Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:33:30.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Keynes and the Marshall-Walras Divide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Michel De Vroey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is a sequel to De Vroey (1998d) and (1998e). In these papers, I pondered upon the relationship between the Marshallian and the Walrasian research programs and defended the view that a divide should be drawn between them, contrary to the opinion of the majority of economists who see no need for such. I argued that these research programs differ on two scores. First, they are based on different conceptions of equilibrium. Second, they differ on the way in which they broach the issue of the working of the decentralized economy. The hallmark of the Marshallian approach is that it proceeds in two steps. The working of particular markets is analyzed in a first stage whereas the issue of their coordination is assigned to the second stage of the inquiry. Contrarily, the hallmark of the Walrasian approach is to immediately start the analysis at the level of the economy as a whole. Put differently, in the Marshallian approach, partial equilibrium analysis is seen as a first preliminary step to general equilibrium analysis, whereas in the Walrasian approach one immediately proceeds with the latter. The aim of the present paper is to show the incidence of this twofold difference on the interpretation of Keynesian theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1999 , pp. 117 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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, R., Hausman, D., Mäki, U., and Salanti, A., eds. 1998. Economics and Methodology: Crossing Boundaries. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Benassy, J-P. 1975. “Neo-Keynesian Disequilibrium Theory in a Monetary Economy.” Review of Economic Studies 42: 503–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barro, R. and Grossman, H.. 1971. “A General Disequilibrium Model of Income and Employment.” American Economic Review 61: 82–93.Google Scholar
Barro, R. 1976. Money, Employment and Inflation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clower, R. [1965] 1984. “The Keynesian Counterrevolution: A Theoretical Appraisal.” In Walker, D., ed., Money and Markets: Essays by Robert Clower. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34–58.Google Scholar
Clower, R. [1975] 1984. “Reflections on the Keynesian Perplex.” In Walker, D., ed., Money and Markets: Essays by Robert Clower. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 187–208.Google Scholar
Clower, R. 1989. “Keynes' General Theory: The Marshall Connection.” In Walker, D., ed., Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought, Vol. II. London: Edward Elgar, 133–147.Google Scholar
Darity, W. Jr. and Young, W.. 1995. “IS-LM: An Inquest.” History of Political Economy 27: 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vroey, M. 1997. “Involuntary Unemployment: The Missing Piece in Keynes' General Theory.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 4: 258–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vroey, M. 1998a. “Accounting for Involuntary Unemployment in Neoclassical Theory. Some Lessons from Sixty Years of Uphill Struggle.” In Backhouse, R., Hausman, D., Mäki, U., and Salanti, A., eds. 1998, Economics and Methodology: Crossing Boundaries. London: Macmillan, 177–224.Google Scholar
De Vroey, M. 1998b. “Marshall on Equilibrium and Time: A Reconstruction.” Mimeo.Google Scholar
De Vroey, M. 1998c. “Is the Tâtonnement Hypothesis a Good Caricature of Market Forces?” The Journal of Economic Methodology 5: 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vroey, M. 1998d. “Equilibrium and Disequilibrium in Economic Theory: A Confrontation of the Classical, Marshallian and Walras-Hicksian Conceptions.” Mimeo (forthcoming in Economics and Philosophy).Google Scholar
De Vroey, M. 1998e. “The Marshallian Market and the Walrasian Economy: Two Incompatible Bedfellows.” Mimeo (forthcoming in The Scottish Journal of Political Economy).Google Scholar
De Vroey, M. 1998f. “IS-LM ‘à la Hicks’ versus IS-LM ‘à la Modigliani’.” Mimeo, forthcoming in History of Political Economy.Google Scholar
Drèze, J. H. 1975. “Existence of Equilibrium Under Price Rigidities.” International Economic Review 16: 301–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 1968. “The Role of Monetary Policy.” American Economic Review 58: 1–17.Google Scholar
Frisch, R. 1950. “Alfred Marshall's Theory of Value.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 64: 495–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrard, Bill 1995. “Keynes, the Keynesian and the Classics: A Suggested Interpretation.” The Economic Journal 105: 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, S., ed., 1947. The New Economics: Keynes' Influence on Theory and Public Policy. New York: A.A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Harrod, R.F. [1937] 1947. “Mr Keynes and Traditional Theory.” In Harris, S., ed., The New Economics: Keynes' Influence on Theory and Public Policy. New York: A.A. Knopf, 591–605.Google Scholar
Hayek, F.A. von. [1937)] 1948. “Economics and Knowledge.” In Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 33–55.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. [1937] 1967. “Mr Keynes and the ‘Classics’.” In Critical Essays in Monetary Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 126–142.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1946. Value and Capital, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. [1979] 1983. “The Formation of an Economist.” In Classics and Moderns Collected Essays on Economic Theory, Vol. III. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 355–364.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1980. “IS-LM: an Explanation.” Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1989. A Market Theory of Money. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, K.D. 1995. “Relative Wages, Rationality, and Involuntary Unemployment in Keynes's Labor Market.” History of Political Economy 27: 653–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, K.D. 1998. “Comment: Keynes, Marshall and Involuntary Unemployment.” In Backhouse, R., Hausman, D., Mäki, U., and Salanti, A., eds., Economics and Methodology: Crossing Boundaries. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keynes, J.M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leijonhufvud, A. 1984. “Hicks on Time and Money.” Oxford Economic Papers, Supplement: 26–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijonhufvud, A. 1998a. “Comment: Involuntary Unemployment One More Time.” In Backhouse, R., Hausman, D., Mäki, U., and Salanti, A., eds. Economics and Methodology: Crossing Boundaries. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leijonhufvud, A. 1998b. “Mr. Keynes and the Moderns.” The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 5: 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leontief, W. 1947. “Postulates: Keynes' General Theory and the Classicist.” In Harris, S., ed., The New Economics, Keynes Influence on Theory and Public Policy. New-York: A.A. Knopf, 232–242.Google Scholar
Malinvaud, E. 1977. The Theory of Unemployment Reconsidered. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. 1920. Principles of Economics, 8th ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Patinkin, D. 1965. Money, Interest and Prices, 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Patinkin, D. 1976. Keynes's Monetary Thought: A Study of Its Development. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Patinkin, D. 1987. “Keynes, John Maynard.” The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. London: Macmillan 3: 19–41.Google Scholar
Tobin, J. 1995. “The Natural Rate as New Classical Macroeconomics.” In Cross, R., ed., The Natural Rate of Unemployment: Reflections on 25 Years of the Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trevithick, J.A. 1992. Involuntary Unemployment: Macroeconomics from a Keynesian Perspective. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Walker, D. 1984 (ed.). Money and Markets: Essays by Robert Clower. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walras, L. 1954. Elements of Pure Economics, translated by Jaffé, W.. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. R. 1979. Microfoundations. The Compatibility of Microeconomics and Macroeconomics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar