Economics at your fingertips  

Kaldor and Kornai on Economics without Equilibrium – Two Life Courses

Peter Mihalyi ()
Additional contact information
Peter Mihalyi: Department of Macroeconomics, Corvinus University of Budapest, Hungary

Acta Oeconomica, 2017, vol. 67, issue supplement1, 47-66

Abstract: Nicholas Kaldor and János Kornai are known in the academic literature as the most principled and unyielding opponents of the neoclassical, mainstream economics in general, and the Arrow-Debreu General Equilibrium Theory (GET) in particular since the beginning of the 1970s. Nevertheless, they remained in the minority camp with their views until today. The mainstream of the economic profession still holds that only the neoclassical paradigm offers a comprehensive, systematic, consistent and, above all, mathematical (hence “scientific”) description of how modern economies operate. This paper aims at investigating why these two prolific writers, who were friends and spoke the same mother tongue, did not find a common ground and did not even try to build a school of followers jointly.

Keywords: equilibrium; increasing returns; demand constraint; perfect competition (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: B22 B31 D5 E12 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations View citations in EconPapers (1) Track citations by RSS feed

Downloads: (external link) (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link:

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Akadémiai Kiadó Zrt., Prielle K. u. 21-35. Budapest, 1117, Hungary

Access Statistics for this article

Acta Oeconomica is currently edited by Mihályi, Péter

More articles in Acta Oeconomica from Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary
Series data maintained by Vajda, Lőrinc ().

Page updated 2018-02-24
Handle: RePEc:aka:aoecon:v:67:y:2017:i:supplement1:p:47-66