Follow up na aktualno diskusijo o spremembi načina poučevanja ekonomije. Ena izmed dilem je bila vedno, kaj poučevati prej: mikro ali makro? Torej, najprej študentom razložiti obnašanje in delovanje ekonomskih agentov in posamičnih trgov ali pa jih najprej seznaniti z dinamiko agregatne ponudbe in agregatnega povpraševanja ter politik, ki (v odsotnosti učinkovitosti tržnih rešitev) lahko oboje pripeljejo v ravnovesje.

Tudi ta pogled je odvisen od svetovnega nazora posameznega ekonomista – in predpostavk, na katerih utemeljuje svoj ekonomski nazor.

Nobelovec Paul Samuelson, oče sodobne ekonomije (pa tudi krivec za njeno ekscesivno matematizacijo), se je že dobrih 60 let nazaj postavil na prepričanje, da morajo študentje najprej spoznati makro osnove ter ultimativni cilj ekonomije – polno zaposlenost. Mike Konczal in Paul Krugman sta se postavila na podobno stališče (čeprav z določenimi rezervacijami):

Mike Konczal makes a very good point about how we teach economics. He suggests that we should go back to the way Samuelson did it in 1948 — macroeconomics first, then micro. This, he suggests, would give students a better perspective on reality, even though all the same material would eventually be covered.

I would add that the motives behind Samuelson’s ordering apply just as well today as they did then. He was writing with the memory of the Great Depression still fresh; students wanted to know how such things could happen. Furthermore, how could you get anyone to take all that stuff about the perfection of markets seriously after what had just happened? By first teaching them that monetary and fiscal policy could be used to ensure fully employment.

And six years into the Great Recession and the not-so-great recovery, all this seems new again.

Vir: Paul Krugman