Journal of Economic Methodology 4 (2):245-266 (1997)
|Abstract||What do we mean when we say action is possible in disequilibrium? If we adopt Hayek's approach to equilibrium, we must mean that we can act in a world where the plans that motivate and define those actions are not mutually compatible. This is hardly controversial. After all, the market process features rivalrous actions, that is, actions that are part of mutually inconsistent plans. Successful plans tend to displace unsuccessful ones. But, can we say, therefore, that, overall, plans tend to become more consistent so that there is a ?tendency? toward equilibrium? Is this important? I answer both in the negative and that the Hayekian definition requires too much. Plans are complex, multi-layered con-structs. Overall ?plan consistency? is, therefore, either impossible or hopelessly imprecise. At some levels plans are and must be highly compatible, while at other levels (as part of the market process for example) they are and, if we are to have economic progress, they must be, incompatible|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Yo-An Lee & Akihiko Takahashi (2011). Lesson Plans and the Contingency of Classroom Interactions. Human Studies 34 (2):209-227.
Leslie Marsh & David Hardwick (2012). Clash of the Titans: When the Market and Science Collide. In Roger Koppl & Steve Horwitz (eds.), Experts and Epistemic Monopolies.
Greg Hill (1996). Capitalism, Coordination, and Keynes: Rejoinder to Horwitz. Critical Review 10 (3):373-387.
Michael McDermott (2008). Are Plans Necessary? Philosophical Studies 138 (2):225 - 232.
Werner Güth (2002). On the Inconsistency of Equilibrium Refinement. Theory and Decision 53 (4):371-392.
Roger E. Backhouse (2004). History and Equilibrium: A Partial Defense of Equilibrium Economics. Journal of Economic Methodology 11 (3):291-305.
John L. Pollock (1992). New Foundations for Practical Reasoning. Minds and Machines 2 (2).
Ben Eggleston (2010). Practical Equilibrium: A Way of Deciding What to Think About Morality. Mind 119 (475):549-584.
John L. Pollock (2001). Evaluative Cognition. Noûs 35 (3):325–364.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-02-20
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?