Stock-flow consistent (SFC) models have attracted increasing attention in the last few decades, as it is proven by recent publications released by world-leading institutions (e.g., Burgess et al. 2016, Barbieri Hermitte et al. 2022). This can be seen as part of a broader revival of structural macro-econometric (SME) models (e.g., Cusbert and Kendall 2018), which had been hastily dismissed following the so-called “Lucas critique” and the rise of rational expectations micro-foundations. SME models were eventually displaced and replaced by dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, which dominated macroeconomics until the late 2000s. However, the Global Financial Crisis of 2007 and the subsequent financial turmoil have cast a shadow over the predictive performance of DSGE models (see Krugman (2018), Mankiw (2006), Romer (2016), Solow (2008), Wren-Lewis (2018), among others). As has been observed, “a weakness of DSGE models is that they often do not fit the data as well as other models, and the causal mechanisms do not always correspond to how economists and policymakers think the economy really works” (Cusbert and Kendall 2018, p. 3). Besides, DSGE models “typically focus on only a few key variables, which can limit the range of situations where they are useful” (ibidem). By contrast, SME models are based on more realistic assumptions (and behavioural equations), fit available data reasonably well, and can be applied to a wide range of variables. SFC models can be regarded as a specific class of SME models, in which the relation between the real side and the financial side of the economy, and that between stocks and flows, take centre stage. In that sense, SFC models can be also regarded as the macroeconomics counterpart of system dynamics (SD) models used in environmental disciplines and other hard sciences. Building on the considerations above, the Bulletin of Political Economy (BOPE) invites contributions that explore recent developments in SFC literature, both theoretical and applied.

Some of the relevant topics to be explored include:

• Empirical or country-based stock-flow consistent models to predict the impact of the current crisis

• Ecological stock-flow consistent models to assess the impact of climate change and/or environmental policies

• Agent-based stock-flow consistent models to analyse financial instability

• Input-output stock-flow consistent models to examine cross-industry interdependencies and technical change

• Supermultiplier-based stock-flow consistent models to study the effects of alternative policies and/or estimate fiscal multipliers

Important dates

May 19, 2023: Submit a paper proposal or an extended abstract to the 20^th STOREP Conference and to Special Issue Editors

September 1, 2023: Submit a full paper to BOPE by e-mailing to Special Issue Editors and bulletinofpe@gmail.com

October 10, 2023: Decision of acceptance, revision or rejection

November 15, 2023: Submit the revised version of the paper

November 30, 2023: Acceptance (in case of revision)

December 31, 2023: Tentative publishing in the second 2023 issue of Bulletin of Political Economy

Notes for the authors

• Only papers submitted to the 20^th STOREP Conference will be taken into consideration for the special issue

• Word limit: 10.000 words (including tables)

• Key equations (e.g., behavioural equations) should be discussed in the main text, whereas auxiliary equations (e.g., accounting identities) can be included in a final appendix

• Authors are encouraged to share data and codes of their models (once the paper has been accepted for publication)

• Other instructions for authors can be found here: https://www.bulletinofpe.com/instructions-for-authors

References

Barbieri Hermitte, R., Cagnazzo, A., Favero, C. A., Felici, F., Macauda, V., Nucci, F., and Tegami, C. (2022). ‘ITFIN: a Stock-Flow Consistent Model for the Italian Economy’, Analisi e Ricerca Economico Finanziaria, Working Papers 4, Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Burgess, S., O. Burrows, A. Godin, S. Kinsella, and S. Millard. (2016). ‘A Dynamic Model of Financial Balances for the United Kingdom’, Bank of England Working Papers 614.

Cusbert, T., and Kendall, E. (2018). ‘Meet MARTIN, the RBA's New Macroeconomic Model’, Australian Reserve Bank Bulletin, 31-44.

Krugman, P. (2018). ‘Good enough for government work? Macroeconomics since the crisis’. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(1-2); 156-168.

Mankiw, N.G. (2006). ‘The macroeconomist as scientist and engineer’. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(4): 29-46

Romer, P. (2016). The trouble with macroeconomics. Available at https://paulromer.net/the-trouble-with-macro/WP-Trouble.pdf

Solow, R. (2008). ‘The State of Macroeconomics’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(1): 243–6.

Wren-Lewis, S. (2018). ‘Ending the Microfoundations Hegemony’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(1–2): 55–69.