Macroeconomics needs to take people more seriously. Human beings represent the most important economic resource that undergirds long-run economic performance and well-being. It is not just the sheer number of people on the planet that counts. Their capacities to contribute to their households, communities, and their societies are of utmost importance. Moreover, human beings are products of the economies in which they live. Raising children to adulthood requires substantive investments of time, money, goods and services. It also requires coordinating the allocation of resources across generations.

This coordination does not happen by magic, or exclusively through markets or pure self-interest. Numerous institutions, including household structures, social norms, and gender roles, come into play. These institutions may not be fair. They may not be efficient. They often perpetuate inequalities, including economic disparities between men and women, and artificially limit women’s potential by constraining their choices and options. Equally important, these institutions may not seamlessly adapt to the future needs of the economy. There is no guarantee that current demographic trends or investments in human beings will be sufficient to keep our economies healthy in the future.

Despite the importance of all of these issues, current macroeconomic thinking and practice falls short. This is dangerous, since the way we understand how the economy works influences the policies that are ultimately adopted. If our understanding is partial or impoverished, so will be our solutions to the problems we face.

What is also clear is that the exact mix of policies and institutions needed will vary from one context to the next. Some countries fear the consequences of below-replacement fertility, as their populations age and slowly shrink. Others, with high fertility rates, face the challenge of what to do with a burgeoning youth population. Social norms and gender roles differ, as do the structures of economies. No single solution exists for all people and places. There is no “one size fits all” option. Nevertheless, we can discuss what the elements of a better macroeconomics might look like.

So, what are the key ingredients of a revitalized macroeconomics? Reworking basic concepts and measurements is a good place to start.