巴恪思和波扬诺夫斯基论“非均衡理论”。转型现代宏观经济学综述。探索不平衡微地基，1956-2003

IF 0.6 3区经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS

European Journal of the History of Economic Thought Pub Date : 2014-08-01 DOI:10.1080/09672567.2014.916733

M. de Vroey

{"title":"巴恪思和波扬诺夫斯基论“非均衡理论”。转型现代宏观经济学综述。探索不平衡微地基，1956-2003","authors":"M. de Vroey","doi":"10.1080/09672567.2014.916733","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article is an in-depth analysis of Backhouse and Boianovsky's book, Transforming Modern Macroeconomics: Exploring Disequilibrium Microfoundations, 1956–2003. I start with questioning Backhouse and Boianovsky's too broad understanding of the disequilibrium approach. Thereby they bring together theories that should be kept separate, those by Patinkin, Clower and Leijonhuvud on the one hand, and those by Barro and Grossman, Drèze and Benassy, on the other. I also substantiate my disagreement with their claim that an inner link exists between fixed price equilibrium theories and imperfect competition modelling. Finally, I put forward a few conjectures about the reason why fixed price modelling petered out.","PeriodicalId":51791,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"21 1","pages":"724 - 742"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2014-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09672567.2014.916733","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Backhouse and Boianovsky on “disequilibrium theory”. A review article of transforming modern macroeconomics. Exploring disequilibrium microfoundations, 1956–2003\",\"authors\":\"M. de Vroey\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09672567.2014.916733\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article is an in-depth analysis of Backhouse and Boianovsky's book, Transforming Modern Macroeconomics: Exploring Disequilibrium Microfoundations, 1956–2003. I start with questioning Backhouse and Boianovsky's too broad understanding of the disequilibrium approach. Thereby they bring together theories that should be kept separate, those by Patinkin, Clower and Leijonhuvud on the one hand, and those by Barro and Grossman, Drèze and Benassy, on the other. I also substantiate my disagreement with their claim that an inner link exists between fixed price equilibrium theories and imperfect competition modelling. Finally, I put forward a few conjectures about the reason why fixed price modelling petered out.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"724 - 742\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09672567.2014.916733\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2014.916733\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2014.916733","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

本文对巴恪思和波扬诺夫斯基合著的《现代宏观经济学转型:探索非均衡微观基础，1956-2003》一书进行了深入分析。我首先质疑巴克斯豪斯和博扬诺夫斯基对非均衡方法的过于宽泛的理解。因此，他们汇集了本应分开的理论，一方面是帕廷金、克劳和雷永胡德的理论，另一方面是巴罗和格罗斯曼、德鲁兹和贝纳西的理论。我也不同意他们的观点，即固定价格均衡理论与不完全竞争模型之间存在内在联系。最后，我对固定价格模型逐渐消失的原因提出了一些猜想。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Backhouse and Boianovsky on “disequilibrium theory”. A review article of transforming modern macroeconomics. Exploring disequilibrium microfoundations, 1956–2003

Abstract This article is an in-depth analysis of Backhouse and Boianovsky's book, Transforming Modern Macroeconomics: Exploring Disequilibrium Microfoundations, 1956–2003. I start with questioning Backhouse and Boianovsky's too broad understanding of the disequilibrium approach. Thereby they bring together theories that should be kept separate, those by Patinkin, Clower and Leijonhuvud on the one hand, and those by Barro and Grossman, Drèze and Benassy, on the other. I also substantiate my disagreement with their claim that an inner link exists between fixed price equilibrium theories and imperfect competition modelling. Finally, I put forward a few conjectures about the reason why fixed price modelling petered out.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

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.