On the Origin of the Notion of "Intertemporal Equilibrium"

Milgate, Murray

doi:10.2307/2553092

Cited by 95 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The statements of Lindahl quoted above would seem to corroborateMilgate's (1979) claim, which has been criticized byCurrie & Steedman (1990, pp. 86-87), that underlying Lindahl's analysis is a desire to circumvent the problem of defining the 'quantity of capital'.…”

mentioning

confidence: 73%

On the Transition from Long-period to Short-period Equilibria

Gehrke

2003

Review of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper examines the contributions of Myrdal, Lindahl, Hicks and Hayek that initiated the transition from the traditional long-period method to the methods of 'intertemporal' and 'temporary equilibria' in neoclassical general equilibrium analyses. It is shown that in the early contributions the idea of a tendency towards a long-period position was not completely abandoned, and that the new 'dynamic' equilibrium concepts were conceived by some of their originators as useful analytical devices for studying transitions between long-period equilibria only.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 73%

On the Transition from Long-period to Short-period Equilibria

Gehrke

2003

Review of Political Economy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…16. For the origin of the new notions of equilibrium, see also Milgate (1979) and Gehrke (2003). 17.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Second Stage of the Cambridge Capital Controversy

Fratini

2019

Journal of Economic Surveys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The second stage of the Cambridge capital controversy concerns the neo‐Walrasian theory of value and distribution. Since production is not understood in this theory as employing factors of production but rather commodities, that is goods and services with date and place of delivery, some scholars maintained that it is not affected by the problems that emerged, during the first stage of the controversy, as regards the conception of capital as a factor of production and the rate of interest as the price for its use. The reply of the ‘neo‐Ricardians’ was based on two arguments. The first regarded the relevance of the new notions of equilibrium adopted in the neo‐Walrasian approach, with particular reference to temporary and Arrow–Debreu equilibria, and the second the possibility that the phenomena of re‐switching and reverse capital deepening, by affecting the working of the saving‐investment market, could cause equilibrium multiplicity and instability also in a neo‐Walrasian framework.

show abstract

“…294, 308;1988, pp. I can be brief because the issue has been ably discussed already (Garegnani 1976 ;Murray Milgate 1979 , and1982, pp. Interestingly, Walras did not mention those two passages when, in the preface, he listed the changes of that edition, as if he had wanted them to remain unnoticed.…”

Section: Why the Dominance Of Long-period Notions Of Equilibrium mentioning

confidence: 99%

Blaug Versus Garegnani on the ‘Formalist Revolution’ and the Evolution of Neoclassical Capital Theory

Petri¹

2014

J Hist Econ Thought

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a series of papers, Mark Blaug has accused modern, mainstream economic theory of sterility because of the abandonment of “competition as a process,” tracing the cause to the Formalist Revolution of the 1950s. The paper agrees with the criticism but disagrees on the cause, which is, rather, to be found in the shift from the treatment of capital as a single factor of variable ‘form’ to a Walrasian specification of the capital endowment as a given vector, a datum incompatible with the role of equilibrium as a center of gravitation of time-consuming adjustments. The shift was due, as shown by Pierangelo Garegnani, to unease in the 1930s with the conception of capital as a single factor, a fact neglected by Blaug but historically evident and a cause of great uncertainty in capital theory in subsequent decades. The conclusion is that, to avoid the sterility of neo-Walrasian equilibria, one cannot return to Alfred Marshall with his inconsistent notion of capital as a single factor, but Blaug himself indicates another possible direction.

show abstract

On the Origin of the Notion of "Intertemporal Equilibrium"

Cited by 95 publications

References 12 publications

On the Transition from Long-period to Short-period Equilibria

On the Transition from Long-period to Short-period Equilibria

On the Second Stage of the Cambridge Capital Controversy

Blaug Versus Garegnani on the ‘Formalist Revolution’ and the Evolution of Neoclassical Capital Theory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About