earticle

영어

This paper attempts to reformulate the methodology of economics, specifically macroeconomics. The global financial crisis 2008/2009 has triggered important debate concerning macroeconomic theory and policy. The most important thing that this economic crisis has done for economics is to show that mainstream economics is wrong. The economic crisis is also a crisis of economics. The economists have been unable to offer clear answers about the global crisis. Only few economists predicted the crisis and there was little agreement. There must have been something wrong with the method that economists were using. A problem for macroeconomics is that absent from current debate is an informed discussion of the methodology. But method is important matter and something to be used and discussed. Here is discussed that modern macroeconomic research methodology need to be transformed before real economy could be achieved. This paper begins with an introduction and analyzes two different methodological traditions within macroeconomics. The first is the mainstream economics, which is a neoclassical-inspired line of macroeconomics, utilized general equilibrium models. The second is the heterodox macroeconomics, which is a Keynes-inspired macroeconomics, employes path-dependent causal analyses, where uncertainty and power and social relations are matters. The paper reveals many sematic overviews of the dominant schools of macroeconomics. In this paper argues that mixed-methods ‘triangulation’ can be understood as the alternative methodology of macroeconomics.

한국어

2008년 글로벌 경제위기와 더불어 드러난 현대 거시경제학의 한계는 기존 이론을 보완이나 대안적 경제이론 개발의 필요성을 부각했다. 이러한 움직임은 자연히 경제를 바라보는 시각의 교정을 요구했고, 현재, 새로운 경제학 방법론에 대한 논의로 발전되고 있다. 본 연구는 이러한 문제의식을 배경으로 거시경제학 학파들의 방법론을 비교분석함으로써 대안적 거시경제학의 방법론적 가능성을 타진한다. 이를 위해 먼저 주류 거시경제학 방법론을 살펴보고 그 한계를 살펴본다. 다음으로, 비주류 거시경제학의 방법론을 분석하고 대안적 방법론의 가능성과 한계를 살펴본다. 마지막으로 대안적 거시경제학 방법론을 제시한다.