Macroeconomics is not broken

The discipline has moved beyond the neoclassical synthesis. Critics should too

Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman's influence is still felt in economics

Macroeconomists are routinely attacked in the press. Perhaps the most recent example, and certainly an egregious one, is an article by David Graeber in the New York Review of Books, published in the December 5 edition. “Against economics” first makes the perplexing claim that monetarism is still the dominant paradigm in macroeconomics, before doing a sharp about-turn to attack the discipline on the more common grounds of its obsession with neoclassical, market-focused ideas.

Along the way

Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.

To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact or view our subscription options here:

You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact to find out more.

Sorry, our subscription options are not loading right now

Please try again later. Get in touch with our customer services team if this issue persists.

New to Central Banking? View our subscription options

Register for Central Banking

All fields are mandatory unless otherwise highlighted

This address will be used to create your account

You need to sign in to use this feature. If you don’t have a Central Banking account, please register for a trial.

Sign in
You are currently on corporate access.

To use this feature you will need an individual account. If you have one already please sign in.

Sign in.

Alternatively you can request an individual account