Drawing upon the French tradition of regulation theory – most notably associated with Aglietta – the author describes the ‘forms of regulation’ that have characterized the various stages of capitalism. He argues that while the current crisis consists of a disruption of the whole structure of monopoly regulation, it is not a deathknell for capitalism itself. A way out of the crisis would involve the development of a new form of regulation, a new regime of accumulation as a given historical and central institution of capitalism.

This book retraces the history of macroeconomics from Keynes's General Theory to the present. Central to it is the contrast between a Keynesian era and a Lucasian - or dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) - era, each ruled by distinct methodological standards. In the Keynesian era, the book studies the following theories: Keynesian macroeconomics, monetarism, disequilibrium macroeconomics (Patinkin, Leijongufvud and Clower), non-Walrasian equilibrium models, and first-generation new Keynesian models. Three stages are identified in the DSGE era: new classical macroeconomics (Lucas), RBC modelling, and second-generation new Keynesian modeling. The book also examines a few selected works aimed at presenting alternatives to Lucasian macroeconomics. While not eschewing analytical content, Michel De Vroey focuses on substantive assessments, and the models studied are presented in a pedagogical and vivid yet critical way.

A macroeconomia de hoje em dia é chamada de nova síntese neoclássica, sugerindo que ela representa uma reencarnação da síntese neoclássica da década de 1950. Tal sugestão nos levou a examinar o conteúdo das sínteses "velha" e "nova". Nossa principal conclusão é que a nova síntese tem pouca semelhança com a velha. Além disto, argumentamos que: (a) desde sua origem com Paul Samuelson a síntese neoclássica não tinha um conteúdo definido e nós apresentamos quatro principais deles; (b) em sua interpretação mais pertinente, aquela proposta por Solow e Mankiw, tal síntese representa uma defesa de uma macroeconomia pluralista na qual modelos de curto prazo com desequilíbrio conviveriam lado a lado com modelos de equilíbrio de longo prazo; (c) uma distinção precisa ser feita entre os novos keynesianos de primeira e segunda gerações porque os primeiros defendiam a velha síntese, enquanto que os últimos, com seus modelos DSGE, aderiram à visão Lucasiana de uma macroeconomia baseada em um único modelo básico.

The aim of this paper is to question a view which is usually taken for granted, namely that the Marshallian partial equilibrium and Walrasian general equilibrium analysis stand in a relationship of continuity. It will be claimed that the contrary is true: the generalisation of the Marshallian market does not lead to a Walrasian economy or, conversely, the Walrasian economy is not composed of Marshallian markets. To bring this point home, the basic methodological choices underpinning the analysis of the Marshallian market and of the Walrasian economy will be compared. The issue of why no full‐fledged Marshallian representation of the economy has arisen which might stand as an alternative to the Walrasian account will also be investigated and a series of reasons for this lack of generalisation of the Marshallian market will be considered. Finally, it will be claimed that if the Marshallian economy concept has no explicit existence, it has nonetheless an implicit one. It forms the background against which a series of reasoning about the working of the economy as a whole, which cannot fit the Walrasian economy framework, are developed. No less prestigious names than those of Keynes, Hicks, Patinkin, Friedman, Clower and Leijonhufvud will be adduced as witnesses.

When the economic theory of the last decades becomes a subject of reflection for historians of economic theory, a striking feature which they will have to explain is the demise of the disequilibrium concept. Previously, economists had no qualms concerning the view that the market or the economy was exhibiting disequilibria. Amongst many possible quotations, the following, drawn from Viner's well-known article on Marshall, illustrates that: