View Original - Middle East Technical University

analysis which further polemicise the cotroversy around the terms of general
equilibrium as an explanandum of economic theory. For Friedman, Marshallian
partial equilibrium is indeed a special form of general equilibrium; for Stigler,
‘general equilibrium is a misnomer’ in that this method of analysis can at best be more
inclusive as to the data under study so that all general equilibrium analyses are a part
of Marshallian theory so long as certain data cannot be trivial but only outside the
ultimate theoretical quaesitum; and, for Dardi, partial equilibrium is about the overall
yet changing level of equilibrium in the economy as opposed to the equilibrium in
parts of the economy(De Vroey 2007:19-20). These pro-Marshallian disclaimers had
not however undersold efforts for a thoroughly Marshallian General Equilibrium
theory. In fact, this has been more than a velleity for certian entrepreneurs in
economic thinking because Walrasian General Equilibrium theory has a definitive and
decidedly holistic methodology of which Marshall’s industry-level analysis is scarcely
a counterpart. De Vroey even contrasts complex general equilibrium models(Arrow-
Debrue model a la Walras and Hart’s model a la Marshall) with simplified general
equilibrium models(real macroeconomics as Hicks’ IS-LM paradigm a la Marshall
and real business cycle models a la Walras) on top of an earlier two-fold category of
general equilibrium theories as Marshallian(imperfect/perfect competiton) and
Walrasian(perfect competition)(2004:59-60). To that effect, for Leijonhufvud, who
otherwise champions Marshallian methods since Marshall, unlike Walras, had been
privy to the fact that a model is not a theory(that is to say, insofar as a theory is an
explanatory method and a model is a mathematical scheme for that method, then not
all theoretical injunctions would have a practical ersatz in mathematical tables), the
real feat would be the design of a comprehensive and dynamic mathemetical model
for a general equilibrium system which would foremostly be a heuristic for structural
non-equilibrium and market failure in Marshallian/Keynesian terms.
Since the mid-1970s, new neoclassical theory and new Keynesian theory has been the
forerunners in mainstream economics. Boyer considers the miasma around economic
theory as a consequence especially of the abstrusely pollyannaish foray of these two
theories(and even others) toward a broad enough General Equilibrium method of
61