Smith and Newton: some methodological issues concerning general economic equilibrium theory

Leonidas Montes

Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2003, vol. 27, issue 5, 723-747

Abstract: This paper argues that the generally shared interpretation of what can be labelled 'Smithian Newtonianism' is spurious on two counts. I suggest not only that Smith was not a Newtonian in the sense that this is commonly understood, but also that Newton was not 'Newtonian' either. Specifically, it is argued that neither did Smith have an atomistic-mechanistic conception of the world like that of neoclassical and modern mainstream economics, and nor did Newton simply conform to the axiomatic-deductive methodology emulated by economic theory. In particular, Walras's explicit idealism as the architect of general equilibrium theory is contrasted with Smith's evident realism. The latter allows a possible connection between Smith's broader project and critical realism. It is concluded that the popular view of Smith as a forerunner or founder of general economic equilibrium theory must be laid to rest. Copyright 2003, Oxford University Press.

Date: 2003
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (5)

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

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: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:cambje:v:27:y:2003:i:5:p:723-747

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Cambridge Journal of Economics is currently edited by Jacqui Lagrue

More articles in Cambridge Journal of Economics from Cambridge Political Economy Society Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().