Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:23:01.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lakatosian Perspectives on General Equilibrium Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2009

Roger E. Backhouse
Roger E. Backhouse
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Comments
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , October 1993 , pp. 271 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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. 1991a. “The Neo-Walrasian Research Programme in Macroeconomics.” In Appraising Economic Theories: Studies in the Methodology of Research Programmes, edited by Neil de, Marchi and Mark, Blaug. pp. 403–26. Aldershot and Brook-field, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1991b. “Mathematics and the Axiomatization of General Equilibrium Theory.” University of Birmingham, Discussion Papers in Economics, 91–109.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger E. 1992. “Lakatos and Economics.” In Perspectives in the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 8, edited by Lowry, S. Todd, pp. 19–34. Aldershot and Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1990. “Reply to D. Wade Hands' ‘Second Thoughts on “Second Thoughts”: Reconsidering the Lakatosian Progress of The General Theory.’” Review of Political Economy 2:102–04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debreu, Gerard. 1959. The Theory of Value. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Debreu, Gerard. 1991. “The Mathematization of Economic Theory.” American Economic Review 81:1–7.Google Scholar
Green, Edward J.. 1981. “On the Role of Fundamental Theory in Positive Economics.” In Philosophy in Economics, edited by Pitt, Joseph C., pp. 5–15. Dordrecht, Boston, MA, and London: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Hahn, Frank H. 1984. Equilibrium and Macroeconomics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hahn, Frank H. 1991. “The Next Hundred Years.” Economic journal 101:47–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausman, Daniel M. 1992. The Inexact and Separate Science of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heijdra, Ben J., and Lowenberg, Anton D.. 1988. “The Neoclassical Economic Research Program: Some Lakatosian and Other Considerations.” Australian Economic Papers 27:272–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingrao, Bruna, and Giorgio, Israel. 1990. The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1971. “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In P. S. A. 1970 Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Buck, R. C. and Cohen, R. S., 8:95–135. Reprinted in Imre Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, edited by John, Worrall and Gregory, Currie. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre 1976. Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery, edited by John, Worrall and Elie, Zahar. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1925. Memorials of Alfred Marshall, edited by Pigou, A. C.. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1991. “Economic Science: A Search through the Hyperspace of Assumptions?” Methodus 3(1):6–16.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. 1981. “Unreal Assumptions in Economic Theory: The F-Twist Revisted.” Kyklos 34(3):377–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remenyi, J. V. 1979. “Core Demi-core Interaction: Towards a General Theory of Discipli-nary and Subdisciplinary Growth.” History of Political Economy 11(l):30–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Alex. 1986. “Lakatosian Consolations for Economics.” Economics and Philosophy 2:127–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salanti, Andrea. 1991. “Roy Weintraub's Studies in Appraisal: Lakatosian Consolations or Something Else?” Economics and Philosophy 7:221–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1985. General Equilibrium Analysis: Studies in Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1988. “The Neo-Walrasian Research Programme is Empirically Progressive.” In The Popperian Legacy in Economics, edited by Neil de, Marchi, pp. 213–27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1989. “Methodology Doesn't Matter, But the History of Thought Might.” Scandinavian journal of Economics. Reprinted in The State of Macroeconomics, edited by Seppo, Honkapohja, pp. 263–79. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.Google Scholar
Weintraub, E. Roy. 1991. Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar