Micro vs. Macroeconomics

After a brief foray into film school, I planned on heading into political science/international relations, but ended up studying economics. I think my posts here will follow a similar pattern: one about a movie, a quick detour through some political thoughts, and now: economics.

Economics broadly consists of two different fields: micro and macro. A lot of people have had to take these in school, but if not, they still sound like self-defining words. Micro is small, so that must be the study of individuals or firms, or maybe industries, and macro is the study of the whole economy. Yeah? Well… not quite. Or at least, they ought not be defined as such.

Microeconomics: the behavior of individuals and firms, governments, industries, and how they interact with one another. Basically this includes almost everything. All graduate micro courses can have a section on “general equilibrium”, which is, by definition, economy-wide.

Macroeconomics: the study of emergent phenomenon that arises due to the choices of individuals, firms, et al. Within this still somewhat broad concept, Arnold Kling has a particular focus that I’d like to emphasize:  economic activity consists of sustainable patterns of specialization and trade.

By “emergent phenomenon”, I mean phenomenon that are unplanned side-effects of agents (that is, individuals, firms, et al) pursuing their own ends. This might be more broad than I want, but I think some examples will make my meaning clear. An example: in recessions, workers find themselves laid off and unable to find work. Firms find their sales dropping and are forced to cut their workforce, despite the loss in output and thus profit. As a nation, we are producing fewer goods than we were previously. Put like this, it almost seems absurd: there are workers who would work for money, and would buy goods with that money. There are firms who would sell goods should consumers (ie, workers) want to buy them, and who would hire workers to produce them. So why don’t they?

Thinking of macroeconomics as “about the whole economy” doesn’t provide any obvious answers to this questions. Maybe it’s because unemployment went up? But that only happened cause sales went down and firms had to fire people! Well then, it’s because sales are down! We’re in a recession after all! Well, sales are only down because the former workers don’t have jobs and so can’t buy things. The circularity here is obvious, but I think that trying to understand this as “the whole economy” leads almost directly to this circularity.

So, here’s another way. The economy is based upon an almost infinite web of connections: firms hire a number of workers, all of these workers spend their wages at a wide array of other firms, these firms employee workers, etc etc. I tend to buy the view that economic systems can be modeled as if agents are optimizers: firms optimize profit, and workers/consumers optimize their well-being (which can, of course, include promoting the well-being of others. It doesn’t require selfishness). For consumers, this means trading some of their free time to a firm–that is, they go to work–in exchange for wages that let them obtain food, shelter, clothing, computers, books, ipods, and whatever else they think will make them better off.

So, how does this help us think about “the economy”, and explain the persistent unemployment in recessions? The general “firms” that I keep talking about aren’t really general at all. Some of them sell sporting goods, some of them import French wine, some of them mine the silica that gets used in computers. Why do these firms do these specific activities? Entrepreneurship and the profit motive, generally. Potential entrepreneurs can look around their city (or the internet, or elsewhere) and envision a firm meeting some untapped demand. Over time, they may take on new projects, or shed less successful ventures, or outsource non-core activities, and otherwise evolve. In the end, though, we are left with an economy of relatively specialized firms.

But that’s not all! A worker is not a worker is not a worker: a teacher and an accountant and a fashion designer could not readily perform one another’s job. Firms are not the only ones specializing; workers do too. So, in the end, we are left with a country full of a huge number of divergent firms and differentiated workers, all performing different tasks. Because those firms are producing goods demanded by the others–the fashion designer needs an accountant, and the teacher needs clothes–people are able to trade their labor at work for money to trade for the goods they want. Patterns of specialization and trade!

Of course, Kling’s definition includes one extra word: sustainable patterns of specialization and trade. As long as the fashion designer and teacher and accountant are all producing goods and services that the others desire, these patterns are sustainable. There comes a point, however, where this isn’t true. Fax machines are less needed in the age of email; SUVs declined in popularity as gas prices rose; and Milli Vanilli’s music doesn’t sell like it used to. The firms supplying these declining goods fire workers. These unemployed workers buy fewer goods from elsewhere, leading to more layoffs. In the end, we get the same result: declining output, rising unemployment, and a recession.

Thinking of “the economy” in terms of patterns of specialization and trade encourages insight and implies an explanation. Thinking of macroeconomics as “the economy” in a free-standing sort of way doesn’t, and can impede understanding.


2 thoughts on “Micro vs. Macroeconomics

  1. My question is this then: isn’t Kling simply restating Schumpeter’s famous thesis of “creative destruction”? This is what capitalism does well: innovation while creating a massive amount of goods at the expense of large parts of society. Schumpeter noted that one of the defining things about capitalism is that is makes silk socks available (eventually anyways…) to the worker, not that it makes lots of silk socks for the Queen. That is, it creates lots of something and new somethings all the time. Without innovation (which, as things progress technologically, require more and more specialization), I’m not sure what it offers us. In the end, maybe it’s just another way of explaining this idea?

  2. I also thought of other questions: where does party politics (politics in the narrower sense) fall, micro or macro? Above, you state that interactions of governments and private industry is micro. Second, what if this interaction is transnational and/or involving the IMF, World Bank, etc.? Economics does not seem to like to take political issues into account so I’m curious where they place this.

    One point I think worth making is that of political affects on recessions and the specialization you talk about. Currently, we have stubborn Republicans who oppose any and all change of the energy sector. This might be partly attributable to representing their constituents (and thus one of the problems with democracy). But, presently, I think it has more to do with 1) the identity politics surrounding white anxiety and Barack Obama’s presidency and 2) their position of essentially being “the party of no”, to put it in the parlance of our times. After all, dems have a larger labor constituency, or at least as large, that might be affected by energy policy change. The task is to make the switch while not hurting the working classes (this means addressing free trade globalization as well).

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s