International Walras Association
Centre
d’économie de la Sorbonne
Against Walras
International
Conference, Paris, 25-26 September 2015
Call for papers
Walras has left us an outstanding legacy. Almost a century and a half
later, the initial formulation of general equilibrium theory continues to be
the cornerstone for a large part of the economic theory[1].
Walras’s intellectual heritage is allegedly well known: it is usually
paired in the history of general equilibrium, with a long litany of names, from
Pareto to Arrow and Debreu, including Cassel, Zeuthen, von Neumann, Wald,
Allais, Hicks and Samuelson. Yet, one can agree with Hildenbrand in saying that, insofar as the
edifice of general equilibrium theory constitutes a sort of great cathedral which
still retains all of its original glory, and whose first architect was Walras, it
hosts today under its vaults more admiring tourists than fervent believers[2].
Hence, the two standard and differing alternatives: Either to abandon
Walras to the gnawing criticism of his detractors, or to consider him as the
great inspirer of all modern economic theory. The purpose of this colloquium is
to explore another dimension of the influence of Walras’s thought. Walras’s
legacy is not limited to general equilibrium theory, or to social economics, or
to applied economics. This colloquium aims at turning the standard problematic,
which tends to be centred generally on Walras’s positive influence. By adopting
the opposite perspective, our subject seeks to study mainly those authors who
thought in opposition to Walras —against Walras. We thus admit that Walras’s influence might
initially have been a negative one, and that it may be the case that some
economists framed and developed their own theories in reaction to—or in opposition to Walras.
A non-exhaustive list of such postures opposing to Walras can thus be
sketched out:
Joseph A. Schumpeter disqualified both Walras’s social economics and
applied economics and denied them their status as significant contributions to
economic analysis. We have here an example of a negative reaction that seeks to
undermine a block of theory which Walras treats on an equal footing with pure
economics. Disequilibrium theory is
largely based on Walrasian economics despite its rejection of market clearing
assumptions and its introduction of a rational assumptions framework that is incompatible
with the canonical model. [3]
The rejection of Say’s law of markets, and hence of Walras’s Law, is a constitutive element of
Keynes’s theory.
Consideration might also be given to Marxian critiques and their
attempts to make use of a general equilibrium framework.
Similarly, the selective use of Walras’s theory by those who reject his
general line of argument but retain nonetheless certain of his instruments may
be brought into focus. For example, Leontief based his input-output analysis on Walras’s fabrication coefficients, and yet
rejected the idea that prices could be determined by the law of supply and
demand.
Critiques that characterize general equilibrium theory as being
empirical irrelevant due to its inability to resolve the question of the effective
determination of prices might also be brought into the discussion. For example, Hayek’s point on the role of
information, or the socialist calculation debate. —General or partial
equilibrium ?
Similarly, the
« new microeconomics » gradually built up on the scattered and
initially isolated criticisms of the Walrasian model can be evoked. This new microeconomics provides a
powerful framework to analyse imperfect competition through (e.g. game theory
& competition), it explores information problems (information economics),
and replaces the notion of exchanges by the notion of contracts; a notion
which, by the same token, introduces transaction costs. It was in strong
opposition to Walras that this new microeconomic apparatus was constructed.
One may also refer to matters related to wealth distribution, fiscal
policy, inequalities, relations between the individual and the state (or
society), public economics, economic liberalism, the theory of production, money,
competition analysis, etc.
The objective of the conference is hence to establish a dialogue between
old and contemporary economic theories, and to map their respective relations to
Walras’s work. It is thus open to both proponents and opponents to
Walras ; to historians or philosophers of economic theories, as well as to
contemporary theorists whose research once came into contact with Walras’s
thought.
*
* *
This conference is
organized by the Centre d’économie de la
Sorbonne (University Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne). It will be held in Paris,
25-26 September 2015, at the Maison des
sciences économiques (106-112, boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013 Paris).
Please
send submissions (500 words abstracts or full papers) to :
Annie.Cot @univ-paris1.fr or [log in to unmask]
Scientific commitee
Alain Alcouffe, University Toulouse 1, France; Antoine d'Autume, University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France ; Roberto Baranzini,
Centre Walras Pareto d'études interdisciplinaires de la pensée économique
et politique, University of Lausanne,
Switzerland;
Olav Bjerkholt, University
of Oslo, Norway; Pascal
Bridel, Centre Walras Pareto d'études
interdisciplinaires de la pensée économique et politique,
University of Lausanne, Switzerland; Bruce
Caldwell, Center for the History of
Political Economy, Duke University, United States ; Annie L. Cot,
University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France; Michel De Vroey,
University of Louvain, Belgium ; Rodolphe Dos Santos Fereira,
University of Strasbourg, France; Sheila
Dow, University of Stirling, Scotland; Pierre Dockès,
Centre Auguste et Léon Walras, Triangle-ISH, University Lyon 2, France; Roger Guesnerie,
Collège de France, Paris, France; Alan
Kirman, University of Aix-Marseille
III y Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Francia; Heinz Kurz,
University of Graz, Austria; Jérôme Lallement,
University Paris 5,
France; Philip Mirowski,
University of Notre Dame, United States;
Kayoko Misaki,
Shiga University, Japan; Jean-Pierre
Potier, Centre Auguste et Léon Walras,
Triangle-ISH, University Lyon
2, France; Yuichi
Shionoya, Hitotsubashi University, Japan;
Hans-Michael
Trautwein, Universität Oldenburg, Germany;
Jan van
Daal, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands;
Donald
A. Walker, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, United
States; E. Roy Weintraub, Duke University, United
States
Organizers
Amanar Akhabar,
ESSCA, Angers, France;
Niels
Boissonnet, Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne, France; Annie L. Cot,
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France; Erich
Pinzon Fuchs, Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne, France; Aurélien Goutsmedt,
Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France; Jérôme
Lallement, Université Paris 5, France; Tonia Lastapsis, Université
Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, France;
Francesco
Sergi, Université Paris 1
Panthéon-Sorbonne, France
*
* *
Further details will soon be available on the
conference website :
http://ces.univ-paris1.fr/membre/seminaire/CEE/againstwalras.htm
[3] See Michel De Vroey, Théorie du déséquilibre et
chômage involontaire, Revue Economique,
2004, 55(4) : 647-668.