It is unfortunate that the term "macroeconomics" came to be identified with changes in economy-wide and measurable magnitudes: total output, total employment, the general price or wage level.Thanks to Richard for the comment.
Because the distinction that Don's comment highlights is more reasonable. All social and economic phenomena arise out of the actions of individuals, since they are the ultimate and elementary "components" of social processes.
The starting point of social and economic analysis, therefore, logically begins with understanding the individual and the "logic of choice and action" that guide his conduct. Thus, "Crusoe" economics is not the "unrealistic" or "irrelevant" exploration that some have claimed over the last two hundred years.
But, now, having grasped the logic and implications of the individual's choices and actions under conditions of various scarcities, constraints and trade-offs, the next step is to analysis the results and outcomes when more than one individual exists, and they interact.
Thus, the arrival of "Friday" introduces a totally new dimension to the study.
It is perhaps of note that when Carl Menger, one of the "fathers" of marginalist analysis aa well as of the Austrian School, moved his investigation to this next level, he spoke of the interactions between the "economies" of men.
That is, each individual is an "economy," i.e., a chooser of ends, an applier and allocator of means, a coordinator of his individual plans to assure an "equilibrium" among his actions and activities according to his overall personal "central plan."
What happens when these individual economies and "central plans" meet in an emergent social arena that arises when individuals "discover" each others presence, and then communicate, interact, associate and possibly trade?
It is not surprising, given this way of approaching the origin and emergence of a "social arena," that Menger also gave special attention to the resulting "spontaneous order" and the many institutions that are the "unintended" outcomes from these interactions -- language, customs, traditions, law, property rights, market rules of association, contract, etc.
This, then, is the "macroeconomic" arena: the origin, development, and evolution of the "social order" in which individual planners and their plans interact, but where there is no overarching plan above the individual plans.
The "macroeconomic" "research program" then becomes an investigation of what arises from all this, and how? Certainly, this is how Menger saw the nature and purpose of social and interpersonal economic theory.
In such a perspective, the "microeconomic" focus is on the individual's plans and their "equilibrium" and equilibrating sequence as the individual is confronted with various types of "change."
The "macroeconomic" focus is on any emerging "coordination" among these individual plans, and what forms that coordination takes on: types of markets, institutions and their associative rules and procedures, etc.
And, of course, if such macro-coordination can be demonstrated, what may bring about "discoordination" and what follows from this, including the processes by which individuals attempt to respond and reestablish interpersonal coordination, including the actions and sequence of events that this recoordinating attempt may take on.
In this approach there is a clear meaning to the idea of "micro-foundations" to macro-phenomena. And the macro phenomena is traceable to micro actions and responses.
Saturday, 21 March 2009
Micro v. macro 2
Earlier I commented upon the distinction between macroeconomics and microeconomics made by Don Boudreaux. That posting attracted a very interesting comment by Richard Ebeling which I think is worth offering to a wider audience so I am reproducing it here: