Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:20:32.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Mark Blaug
Mark Blaug
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam and Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Something happened to economics in the decade of the 1950s that is little appreciated by most economists and even by professional historians of economic thought. The subject went through an intellectual revolution as profound in its impact as the so-called Keynesian Revolution of pre-war years. I call it the Formalist Revolution after Ward (1972, pp. 40–41), who was the first to recognize the profound intellectual transformation of economics in the years after World War II.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 25 , Issue 2 , June 2003 , pp. 145 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2003

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

Arrow, K. J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley & Son.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. and Debreu, G.. 1954. “Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy.” Econometrica 22 (07): 265–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. and Creedy, J., eds. 1999. From Classical Economics to the Theory of the Firm: Essays in Honour of D. P. O'Brien. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. 1990. The Methodology of Economics, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. 1997a. “Competition as an End-State and Competition As a Process.” Not Only an Economist: Recent Essays. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: pp. 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, M. 1997b. Economic Theory in Retrospect, 5th edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, M. 1999. “Misunderstanding Classical Economics: The Sraffian Interpretation of the Surplus Approach.” History of Political Economy 31 (2): 213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, M. 2003. “The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s.” In Samuels, Warren J., ed., The Blackwell Companion to The History of Economic Thought.” Oxford: Basil Blackwell, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Clower, R. C. 1994. “Economics As an Inductive Science.” Southern Economic Journal 60 (4): 805–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, M. L. 1998. General Equilibrium: Analysis and the Theory of Markets. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debreu, G. 1959. Theory of Value: An Axiomatic Analysis of Economic Equilibrium. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dorfman, R., Samuelson, P. A., and Solow, R. M.. 1958. Linear Programming and Economic Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Dosi, G. and Winter, S. G.. 2002. “Interpreting Economic Change: Evolution, Structure and Games.” The Economics of Choice, Change and Organizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 128–51.Google Scholar
Fisher, F. M. 1983. Disequilibrium Foundations of Equilibrium Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giocoli, G. 2000a. “Fixing the Point: The Contribution of Early Game Theory to the Tool Box of Modern Economics.” Unpublished paper, Department of Economics, University of Pisa.Google Scholar
Giocoli, G. 2000b. Equilibrium and Rationality in Modern Economics: From the Years of “High Theory” to the Foundation of Modern Game Theory. Ph.D. thesis, Universita degli Studi di Firenze.Google Scholar
Hahn, F. 1973. On the Notion of Equilibrium in Economics: An Inaugural Lecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Reprinted in F. Hahn, Equilibrium and Macroeconomics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984, pp. 43–71.Google Scholar
High, J., ed. 2001. Competition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ingrao, B. and Israel, G.. 1990. The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, H. J. 1996. “On the Foundations of Nash Equilibrium.” Economics and Philosophy 12 (04): 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirman, A. 1989. “The Intrinsic Limits of Modern Economic Theory: The Emperor Has No Clothes.” Economic Journal 99 (Supplement): 126–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirzner, I. 2000. “Competition and the Market Process: Some Doctrinal Milestones.” In Krafft, J., ed., The Process of Competition. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 11–26.Google Scholar
Koopmans, T. C. 1957. Three Essays on the State of Economic Science. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Leonard, R. J. 1994. “Reading Cournot, Reading Nash: The Creation and Stabilisation of Nash Equilibrium. Economic Journal 104 (05): 492–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsey, R. C. 2001. “Success and Failure in the Transformation of Economics.” Journal of Economic Methodology 8 (06): 169–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luce, R. D. and Raiffa, H.. 1957. Game and Decisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Luenberger, D. G. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Machovec, F. M. 1995. Perfect Competition and the Transformation of Economics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mas-Collel, A., Whinston, M. D., and Green, R.. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mehrling, P. G. 1997. The Money Interest and the Public Interest: American Monetary Thought, 1920–1970. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Milath, G. J. 1998. “Do People Play Nash Equilibrium? Lessons from Evolutionary Game Theory?” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (3): 1347–74.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. 2002. Machine Dreams: How Economics Became a Cyborg Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. S. and Rutherford, M.. 1998. “American Economics: The Character of the Transformation.” In From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism, Annual Supplement, History of Political Economy 30: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nash, J. F. 1996. Essays in Game Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, R. R. 1981. “Assessing Private Enterprise: An Exegesis of Tangled Doctrine.” Bell Journal of Economics 2 (1): 93–111. Reprinted in P. J. Boettke, ed., The Legacy of Friedrich von Hayek, Vol. III. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patinkin, D. 1956. Money, Interest and Prices: An Interpretation of Money and Value Theory. Evanston, IL: Peterson. 2nd edition, Abridged, New York: Harper & Row, 1989.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1947. Foundations of Economic Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. 1989. “How Foundations Came To Be.” Journal of Economic Literature 36 (3): 1375–86.Google Scholar
Solow, R. M. 1957. “Technical Change and the Aggregate Production function.” Review of Economics and Statistics 39 (08): 312–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sraffa, P. 1960. Production of Commodities by Means of Commodities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Starr, R. M. 1997. General Equilibrium Theory: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. A. 1996. Walras's Market Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, D. A. 1997. Advances in General Equilibrium Theory. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Ward, B. 1972. What's Wrong with Economics? London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. R. 1991. Stabilizing Dynamics: Constructing Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weintraub, E. R. and Mirowski, P.. 1994. “The Pure and the Applied: Bourbakism Comes to Mathematical Economics.” Science in Context 7 (2): 245–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yonay, Y. P. 1998. The Struggle over the Soul of Economics: Institutionalist and Neoclassical Economics in America Between the Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziman, J. 2000. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar