ABSTRACT

There is little systematic work on how much the core of mainstream macroeconomics has changed since the crisis of 2008 and even less on what explains patterns of stability and change. This paper addresses this gap by first, mapping out debates over the core assumption of rational expectations in high-prestige academic publications and the research of central banks of systemic importance and second, deploying a sociological perspective to assess the various forms of capital deployed by orthodox defenders, radical challengers and constructive critics of this assumption. The paper finds that although the core of modern macro has seen a more robust radical challenge than one might have expect, the defense of rational expectations remained quantitatively dominant and substantively elastic. While radical challengers had access to significant material resources and symbolic capital, orthodox players control the institutions of the economics profession via editorial boards and refereeing for the top journals. As such, the orthodox exercise a strong gatekeeping function that allows some pluralism yet also goes some way toward explaining their continued intellectual dominance.

摘要

自2008年危机以来，关于主流宏观经济学的核心已发生了多大变化的系统性工作很少，而对于解释稳定和变化模式的解释则很少。本文首先解决了这一差距，首先针对高端学术出版物中对理性预期的核心假设进行了辩论，对具有系统重要性的中央银行进行了研究；其次，运用社会学观点来评估正统派遣的各种形式的资本捍卫者，激进的挑战者和建设性的批评家。该论文发现，尽管现代宏观经济的核心已经比人们预期的要强大得多，但是理性预期的辩护仍然在数量上占主导地位，并且在本质上具有弹性。激进的挑战者可以获得大量的物质资源和象征性的资本，而正统派则通过编辑委员会和顶级期刊的裁判来控制经济学专业的机构。因此，东正教行使着强大的守门职能，既可以实现某种多元化，又可以在某种程度上解释其继续的智力优势。