Show Less
You do not have access to this content

Time, Space and Capital

Åke E. Andersson and David Emanuel Andersson

In this challenging book, the authors demonstrate that economists tend to misunderstand capital. Frank Knight was an exception, as he argued that because all resources are more or less durable and have uncertain future uses they can consequently be classed as capital. Thus, capital rather than labor is the real source of creativity, innovation, and accumulation. But capital is also a phenomenon in time and in space. Offering a new and path-breaking theory, they show how durable capital with large spatial domains — infrastructural capital such as institutions, public knowledge, and networks — can help explain the long-term development of cities and nations.
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 14: Looking ahead

Åke E. Andersson and David Emanuel Andersson

Extract

The theory of competitive equilibrium is a natural starting point for most economists—whether they approach a partial, general, applied or theoretical market problem. The basic ideas were formulated in the eighteenth century by Adam Smith, and refined and mathematically reformulated by Léon Walras and Gustav Cassel. Mathematicians Abraham Wald and Gérard Debreu brought the theory in contact with modern mathematics and could show that a general equilibrium of non-negative prices and quantities could exist under seemingly reasonable axiomatic assumptions of convexity of preferences and production techniques.

General equilibrium theory is based on an analysis of the differential equations dz/dt=g(z), with z = a vector of excess demands, and dp/dt = f(p) having an equilibrium if (g(z), f(p)=0 or ≤0) and (z,p≥0). The derivation of f(p) and g(z) from preferences and production possibilities of all the numerous agents was an impressive effort by twentieth-century economists and mathematicians.

There are three key issues in general competitive equilibrium theory:

Much of the elegance of general equilibrium theory (GET) was achieved at considerable expense in terms of axiomatic simplifications. Indivisibilities and other causes of increasing returns are not compatible with the theory, and interdependencies between producers or consumers can generate positive feedback loops that destroy the stability of the equilibrium states.

These problems are to a great extent the result of the formulation of GET as a static and space-free construct. Debreu’s “trick”—which was...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.


Further information

or login to access all content.