History versus equilibrium? on the possibility and realist basis of a general critique of traditional equilibrium analysis
This paper responds to Backhouse's (2004) claims that there is no antagonism between history and equilibrium and no case to be made in principle against equilibrium analysis. We first show that Backhouse's partial defense of equilibrium analysis has already been encompassed by heterodox theory. We then identify a "traditional equilibrium approach" to economic analysis and provide a general critique of this approach based on its perceived infidelity to the properties of social reality. Finally, we argue that this exercise exemplifies Lawson's (2005a) thesis that heterodox skepticism of equilibrium analysis is motivated by ontic concernsâthat is, concerns with the intrinsic properties of the social material that is being theorized by economists.
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): 29 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (January)
|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:29:y:2007:i:2:p:191-209. 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)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.