The Conflict Between General Equilibrium and the Marshallian Cross
There is a conflict in the mechanism for price determination used in a Marshallian partial equilibrium supply and demand framework and the Walrasian general equilibrium framework. It is generally thought that partial equilibrium is a simplified approximation to the complexities of the general model. The goal of this paper is to show that there is a strong conflict between the two models - intuitions and heuristics suggested by partial equilibrium are contradicted by extensions to the general equilibrium case. We review the literature on the conflict and also provide a very simple model where partial equilibrium analysis fails completely. Several intuitively plausible remedies fail to restore partial equilibrium results. We show that Marshallian analysis can be made to work only under rather stringent conditions requiring joint production with low fixed costs and decreasing returns resulting in identical production proportions by all producers.
|Date of creation:||Jul 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://erf.ku.edu.trEmail:
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- A. Cohen & G. Harcourt., 2009. "Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 8.
- Mas-Colell, Andreu & Whinston, Michael D. & Green, Jerry R., 1995. "Microeconomic Theory," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195102680.
- Steedman, Ian, 1988. "Sraffian Interdependence and Partial Equilibrium Analysis," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(1), pages 85-95, March.
- Kane, John, 1997. "Myth and measurement: The new economics of the minimum wage : David Card and Alan B. Krueger, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995, x + 422," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 219-222.
- Frederic Lee & Steve Keen, 2004. "The Incoherent Emperor: A Heterodox Critique of Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 62(2), pages 169-199.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:koc:wpaper:1219. 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: (Sumru Oz)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.