Traditional Keynesian models, like the IS-LM one, were discarded as they lack micro-foundations. They were also subject to the Lucas critique (in the sense that one cannot properly estimate a macroeconomic model if the parameters respond to changes in monetary/fiscal policy).
To many, this is not news. However, given the persistence of IMF and other international institutions to insist with new austerity measures, it is still surprising.
The last global recession raised concerns about the ability of macroeconomists to predict crises of such magnitude. Certainly, the forecasting is not the main focus of macroeconomics. I would say that, at least nowadays, it is of rather marginal interest to academic macroeconomists. A proof in this sense is provided by the very low number of publications related to macroeconomic forecasting.
The economic science came under fire during the last financial and economic crisis for many reasons. One thing that came frequently under attention was the supposedly inability of economists to predict the crisis. Well, it seems that the crisis was predicted to a certain extent by some economists, at least that’s what the paper by Bezemer shows.
The ideas of Austrian economic school are becoming more popular. However when you look at the current debates in macroeconomics (especially the academic ones) you will barely find any place for Austrian school ideas. Although most of today academic macroeconomics can be thought of as Keynesian (Greg Mankiw thinks that the old debate between freshwater and saltwater macroeconomics is dead), and although many old ideas have been successfully used recently (like Pigou’s theory of business cycle), there hardly is any place for Austrian ideas.