History versus equilibrium? on the possibility and realist basis of a general critique of traditional equilibrium analysis

Dany Lang and Mark Setterfield

Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2006, vol. 29, issue 2, 191-209

Abstract: 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 concerns—that is, concerns with the intrinsic properties of the social material that is being theorized by economists.

Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.2753/PKE0160-3477290202 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
Working Paper: History versus equilibrium? on the possibility and realist basis of a general critique of traditional equilibrium analysis (2008)
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: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mes:postke:v:29:y:2006:i:2:p:191-209

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/MPKE20

DOI: 10.2753/PKE0160-3477290202

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Post Keynesian Economics from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().