In theory, Intermediate Macroeconomics is the course that bridges the elementary concepts learned in the introductory economics courses and the more specialized knowledge that upper-level electives provide. In practice, however, the course is expected to do far too many things; for example, patching the coverage gaps from said introductory courses or loading far too many concepts under the hypothesis that this class is the last offering in macroeconomics that a student will take in their undergraduate program. I argue that we are teaching Intermediate Macroeconomics the wrong way. To make it right, we should rethink the goals of the course, both looking at its role as a stepping stone and arguing that many of the recent advances in macroeconomic theory and policy are ripe for inclusion in a course of this nature.
For decades the Solow model has been a workhorse in intermediate macroeconomics classrooms and textbooks. The explanatory power, analytic simplicity, and intuitive graphical exposition combine to make the model an indispensable part of the undergraduate macroeconomics canon. There is much less consensus on what, if anything, should be covered beyond the Solow model. Given that sustained economic growth has only occurred over the last two centuries, I argue that the Solow model should be part of a more comprehensive class module on economic growth. The module would begin with the logic of the Malthusian trap, move to the Solow model, and conclude with a model of endogenous technology growth. Some class time can also be devoted to the institutional, cultural, and geographic reasons that plausibly keep some countries in the Malthusian trap. Taken together, this module provides students with a comprehensive, yet accessible, view of macroeconomic history.
Intermediate macroeconomics is a core course in the undergraduate economics curriculum that offers a unique set of challenges for the instructor. This article introduces a symposium on the course that outlines these challenges and suggests ways to address some of them. The symposium begins with results from a national survey of intermediate macro instructors at U.S. institutions that documents current course structures, content, and instructor perspectives. Three additional papers propose specific approaches to issues that intermediate macro instructors typically face: whether to align the course more closely with the research frontier, how to teach contemporary Federal Reserve monetary policy implementation, and how to expand the coverage of growth theory beyond the standard Solow Model. By documenting current practice and offering specific approaches to course design, the symposium contributes to ongoing discussions about the purpose, scope, and future direction of intermediate macro in undergraduate economics programs.
In this paper, I show how the tools that have been used by the Federal Reserve (Fed) since the Great Recession have changed the way we need to talk about monetary policy in the classroom. In the new regime of abundant or ample reserves, open-market operations have different effects than before. A daily model of the reserves market may be helpful in guiding students to understand the mechanism by which the Fed operates. However, the danger of that model is that students may focus too much on the daily mechanics of how the Fed sets interest rates and not enough on the longer-run determinants of Fed policy decisions. I illustrate how to combine both short-run and long-run models of Fed policy actions.
