.