Marshall and Walras : Incompatible Bedfellows ?
AbstractThe standard view about the relation between the Marshallian and the Walrasian approaches is that they are complementary to each other. My aim in this paper is to show that, on the contrary, they constitute alternative sub-research programs within the wider neoclassical paradigm. I make my point by contrasting the two approaches against the following benchmarks : the purpose of economic theory according to Marshall and Walras, their views as the role of mathematics, their ways of looking at the working of the economy as whole, the conception of equilibrium underpinning their theories and finally their trade organization assumptions
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES) in its series Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) with number 2009008.
Date of creation: 01 Apr 2009
Date of revision:
Other versions of this item:
- Michel De Vroey, 2012. "Marshall and Walras: Incompatible bedfellows?," European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 765-783, October.
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- De Vroey, Michel, 2011.
"Lucas on the relationship between theory and ideology,"
Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal,
Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 5(4), pages 1-39.
- De Vroey, Michel, 2010. "Lucas on the relationship between theory and ideology," Economics Discussion Papers 2010-28, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
- Michel DE VROEY, 2010. "Lucas on the relationship between theory and ideology," Discussion Papers (IRES - Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales) 2010031, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anne DAVISTER-LOGIST).
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.