yes it has to as it fulfills all the defining characteristics of a science.
Macroeconomics was called "Political Science" and microeconomics was simply "economics" in those days, but the difference was already there.
Microeconomics should be considered a science because it has a solid foundation of empirical evidence. Macroeconomics is less precise with weaker empirical evidence. Some people compares macroeconomics to astrology because experts in both fields sometimes ,but far from always, makes correct predictions of the future.
The early writers who at the time chose to call it Political Science, such as Adam Smith.
Micro
Macroeconomics.
Macroeconomics was called "Political Science" and microeconomics was simply "economics" in those days, but the difference was already there.
Microeconomics should be considered a science because it has a solid foundation of empirical evidence. Macroeconomics is less precise with weaker empirical evidence. Some people compares macroeconomics to astrology because experts in both fields sometimes ,but far from always, makes correct predictions of the future.
The early writers who at the time chose to call it Political Science, such as Adam Smith.
Micro
Macroeconomics.
Which level does macroeconomics focus on?
Macroeconomics refers to the national economy.
Journal of Macroeconomics was created in 1979.
I don't think you can use Macroeconomics in a sentence.
Classical Neo-classical Keynesian Austrian Monetarist That should get you started.
difference in methodology for microeconomics and macroeconomics?
Macroeconomics examines the consumer purchases of families and age groups.