Eight lessons for teaching macroeconomic policy after COVID-19: a heterodox perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we advance eight lessons that COVID-19, and before that, the Global Financial Crisis, imply for the teaching of macroeconomics to undergraduates. These lessons all pertain to fiscal and monetary policy, which we argue are central to macroeconomics and which should take a greater focus in our teaching. They touch upon key theoretical perspectives which underpin the policies considered, and they challenge the way that mainstream economics has approached these policy questions. They are, therefore, useful ideas around which to generate debate in undergraduate teaching about orthodox perspectives. Debate, we argue, is always intellectually healthy and makes teaching more instructive and enjoyable for students. This paper summarizes the main themes of traditional mainstream thinking about fiscal and monetary policies, restates some problems with this thinking identified by heterodox economics, reflects on some key features of the policy responses to COVID-19 and the Global Financial Crisis, and translates those reflections into eight lessons that could be used to shape the teaching of macroeconomic policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it