Has there been a convergence of views in macroeconomics? Of course, but there remains a wide spectrum of opinions on many issues and, perhaps even more striking, the dispersion of opinions regarding which topics are currently most interesting as subjects for further research is probably as wide as it has ever been. Nonetheless, I believe that there is less disagreement among macroeconomists about fundamental issues than there was in the past. For example, in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, macroeconomists were divided by controversies that related not only to judgments about the likely quantitative impor-tance of particular economic mechanisms, or to the kind of policies that different scholars might advocate, but to basic questions of method (what kinds of models could reasonably be employed in macroeconomic analysis?; what kinds of empirical work could prove anything about the world?; and what kinds of questions could one hope to answer). In the 1960s and early 1970s, the main division was between the neo-Keynesians and those in the monetarist school. This was not merely a dispute about whether the “IS curve ” or “LM curve ” was more interest elastic, or whether monetary policy or fiscal policy was more potent for purposes of aggregate demand management, as it was sometimes portrayed in undergraduate textbooks. Instead, the two schools had different conceptions of economics, and as a consequence, frequently argued against one another. The Keynesians sought to estimate structural econometric models that