Marshall and Walras: Incompatible bedfellows?

IF 0.6 3区经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS

European Journal of the History of Economic Thought Pub Date : 2012-10-01 DOI:10.1080/09672567.2010.540345

M. de Vroey

引用次数: 16

Abstract

Abstract The standard view about the relationship 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 programmes 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 to the role of mathematics; their specific ways of tackling complexity; the conception of equilibrium underpinning their theories; and, finally, their trade organisation assumptions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

马歇尔和瓦尔拉斯:不相容的同床共枕?

关于马绍尔学派和瓦尔拉斯学派之间关系的标准观点是它们是相辅相成的。我在本文中的目的是表明，相反，它们构成了更广泛的新古典范式中的替代子研究方案。我通过将这两种方法与以下基准进行对比来阐明我的观点:马歇尔和瓦尔拉斯认为经济理论的目的;他们对数学的作用的看法;他们处理复杂性的具体方法;支撑他们理论的均衡概念;最后是他们对贸易组织的假设。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of the History of Economic Thought Multiple-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

28.60%

发文量

期刊介绍： The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought (EJHET), a peer-reviewed journal, has quickly established itself as a leading forum for lively discussion on a wide range of issues in the history of economic thought. With contributions from both established international scholars and younger academics, EJHET is entirely pluralist and non-partisan with regard to subjects and methodologies - it does not subscribe to any particular current of thought, nor relate to any one geographic zone. The Managing Editors and Editorial Board and Advisory Board members are drawn from throughout Europe and beyond, and are committed to encouraging scholars from around the world to contribute to international research and debate.