The Stagnation Regime of the New Keynesian Model and Current US Policy

In Evans, Guse, and Honkapohja (2008) the intended steady state is locally but not globally stable under adaptive learning, and unstable deflationary paths can arise after large pessimistic shocks to expectations. In the current paper a modified model is presented that includes a locally stable stagnation regime as a possible outcome arising from large expectation shocks. Policy implications are examined. Sufficiently large temporary increases in government spending can dislodge the economy from the stagnation regime and restore the natural stabilizing dynamics. More specific policy proposals are presented and discussed.

How Heavy Is A Job?: A Critical Survey of Job Evaluation as a Payment Device.

With salaries subjected to scrutiny more than ever, it is increasingly important that the process by which they are determined be understood and justifiable. Both public and private organisations now routinely rely on so-called “job evaluation” as a means of constructing an appropriate pay-scale and as such it is ever more necessary that we appreciate how this system works and that we recognise its limits. Only with such an understanding of the way in which salaries are set can we hope to have a meaningful discussion of their economic function. This paper aims to expound the details of job evaluation both in theory and in practice, and critically assess its shortcomings. In Section 1 below we describe the job evaluation system and in Section 2 we briefly outline the history and the usage of the system in both the private and the public sector. In Section 3 we theoretically analyse the often unstated but nonetheless implicit assumptions made by practitioners of the art of job evaluation. Section 4 applies the analysis of Section 3 to review a particular and important case study, namely The Senior Salaries Review of the Welsh Assembly 2004. Section 5 concludes.

‘Right Back Where We Started From’: From ‘The Classics’ To Keynes, And Back Again

The purpose of this paper is to highlight the curiously circular course followed by mainstream macroeconomic thinking in recent times. Having broken from classical orthodoxy in the late 1930s via Keynes’s General Theory, over the last three or four decades the mainstream conventional wisdom, regressing rather than progressing, has now come to embrace a conception of the working of the macroeconomy which is again of a classical, essentially pre-Keynesian, character. At the core of the analysis presented in the typical contemporary macro textbook is the (neo)classical model of the labour market, which represents employment as determined (given conditions of productivity) by the terms of labour supply. While it is allowed that changes in aggregate demand may temporarily affect output and employment, the contention is that in due course employment will automatically return to its ‘natural’ (full employment) level. Unemployment is therefore identified as a merely frictional or voluntary phenomenon: involuntary unemployment - in other words persisting demand-deficient unemployment - is entirely absent from the picture. Variations in aggregate demand are understood to have a lasting impact only on the price level, not on output and employment. This in effect amounts to a return to a Pigouvian conception such as targeted by Keynes in the General Theory. We take the view that this reversion to ideas which should by now be obsolete reflects not the discovery of logical or empirical deficiencies in the Keynes analysis, but results rather from doctrinaire blindness and failure of scholarship on account of which essential features of the Keynes theory have been overlooked or misrepresented. There is an urgent need for a critical appraisal of the current conventional macroeconomic wisdom.