Is there a transatlantic divide in undergraduate macroeconomics teaching?

Abstract

The global financial crisis triggered different policy responses in Europe and the United States. Interestingly, survey results suggest that there is also a significant difference in how undergraduate macroeconomics instructors responded to the crisis, with U.S. instructors placing significantly more emphasis on financial topics than their European peers. This note considers whether such differences may be attributed to differences in instructors' profiles and teaching environments. The results suggest that, rather than explaining this gap, the transatlantic divide becomes even wider when analyzed in a multivariate setting.

Teaching introductory macroeconomics during the Greek financial crisis

“…It appears bizarre that instructors persist in teaching to a great extent the same curriculum as though the GFC never happened. “Post-crisis undergraduate macroeconomics instruction features very much the same line-up of models and concepts as before the crisis erupted” (Gärtner et al , 2014, p. 297). Why is this so?…”

“…Considering the aforesaid, we should not be surprised that economic instructors across the transatlantic responded differently to the GFC in their curricula. US economics instructors placed notably more importance on financial topics (financial intermediaries, liquidity traps, multiple interest rates, bubbles and quantitative easing) that their European counterparts (Gärtner et al , 2014, p. 297).…”

“…Nevertheless, the eclectic teaching approach is a reflection of the diverse policy responses to the hazards produced by the GFC. For example, the European Central Bank took its time to initiate net asset purchases, alike to the Fed’s quicker response; in addition, Europeans were still fixated with austerity, whereas the USA was quite indifferent (Gärtner et al , 2014, pp. 297-298).…”