Models derived from the Real Business Cycle perspective have recently taken a major place in business cycle research. The papers in this present volume bring three contributions to this research programme: A critical evaluation of the canonical RBC models, new elements of empirical relevance, based on comparative calibration and testing, and new specifications, at the frontier of business cycle research, coping with non walrasian features, contracts and nominal rigidities, unemployment and growth.

Setting the issue "Most economists consider the marked increase in automatic stabilizers a highly favorable development with respect to maintenance of economic stability". Besides the rare privilege of having being signed by both Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson (Depres,Friedman, Hart, Samuelson, and Wallace [1950]), among others, this sentence expressed as soon as 1950 the consensus view on the stabilizing effect of fiscal rules governing tax revenue and public expendi tures and transfers. This positive ex ante assessment will have been confirmed ex post as part of the explanation for post war stabilization (Burns [1960], de Long and Summers [1986], Moore and Zarnovitz [1986]). However, it becomes disputed in both its positive and normative aspects. Many institutional changes since the eighties point at curbing back the transfer mechanisms underlying automatic stabilizers, and legal restraints on deficits such as the US balanced budget amendment or the European Maastricht criteria would involve serious risks for the future of stabilizers. Under such rules "the government would become, almost inevitally, a destabilizer rather than a stabilizer" said Joseph Stiglitz, quoted by the New York Times (April 1995)). "Built-in stabilizers are automatic fiscal adjustments that reduce the national income multiplier and thus cushion the effects of changes in autonomous spend ing on the level of income" (Pechman [1987]). Early analyses of the automatic fiscal stabilizers include the contributions of A. G. Hart [1945], R. Musgrave and M. Miller (1948) and E. C. Brown (1955).

Building from the micro-foundations of economic behaviour to a full survey of macroeconomics, the book examines growth theory and equilibrium and disequilibrium approaches to provide a comprehensive survey of all the rival theoretical approaches that underlie central policy debates. A survey of pre-Keynesian theories of growth, fluctuations and the various short and long cycles and crises is followed by an exposition of Keynesian theory and its subsequent development and of the neo-classical revival. Topics covered include: * Non-clearing markets * Involuntary unemployment * Persistent inflation. As well as full coverage of the English-language literature, Macrodynamics covers important contributions from the new school of French macroeconomists, including Malinvaud, Benassy and Grandmont.

Building from the micro-foundations of economic behaviour to a full survey of macroeconomics, the book examines growth theory and equilibrium and disequilibrium approaches to provide a comprehensive survey of all the rival theoretical approaches that underlie central policy debates. A survey of pre-Keynesian theories of growth, fluctuations and the various short and long cycles and crises is followed by an exposition of Keynesian theory and its subsequent development and of the neo-classical revival. Topics covered include: * Non-clearing markets * Involuntary unemployment * Persistent inflation. As well as full coverage of the English-language literature, Macrodynamics covers important contributions from the new school of French macroeconomists, including Malinvaud, Benassy and Grandmont.

Setting the issue "Most economists consider the marked increase in automatic stabilizers a highly favorable development with respect to maintenance of economic stability". Besides the rare privilege of having being signed by both Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson (Depres,Friedman, Hart, Samuelson, and Wallace [1950]), among others, this sentence expressed as soon as 1950 the consensus view on the stabilizing effect of fiscal rules governing tax revenue and public expendi tures and transfers. This positive ex ante assessment will have been confirmed ex post as part of the explanation for post war stabilization (Burns [1960], de Long and Summers [1986], Moore and Zarnovitz [1986]). However, it becomes disputed in both its positive and normative aspects. Many institutional changes since the eighties point at curbing back the transfer mechanisms underlying automatic stabilizers, and legal restraints on deficits such as the US balanced budget amendment or the European Maastricht criteria would involve serious risks for the future of stabilizers. Under such rules "the government would become, almost inevitally, a destabilizer rather than a stabilizer" said Joseph Stiglitz, quoted by the New York Times (April 1995)). "Built-in stabilizers are automatic fiscal adjustments that reduce the national income multiplier and thus cushion the effects of changes in autonomous spend ing on the level of income" (Pechman [1987]). Early analyses of the automatic fiscal stabilizers include the contributions of A. G. Hart [1945], R. Musgrave and M. Miller (1948) and E. C. Brown (1955).

Models derived from the Real Business Cycle perspective have recently taken a major place in business cycle research. The papers in this present volume bring three contributions to this research programme: A critical evaluation of the canonical RBC models, new elements of empirical relevance, based on comparative calibration and testing, and new specifications, at the frontier of business cycle research, coping with non walrasian features, contracts and nominal rigidities, unemployment and growth.