ISSN:
1572-9982
Source:
Springer Online Journal Archives 1860-2000
Topics:
Economics
Notes:
Summary Walras' Law occupies an important place in the discussions about some famous controversies such as the Patinkin-controversy and that between the Loanable Funds Theory and the Liquidity Preference Theory. After a brief introductory section about the contents and the basis of this theorem, the question of the traditionally attached identity predicate is discussed. In this connection it seemed useful to distinguish between: (a) equilibrium equations, (b) falsifiable identities, and (c) tautological identities. Walras' Law belongs to the class of falsifiable identities, because — given the assumption of the validity of the budget principle and the traditionally used definition of the excess demand concept — the Walrasian Theorem is valid even in disequilibrium situations, although it can be falsified in the real world. The second part of this study has been devoted to the question for which economic models this law can be said to be appropriate. In this connection the criticisms of Hansen, Rose, Archibald and Lipsey, Patinkin, Clower, and Tsiang have been thoroughly studied. The final conclusion is that the expressed criticisms cannot stand up, unless the underlying assumptions are changed,e.g., if a system of highly monopolized markets is chosen in stead of the traditional general equilibrium analysis based on perfect or monopolistic competition. Generally speaking, we may say that Walras' Law is also valid in inflationary, unemployment or non-tâtonnement models, because these additional assumptions do not necessarily violate the above-mentioned underlying assumptions of the Walrasian Theorem. These basic assumptions are very useful and fairly reasonable in such a general equilibrium analysis, but they are neither necessarily inevitable nor always sufficiently realistic.
Type of Medium:
Electronic Resource
URL:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02367284
Permalink