Backhouse and Boianovsky on "disequilibrium theory". A review article of transforming modern macroeconomics. Exploring disequilibrium microfoundations, 1956–2003

Michel De Vroey
2014 European Journal of the History of Economic Thought  
In this review article of Backhouse and Boianovsky's book, Transforming modern macroeconomics. Exploring disequilibrium microfoundations, 1956Exploring disequilibrium microfoundations, -2003, I make the following points: (a) Backhouse and Boianovsky's too broad understanding of the disequilibrium approach results in their bringing together theories that should be kept separate. While the disequilibrium label fits the works of Patinkin, Clower and Leijonhuvud, it betrays the project of Barro and
more » ... roject of Barro and Grossman, Drèze and Benassy who strived at producing an equilibrium theory. (b) I put in question their claim that an inner link exists between disequilibrium and fixed price equilibrium theories and imperfect competition modeling. (c) I try to identify the deep nature of the controversy in which these authors were involved. (d) I put forward a few conjectures about the reason why fixed price modeling petered out.
doi:10.1080/09672567.2014.916733 fatcat:vndiz3aijnaknaf7lt5h2pm4xy