IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v27y2003i5p723-747.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Smith and Newton: some methodological issues concerning general economic equilibrium theory

Author

Listed:
  • Leonidas Montes

Abstract

This paper argues that the generally shared interpretation of what can be labelled 'Smithian Newtonianism' is spurious on two counts. I suggest not only that Smith was not a Newtonian in the sense that this is commonly understood, but also that Newton was not 'Newtonian' either. Specifically, it is argued that neither did Smith have an atomistic-mechanistic conception of the world like that of neoclassical and modern mainstream economics, and nor did Newton simply conform to the axiomatic-deductive methodology emulated by economic theory. In particular, Walras's explicit idealism as the architect of general equilibrium theory is contrasted with Smith's evident realism. The latter allows a possible connection between Smith's broader project and critical realism. It is concluded that the popular view of Smith as a forerunner or founder of general economic equilibrium theory must be laid to rest. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonidas Montes, 2003. "Smith and Newton: some methodological issues concerning general economic equilibrium theory," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 27(5), pages 723-747, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:27:y:2003:i:5:p:723-747
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dusek, Tamás, 2012. "A Debreu-féle neowalrasi általános egyensúlyelmélet antiempirista axiomatizmusa [The anti-empirical axiomatism of neo-Walrasian general equilibrium theory]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 988-1004.
    2. Paul Oslington, 2012. "God and the Market: Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 429-438, July.
    3. Flavia Di Mario & Andrea Micocci, 2017. "Smith’s invisible hand: controversy is needed," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 11(1), pages 53-82, November.
    4. David Andrews, 2014. "Adam Smith's Natural Prices, the Gravitation Metaphor, and the Purposes of Nature," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 3(1), pages 1-42, March.
    5. Brian O’Boyle & Terrence McDonough, 2017. "Bourgeois Ideology and Mathematical Economics – A Reply to Tony Lawson," Economic Thought, World Economics Association, vol. 6(1), pages 16-34, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:27:y:2003:i:5:p:723-747. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.