Response to De Vroey

Roger E. Backhouse; Mauro Boianovsky

doi:10.1080/09672567.2014.923012

Response to De Vroey

Roger E. Backhouse^*, Mauro Boianovsky

^*Corresponding author for this work

Economics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This paper is a response to Michel De Vroey's review of our book, published in this issue of EJHET. Differently from De Vroey's, our aim is to understand the theoretical choices with which economists believed they were confronted at the time. This is reflected in the organisation of our book, the selection of topics (disequilibrium, imperfect competition, etc.), and the conclusions about the fate of disequilibrium macroeconomics.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	743-749
Number of pages	7
Journal	European Journal of the History of Economic Thought
Volume	21
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/09672567.2014.923012
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 25 Jun 2014

Keywords

Disequilibrium
imperfect competition
macroeconomics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Arts and Humanities(all)
Economics, Econometrics and Finance (miscellaneous)
History and Philosophy of Science

Access to Document

10.1080/09672567.2014.923012Licence: None: All rights reserved

Cite this

@article{7ebf62767dd54e0bb203882c7d9dc99d,

title = "Response to De Vroey",

abstract = "This paper is a response to Michel De Vroey's review of our book, published in this issue of EJHET. Differently from De Vroey's, our aim is to understand the theoretical choices with which economists believed they were confronted at the time. This is reflected in the organisation of our book, the selection of topics (disequilibrium, imperfect competition, etc.), and the conclusions about the fate of disequilibrium macroeconomics.",

keywords = "Disequilibrium, imperfect competition, macroeconomics",

author = "Backhouse, {Roger E.} and Mauro Boianovsky",

year = "2014",

month = jun,

day = "25",

doi = "10.1080/09672567.2014.923012",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "743--749",

journal = "European Journal of the History of Economic Thought",

issn = "0967-2567",

publisher = "Taylor & Francis",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Response to De Vroey

AU - Backhouse, Roger E.

AU - Boianovsky, Mauro

PY - 2014/6/25

Y1 - 2014/6/25

N2 - This paper is a response to Michel De Vroey's review of our book, published in this issue of EJHET. Differently from De Vroey's, our aim is to understand the theoretical choices with which economists believed they were confronted at the time. This is reflected in the organisation of our book, the selection of topics (disequilibrium, imperfect competition, etc.), and the conclusions about the fate of disequilibrium macroeconomics.

AB - This paper is a response to Michel De Vroey's review of our book, published in this issue of EJHET. Differently from De Vroey's, our aim is to understand the theoretical choices with which economists believed they were confronted at the time. This is reflected in the organisation of our book, the selection of topics (disequilibrium, imperfect competition, etc.), and the conclusions about the fate of disequilibrium macroeconomics.

KW - Disequilibrium

KW - imperfect competition

KW - macroeconomics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907777418&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09672567.2014.923012

DO - 10.1080/09672567.2014.923012

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84907777418

SN - 0967-2567

VL - 21

SP - 743

EP - 749

JO - European Journal of the History of Economic Thought

JF - European Journal of the History of Economic Thought

IS - 4

ER -

Response to De Vroey

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this