| Abstract: | This article deals with the neglecct of the economics profession towards Hick's change of mind, after Value and capital, concerning the appropriateness of the use of the notion of temporary equilibrium analysis. In what follows a reconstruction and critical evalaiton of Hicks's views on the legitimacy of the equilibrium method will be undertaken. It will be argued that Hicks's rejection of both the traditional (long-period) marginalist general equilibrium and the post-Walrasian alternative of temporary or intertemporal equilibrium raises wider issues that pose problems for contemporary treatments of such matters. |
