This note shows that much conventional macro‐economic literature uses two inconsistent definitions of equilibrium in the commodity market. Equilibrium is defined as income equalling expenditure when deriving the IS curve; but when overall equilibrium is treated the requirement for equilibrium is that planned supply equals planned demand. The note shows that these inconsistent definitions lead to a confusing and often erroneous exposition of disequilibrium behaviour.
The series is designed to bring together those mathematicians who are seriously interested in getting new challenging stimuli from economic theories with those economists who are seeking effective mathematical tools for their research. A lot of economic problems can be formulated as constrained optimizations and equilibration of their solutions. Various mathematical theories have been supplying economists with indispensable machineries for these problems arising in economic theory. Conversely, mathematicians have been stimulated by various mathematical difficulties raised by economic theories.
I discuss the role of economic theory in empirical work in development economics with special emphasis on general equilibrium and political economy considerations. I argue that economic theory plays (should play) a central role in formulating models, estimates of which can be used for counterfactual and policy analysis. I discuss why counterfactual analysis based on microdata that ignores general equilibrium and political economy issues may lead to misleading conclusions. I illustrate the main arguments using examples from recent work in development economics and political economy.
AbstractBuilt on the fictional concept of equilibrium, mainstream economics provides a method of analysis that, when paired with the calculus, enables relatively easy identification of maximum and minimum values. Lacking empirical evidence of its behavioral assumptions, the profession accepts such familiar claims as consumer maximization of utility and business firm maximization of profit or revenue. In place of the relatively static concept of equilibrium, the Veblen‐Myrdal notion of circular and cumulative causation (CCC) arguably has greater descriptive capability and more penetrating insight for policy recommendations. This article traces the historical origins of both concepts and argues that CCC offers considerable potential for a broad, dynamic, interdisciplinary, more thorough, and more accurate analytical framework. Specific examples of work that has been done along with suggestions for future applications of this concept are given.
Abstract Most philosophers of economics are hostile towards neoclassical economics in general and general equilibrium theory in the vein of Arrow and Debreu in particular. Especially the latter's dismissal is justified by pointing out its lack of direct relevance for an understanding of real economies. Many recommend a more pragmatic approach along the lines of Keynes instead. The criterion of scientific legitimacy underlying this approach derives from a philosophy of science developed along the lines of Popper and Lakatos. They, however, neglect the importance of conceptual problems and of the choice of adequate 'language-systems' in science. Since these conceptual and 'linguistic' aspects may be able to explain and to justify the rationale of the Arrow-Debreu approach, I recommend the more balanced philosophies of Carnap and Laudan, in which conceptual as well as empirical problems are allowed for, as a framework for methodological appraisal. I explain why such a balanced view is obstructed for most philosophers of economics and advocate a moderate pluralism leaving room for different theories, methodologies and language-systems, depending on the scientific aims that are pursued.
