The (confused) state of equilibrium analysis in modern economics: an explanation
Modern economics produces many interpretations of the category of equilibrium as well as competing views of its relevance or worth for economic theorizing. In particular, interpretations and valuations often differ systematically between mainstream and heterodox contributions. I argue that these differences are best explained through understanding the competing ontological presuppositions of the mainstream and heterodox traditions. If correct, this explanation reinforces the assessment advanced elsewhere (Lawson, 2003) that mainstream and heterodox traditions are best distinguished not according to substantive claims or policy stances but rather precisely in terms of their ontological commitments.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 27 (2005)
Issue (Month): 3 (April)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://mesharpe.metapress.com/link.asp?target=journal&id=109348|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mes:postke:v:27:y:2005:i:3:p:423-444. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Nguyen)The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Chris Nguyen to update the entry or send us the correct address
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.