David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Economic Methodology 3 (2):285-306 (1996)
The neglect and misinterpretation of Marshall's treatment of time led many of his followers and critics to overlook the significance of the qualifications and criticisms of equilibrium analysis in his Principles. This misinterpretation arises from a failure to fully understand the purpose and method of Marshall's analysis. Marshall's methodological struggles in Principles did not arise from an attempt to preserve the concept of competitive equilibrium in a world where increasing returns are pervasive. Rather, they emanated from an attempt at providing analytical tools capable of contributing to an understanding of the process of economic development that is continuous in time. Marshall was unable to resolve the conflict arising from ?biological? and ?mechanical? representations of such processes. The later critics of Marshall developed their analysis in terms of comparative static analysis of competitive equilibrium positions. The element of time had no role to play in such a setting.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Peter J. Bowler (1990). The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth. Journal of the History of Biology 23 (3):529-531.
Alfred Marshall (1891). Principles of Economics. Mind 16 (61):110-113.
M. Blaug (1964). Economic Theory in Retrospect. Science and Society 28 (1):112-115.
Christopher Blake & G. L. S. Shackle (1967). A Scheme of Economic Theory. Philosophical Quarterly 17 (66):84.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Roger E. Backhouse (2004). History and Equilibrium: A Partial Defense of Equilibrium Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 11 (3):291-305.
Brian Skyrms (2000). Stability and Explanatory Significance of Some Simple Evolutionary Models. Philosophy of Science 67 (1):94-113.
Andy Denis (2007). The Hypostatisation of the Concept of Equilibrium in Neoclassical Economics. In Valeria Mosini (ed.), Equilibrium in Economics: Scope and Limits.
Robert Keith Shaw (2005). Marshall—Making Wittgenstein Smile. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37 (3):397–405.
C. W. Marshall (2001). Next Time Agamemnon Died. Classical World: A Quarterly Journal on Antiquity 95 (1).
Zygmunt Bauman (2005). Freedom From, in and Through the State: T.H. Marshall's Trinity of Rights Revisited. Theoria 44 (108):13-27.
Carl F. Christ (2002). Symposium on Marshall's Tendencies: 3 Sutton on Marshall's Tendencies: A Comment. Economics and Philosophy 18 (1):21-27.
James J. Buckley (1991). Adjudicating Conflicting Christologies. Philosophy and Theology 6 (2):117-135.
Eric Renault (2002). Symposium on Marshall's Tendencies: 4 Comments on Marshall's Tendencies. Economics and Philosophy 18 (1):29-44.
John Sutton (2002). Symposium on Marshall's Tendencies: 6 Marshall's Tendencies: A Reply. Economics and Philosophy 18 (1):55-62.
Henry Rutgers Marshall (1907). The Time Quality. Mind 16 (61):1-26.
Donald G. Marshall (1997). Given Time. International Studies in Philosophy 29 (4):103-104.
Werner Güth (2002). On the Inconsistency of Equilibrium Refinement. Theory and Decision 53 (4):371-392.
Elias L. Khalil & Alain Marciano (2010). The Equivalence of Neo-Darwinism and Walrasian Equilibrium: In Defense of Organismus Economicus. Biology and Philosophy 25 (2):229-248.
Added to index2012-02-20
Total downloads11 ( #290,979 of 1,789,925 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #423,018 of 1,789,925 )
How can I increase my downloads?