IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mes/postke/v37y2015i4p687-703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perfect competition, methodologically contemplated

Author

Listed:
  • John F.M. McDermott

Abstract

The concept of perfect competition embodies a formal contradiction, precisely as would that of “the largest integer.” The ascription of legitimate meaning to the concept, as in George J. Stigler’s well-known 1957 essay, “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated,” is demonstrably circular, hence methodologically unacceptable. Mathematical problems arising from the concept are explored and it is these that give rise to the contradiction, as is demonstrated. Paradoxically, the elimination of perfect competition and its supporting canon comes at no cost to a scientific, that is, empirically oriented economics.

Suggested Citation

  • John F.M. McDermott, 2015. "Perfect competition, methodologically contemplated," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 687-703, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:mes:postke:v:37:y:2015:i:4:p:687-703
    DOI: 10.1080/01603477.2015.1050335
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01603477.2015.1050335
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01603477.2015.1050335?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Keaney, 2020. "Book Review: Employers’ Economics vs Employees’ Economy: How Adam Smith’s Legacy Obscures Public Investment in the Private Sector," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 52(2), pages 338-340, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mes:postke:v:37:y:2015:i:4:p:687-703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/MPKE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.