{"title":"Marshall and Walras: Incompatible bedfellows?","authors":"M. de Vroey","doi":"10.1080/09672567.2010.540345","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The standard view about the relationship between the Marshallian and the Walrasian approaches is that they are complementary to each other. My aim in this paper is to show that, on the contrary, they constitute alternative sub-research programmes within the wider neoclassical paradigm. I make my point by contrasting the two approaches against the following benchmarks: the purpose of economic theory according to Marshall and Walras; their views as to the role of mathematics; their specific ways of tackling complexity; the conception of equilibrium underpinning their theories; and, finally, their trade organisation assumptions.","PeriodicalId":51791,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought","volume":"19 1","pages":"765 - 783"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09672567.2010.540345","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of the History of Economic Thought","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2010.540345","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16
Abstract
Abstract The standard view about the relationship between the Marshallian and the Walrasian approaches is that they are complementary to each other. My aim in this paper is to show that, on the contrary, they constitute alternative sub-research programmes within the wider neoclassical paradigm. I make my point by contrasting the two approaches against the following benchmarks: the purpose of economic theory according to Marshall and Walras; their views as to the role of mathematics; their specific ways of tackling complexity; the conception of equilibrium underpinning their theories; and, finally, their trade organisation assumptions.
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought (EJHET), a peer-reviewed journal, has quickly established itself as a leading forum for lively discussion on a wide range of issues in the history of economic thought. With contributions from both established international scholars and younger academics, EJHET is entirely pluralist and non-partisan with regard to subjects and methodologies - it does not subscribe to any particular current of thought, nor relate to any one geographic zone. The Managing Editors and Editorial Board and Advisory Board members are drawn from throughout Europe and beyond, and are committed to encouraging scholars from around the world to contribute to international research and debate.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
