Walras’ “Economics and Mechanics”: Translation, Commentary, Context

Part of the Recent Economic Thought Series book series (RETH, volume 21)


The place of Leon Walras in the history of Western economic thought would appear honorable and secure. One of the earliest to proclaim his stature was Joseph Schumpeter (1954, p. 827): “So far as pure theory is concerned, Walras is in my opinion the greatest of all economists. His system of economic equilibrium, uniting as it does, the quality of ‘revolutionary’ creativeness with the quality of classic synthesis, is the only work by an economist that will stand in comparison with theoretical physics.” In the interim, this conviction has become institutionalized to such an extent that the recipient of the 1983 Nobel Prize in economics could assert that, “Walras wrote one of the greatest classics, if not the greatest, in our science” (Debreu, 1984, p. 268).


Political Economy General Equilibrium Marginal Utility Celestial Body Celestial Mechanic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bertrand, Joseph. 1883. “Compte Rendu.” Journal des Savants (**):499–508.Google Scholar
  2. Black, R.D.C.; Coats, A.R.; and Goodwin, C., eds. 1973. The Marginal Revolution in Economics. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boninsegni, P. 1903. “Un Nuovo Tratto D’Economia Mathematica.” Giornali degli Economisti 30: 327–336.Google Scholar
  4. Bouvier, Emile. 1901a. “L’Economie Politique Mathématique.” Revue Critique de Legislation et de Jurisprudence 30: 623–629.Google Scholar
  5. Bouvier, Emile. 1901b. “La Méthode Mathématique en Economie Politique.” Revue D’Economie Politique 15: 817–850.Google Scholar
  6. Debreu, Gerard. 1984. “Economics in a Mathematical Mode.” American Economic Review 74: 267–278.Google Scholar
  7. Etner, F. 1986. “L’Enseignement Economique dans les Grandes Ecoles.” Economies et Sociétés 20: 159–173.Google Scholar
  8. Giedymin, Jerzy. 1982. Science and Convention. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Jaffe, William. 1983. Donald Walker, ed. Essays on Walras. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Laurent, Hermann. 1870. Traité de Mécanique Rationelle. Paris: Gauther-Villars.Google Scholar
  11. Laurent, Hermann. 1902. Petit Traité d’Economie Politique Mathématique. Paris: Schmid.Google Scholar
  12. Markus, Gyorgy. 1987. “Why is There No Hermeneutics of Natural Science?” Science in Context 1: 5–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCloskey, Donald. 1985. The Rhetoric of Economics. Madison: University of Wiscons in Press.Google Scholar
  14. Menard, Claude. Forthcoming 1988. “The Machine and the Heart.” Social Concept.Google Scholar
  15. Mirowski, Philip. 1984. “Physics and the Marginalist Revolution.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 8: 361–379.Google Scholar
  16. Mirowski, Philip. 1987. “Shall I Compare Thee to a Minkowski-Ricardo-LeontiefMetzler Matrix of the Mosak-Hicks Type?” Economics and Philosophy 3: 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mirowski, Philip. 1988. Against Mechanism. Totawa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  18. Mirowski, Philip. Forthcoming. More Heat Than Light. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Picard, Charles. 1908. La Science Moderne et son état actuel. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
  20. Poincaré, Henri. 1952. Science and Hypothesis. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  21. Poinsot, Louis. 1842. Eléments de Statique. Eighth edition. Paris: Bachelier.Google Scholar
  22. Schumpeter, Joseph. 1954. A History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Walker, Donald. 1987. “Walras’ Theories of Tâtonnement.” Journal of Political Economy 95: 758–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Walras, Leon. 1909. “Economique et Mécanique.” Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise de Sciences Naturelles 45: 313–325.Google Scholar
  25. Walras, Leon. 1965. William Jaffe, ed. Correspondence and Papers. 3 vols. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  26. Walras, Leon. 1969. Elements of Pure Economics. Translated by William Jaffe. New York: Kelley.Google Scholar
  27. Weintraub, E.R. 1985. General Equilibrium Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Zoretti, Ludovic. 1906. “La Méthode Mathématique et les Sciences Sociales.” Revue du Mois 2: 355–365.Google Scholar
  29. Beardsley, Monroe C. 1969. “Metaphor.” In Paul Edwards, ed. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Collier-Macmillan, pp. 284–289.Google Scholar
  30. Black, R.D. Collison. 1972. “W.S. Jevons and the Foundation of Modern Economics.” History of Political Economy 4: 364–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Boyd, Richard. 1979. “Metaphor and Theory Change: What is ‘Metaphor’ a Metaphor For?” In Andrew Ortony, ed. Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 356–407.Google Scholar
  32. Cohen, J. Bernard. 1985. Revolution in Science. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap.Google Scholar
  33. Feiwel, George R. 1987. Arrow and the Ascent of Modern Economic Theory. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gentner, Dedre. 1983. “Structure Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy.” Cognitive Science 7: 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hahn, Frank. 1984. Equilibrium and Macroeconomics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Hesse, Mary B. 1966. Modern and Analogies in Science. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  37. Hesse, Mary B. 1974. The Structure of Scientific Inference. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  38. Holton, Gerald and Roller, Duane. 1958. Foundations of Modern Physical Science. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  39. Jevons, W.S. 1920/1877. The Principles of Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  40. Jevons, W.S. 1879/1965. The Theory of Political Economy. New York: Kelley.Google Scholar
  41. Jevons, W.S. 1977a. R.D. Collison Black, ed. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons. Volume I II. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. Jevons, W.S. 1977h. R.D. Collison Black, ed. Papers and Correspondence of William Stanley Jevons. Volume I V. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Kargon, Robert. 1969. “Model and Analogy in Victorian Science: Maxwell’s Critique of the French Physicists.” Journal of the History of Ideas 30: 423–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, eds. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–196.Google Scholar
  45. Magnus, Phillips. 1876 Lessons on Elementary Mechanics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Mirowski, Philip. 1984a. “Physics and the `Marginalist Revolution.”’ Cambridge Journal of Economics 8: 361–379.Google Scholar
  47. Mirowski, Philip. 1984b. “The Role of Conservation Principles in Twentieth-Century Economic Theory.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 14: 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mirowski, Philip. Forthcoming. More Heat Than Light. Oxford and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Samuelson, Paul. 1950. “The Problem of Integrability in Utility Theory” Economica 17: 355–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Weintraub, E. Roy. 1980. Microfoundations. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wulwick, Nancy J. 1989. “Phillips’ Approximate Regression.” Oxford Economic Papers, 41: 170–88.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations