Some Thoughts on the State of Macro N. Kocherlakota (Minnesota) I’ve read many commentaries in 2008 and 2009 on the state of macroeconomics. For what it’s worth, I thought that I’d offer my own thoughts on the topic. I begin with a table. It considers the top 17 economics departments, as ranked by US News and World Report in 2009. (I would have used 15, but there was a 4-way tie for 14thin the rankings.) For each of these departments, the table lists all tenured macroeconomists who received their Ph. D. in 1990 or after. MIT: Acemoglu, Angeletos, Werning Harvard: Laibson Chicago: Alvarez, Mulligan, Shimer, Uhlig Princeton: Rossi-Hansberg Stanford: Bloom, Klenow, Piazzesi, Schneider Berkeley: Gourinchas Yale: Engel, Golosov, Moscarini, Smith, Tsyvinski Northwestern: Doepke Penn: Fernandez-Villaverde, Krueger, Schorfheide Columbia: Ng, Reis, Sala-i-Martin, Schmitt-Grohe, Uribe Minnesota: Perri, Phelan, Rios-Rull NYU: Lagos, Leahy, Ludvigson, Violante Michigan: House, Killian, Stolyarov, Tesar UCLA: Burstein, Hellwig, Ohanian Wisconsin: Seshadri, Williams UCSD: None CalTech: None In terms of determining fields of specialization, I used self-classifications from c.v.’s, departmental classifications, and my own knowledge of teaching assignments. These people are core researchers in our field. I do not believe that one can write knowledgeably or usefully about the state of macroeconomics without knowing their collective work well. In part because I’ve written tenure letters or prepared internal tenure cases for roughly half of them, I feel that I can rightly claim to be in this position. Thinking about this group and their work, I’ve come to ten conclusions. 1.Macroeconomists don’t ignore heterogeneity. For virtually all of these scholars (especially the younger ones), some form of heterogeneity has played a major role in most of their work. The heterogeneity comes in
has intentionally blurred sections.
Sign up to view the full version.