The standard history of macroeconomics considers Lucas (1976)-"the Lucas Critique"-as a path-breaking innovation for the discipline. According to this view Lucas's article dismissed the traditional macroeconometric practice calling for new ways of conceiving the quantitative evaluation of economic policies. The Lucas Critique is considered, nowadays, as a fundamental principle of macroeconomic modeling (Woodford, 2003). The interpretation and the application of the Critique, however, represent still unsolved issues in economics (Chari et al., 2008). Even if the influence of Lucas's contribution cannot be neglected, something seems to be missing in the narrative: the reactions of the economists that were directly targeted by the Critique. Modeling practices of economic policy evaluation were not overthrown immediately after Lucas (1976), creating a divide between theoretical and applied macroeconomics (Brayton et al., 1997).The purpose of this paper is to study the reactions of the macroeconometricians criticized by Lucas. We focus especially on those macroeconometricians who worked on policy evaluation and who held an expertise position in governmental institutions. We categorize the

The International Seminar on Macroeconomics (ISoM) is an annual conference, which was co-sponsored during 15 years (1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992)(1993) by the French EHESS and the NBER. This article uncovers the scientific and institutional dynamics unrolling from this cooperation. We argue that the ISoM contributed greatly to the making of a European network of economists sharing similar professional and intellectual standards: indeed, the Seminar gathered macroeconomists who were leading the development of this European network.We illustrate how the ISoM stood at the crossroad of two types of 'internationalisation' of economics: the integration of European national communities and the process of 'Americanisation' of economics. While existing literature on 'internationalisation' focuses on the national level, our contribution investigates the European level. Moreover, we unveil how two research programmes in macroeconomics (namely the disequilibrium theory and large-scale macroeconometric modelling) played a significant role in this process.

No abstract

This contribution to the history of the economic thought aims at describing how "Econometric Policy Evaluation: A Critique" (Lucas, 1976) has been interpreted through four decades of debates. This historical appraisal clarifies how Lucas's argument is currently understood and discussed within the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) approach.The article illustrates how two opposite interpretations of the Lucas Critique arose in the early 1980s. On the one hand, a "theoretical interpretation" has been championed by the real business cycle (RBC) approach; on the other hand, an "empirical interpretation" has been advocated by Keynesians. Both interpretations can be understood as addressing a common question: Do microfoundations imply parameters' stability? Following the RBC theoretical interpretation, microfoundations do imply stability; conversely, for Keynesians, parameters' stability (or instability) should be supported by econometric evidence rather than theoretical considerations.Furthermore, the article argues that the DSGE approach represent a fragile compromise between these two opposite interpretations of Lucas (1976). This is especially true for the recent literature criticizing the DSGE models for being vulnerable to the Lucas Critique.

This article explores Robert E. Lucas's policy agenda and his engagement with the public debate between 1968 and 1987. It investigates how he interacted with the public debate by envisioning key principles of his macroeconomic theory and methodology, and how he promoted his policy agenda. An exploration of Lucas's personal and professional archives sheds light on his participation on policy debates after the publication of his topical works, illustrating how Lucas developed a unique way of dealing with science in the public debate by building a distinctive, discreet and cautious way of engaging with the public. Lucas did not embody the traditional elements of an "economic expert": he did not envision an action plan, nor proposed a detailed program to successfully implement his policy agenda. The article suggests that, unlike other economic experts, Lucas's participation in the public debate was "unintended": the public always solicited Lucas to express his opinion and advice, not the opposite.JEL Codes: B22, E30, H10