13.07.2015 Views

Prices and knowledge: A market-process perspective

Prices and knowledge: A market-process perspective

Prices and knowledge: A market-process perspective

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

A theory of the <strong>market</strong> <strong>process</strong> 9THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF EQUILIBRIUMIn spite of the centrality of equilibrium to economic theory, mosteconomists have been using what Hahn (1984a:8) describes as a‘sloppy equilibrium concept’. 1 Although equilibrium has frequentlybeen associated with situations of <strong>market</strong>-clearing, 2 the essentialproperty of equilibrium, as Hayek (1937) pointed out, is the perfectco-ordination of individual plans. The confusion may have arisenbecause this wider definition will often include situations of <strong>market</strong>clearing.However, it is the perfect co-ordination of plans that allowsthe theorist to imagine that in such a state no further change will occur,thus allowing him to speak of equilibrium.Frank Hahn (1984a:44), who describes himself as a neoclassicaleconomist, has, in a Hayekian vein, described equilibria as ‘thosestates in which the intended actions of rational economic agents aremutually consistent <strong>and</strong> can therefore be implemented’. 3 Thestochastic equilibrium notion he has in mind would be consistentwith ‘short enough <strong>and</strong> rare enough episodes of uncleared <strong>market</strong>s,’although it ‘implies almost the missing traditional complement that<strong>market</strong>s are cleared’ (Hahn 1984a:60). Stiglitz (1987: 28) has alsorecently pointed out some limitations in the traditional notion ofequilibrium. According to him,Traditional theory has taken the equality of supply <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> tobe part of the definition of equilibrium. This, I think, is wrong. 4And, he adds,the equality of dem<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> supply should not be taken as adefinition of equilibrium, but rather as a consequence followingfrom more primitive behavioral postulates.For Stiglitz, equilibrium is better defined as ‘a state where noeconomic agents have an incentive to change their behavior’. Such astate can occur only when there remain no unexploited profitopportunities. As long as any opportunity continues to exist there isthe possibility that the agents will discover it <strong>and</strong> disturb the existingsituation (which therefore is not properly described as in equilibrium).In other words, equilibrium occurs only once agents have discoveredall the available opportunities <strong>and</strong> once they know they have done so.(As will be indicated below, this situation is compatible with the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!