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

Dany Lang and Mark Setterfield

Post-Print from HAL

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

Keywords: Stablity; equilibrium; path dependency (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Published in Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 2008

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

Related works:
Journal Article: History versus equilibrium? on the possibility and realist basis of a general critique of traditional equilibrium analysis (2006)
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:hal:journl:hal-01366019

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().