Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T08:28:13.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEALING WITH TIME IN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: SOME MARSHALLIAN INSIGHTS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2016

Katia Caldari
Katia Caldari*
Affiliation:
University of Padova.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Alfred Marshall, the element of time is the most important and difficult aspect to deal with in the economic analysis. Accordingly, he has placed the concept of time at the core of his economic reasoning, and he has developed a number of analytical tools that allow including time in his analytical framework: most notably, the cœteris paribus pound, the representative firm, and the distinction between short and long periods. However, he encountered an insurmountable impasse when dealing with the real elapsing of time in his static framework: the solution proposed in his Principles of Economics remained, for him, highly unsatisfactory, problematic, and incomplete. The real elapsing of time—unavoidable in his reflections—copes very badly indeed with his analytical construction based on equilibrium. The continuity of time is the element of the Marshallian analysis most quickly criticized and rejected. After him, in the economic analysis, time gradation was rigorously divided into “short” and “long” periods, whereas Marshall’s concerns for the continuity of real time were banished from what was considered a “rigorous” analysis. The main aims of this paper are to frame Marshall’s distinction between short and long periods and to underline those aspects of his contribution that were lost or were substantially simplified in later literature.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 39 , Special Issue 1: Special Issue: Business Cycles and Economic Growth , March 2017 , pp. 5 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Backhouse, Roger E. 2004. “History versus Equilibrium: A Partial Defence of Equilibrium Economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology 11 (3): 291–305.Google Scholar
Caldari, Katia. 2006. “Progress.” In Raffaelli, Tiziano, Dardi, Marco, and Becattini, Giacomo, eds., The Elgar Companion to Alfred Marshall. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 483–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldari, Katia, and Masini, Fabio. 2008. “The Limits to Growth. Alfred Marshall and the British Economic Tradition.” In Shionoya, Yuichi and Nishizawa, Tamotsu, eds., Marshall and Schumpeter on Evolution. Economic Sociology of Capitalistic Development. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, pp. 166–187.Google Scholar
Caldari, Katia, and Nishizawa, Tamotsu. 2011. “Marshall’s Ideas on Progress: Roots and Diffusion.” In Kurz, Heinz, Nishizawa, Tamotsu, and Tribe, Keith, eds., The Dissemination of Economic Ideas. Aldershot: Edwar Elgar, pp. 125–157.Google Scholar
Currie, Martin, and Steedman, Ian. 1990. Wrestling with Time. Problems in Economic Theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Dardi, Marco. 2003. “Alfred Marshall’s Partial Equilibrium: Dynamics in Disguise.” In Arena, Richard and Quéré, Michel, eds., The Economics of Alfred Marshall. Revisiting Marshall’s Legacy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 84–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dasgupta, Amiya Kumar. 1990. “An Aspect of Marshall’s Period Analysis.” In Whitaker, John K., ed., Centenary Essays on Alfred Marshall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 242–257.Google Scholar
De Vroey, Michel. 2005. “Marshall versus Walras on Equilibrium and Time.” Discussion paper 47. London: University College London.Google Scholar
Eatwell, John. 1997. “History versus Equilibrium.” In Arestis, Philip, Palma, Gabriel, and Sawyer, Malcolm, eds., Capital Controversy, Post-Keynesian Economics and the History of Economic Thought. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 386–397.Google Scholar
Groenewegen, Peter. 1995. A Soaring Eagle: Alfred Marshall. 1842–1924. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Guillebaud, Claude. 1952. “Marshall’s Principles of Economics in the Light of Contemporary Economic Thought.” Economica 19 (74): 111–130.Google Scholar
Harcourt, C. Geoffrey. 2012. “On the Concepts of Period and Run in Economic Theory.” In Gehrke, Christian, Salvadori, Neri, Steedman, Ian, and Sturn, Richard, eds., Classical Political Economy and Modern Theory. London: Routledge, pp. 257–265.Google Scholar
Hart, Neil. 2012. Equilibrium and Evolution. Alfred Marshall and the Marshallians. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hicks, John. 1985. Methods of Dynamic Economics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Malthus, Thomas Robert. [1798] 1966. First Essay on Population. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Malthus, Thomas Robert. 1821. Principles of Political Economy Considered with a View to Their Practical Application. Boston: Wells and Lilly.Google Scholar
Marcuzzo, Maria Cristina. 1997. “Short-Period Economics in Retrospect.” In Arestis, Philip, Palma, Gabriel, and Sawyer, Malcolm, eds., Capital Controversy, Post-Keynesian Economics and the History of Economic Thought. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 398–409.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. [1890] 1920. Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1919. Industry and Trade. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1923. Money, Credit and Commerce. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred, and Marshall, Mary Paley. 1879. Economics of Industry. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Metcalfe, John Stanley. 2007. “Alfred Marshall’s Mecca: Reconciling the Theories of Value and Development.” Economic Record 83: S1–22.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1898. Principles of Political Economy. Edited with an introduction by Laurence Laughlin, J.. New York: Appleton and Company.Google Scholar
Opie, Redvers. 1931. “Marshall’s Time Analysis.” The Economic Journal 41 (162): 199–215.Google Scholar
Ricardo, David. [1821] 1983. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. Volume I of The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. Edited by Sraffa, Piero and Dobb, Maurice H.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robertson, H. Dennis. 1952. Utility and All That and Other Essays. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Robertson, H. Dennis. 1957. Lectures on Economic Principles. Volume 1. London: Staples.Google Scholar
Robinson, Joan. 1978. History versus Equilibrium. Thames Papers in Political Economy. London: Thames Polytechnic.Google Scholar
Say, Jean-Baptiste. [1826] 1867. A Treatise on Political Economy or the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Wealth. A translation of the fifth edition. Philadelphia: J.P. Lippincott & Co.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1957. The Wealth of Nations. Introduction by Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman. Two volumes. London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Whitaker, John Kenneth. 1975. The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall, 1867–1890. Two volumes. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Whitaker, John Kenneth. 1982. “The Emergence of Marshall’s Period Analysis.” Eastern Economic Journal 8 (1): 15–29.Google Scholar
Whitaker, John Kenneth. 1996. The Correspondence of Alfred Marshall. Three volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar