To be an economist, one must be a theorist, a statistician, a historian and an intellectual. One must feed on the world that is in order to build the world that is to come.
A lot is asked of economists because economics, by construction, is a synthesis of all these elements. We must be able to determine the framework in which we are situated and to know the point where we are at a given moment. We must also be able to account for the future evolution of the world according to the constraints that it will have to face. This part is particularly necessary today where, after forty years of globalization, the balance of power is changing, climate constraints are increasing and technology is disrupting acquired positions.

I raise this question after reading the debate on the state of macroeconomics organized by “Le Grand Continent”. Olivier Blanchard and Barry Eichengreen assess the situation under the baton of Gillian Tett of the Financial Times.
Olivier Blanchard has been a well-known and recognized macroeconomist for many years. He was chief economist of the IMF at the time of the 2008 crisis. Barry Eichengreen is a brilliant economist on issues relating to capital movements and the exchange rate.
These two authors have built macroeconomics in the way it is thought and taught. I read this debate with enthusiasm being a long-time reader of both authors and especially Blanchard.

Yet this discussion does not shed light on the questions that may be raised. Blanchard says he is optimistic because of a solid body of knowledge and an ability to make the right adjustments based on new ideas and the changing world.
“I don’t think we need a paradigm shift. We need evolution, not revolution.”

We have a solid body of knowledge but we find ourselves naked facing a Phillips curve that no longer works or unable to give the right advice in the face of stagnant productivity in Europe while technology is changing the game.

Macroeconomics is faced with the need for a double reflection. How to converge towards carbon neutrality? In other words, how to define and calibrate a trajectory that converges towards a point in the future. How to build this framework and based on what corpus? Growth or decline?
The second thought is about how the economy can function if we do without fossil fuels. The development of the world has been consubstantial with the intensive use of coal and then oil and gas. Can the economy exist without these energies?
These are questions and elements of answers that we can hope for from such brilliant economists.

Source: Groupe d’études géopolitiques Gillian Tett Olivier Blanchard Barry Eichengreen Link https://bit.ly/4akkFHJ