Which School?
Finally, the meaning commonly attributed to the Ecole de Lausanne results from it being dazzled by mathematization, thus obscuring different incommensurable meanings of the general economic equilibrium and thereby giving exclusive priority to Pareto’s version.
In addition, the disciplinary rift such a definition of the School implies utterly betrays the spirit of it. The Ecole de Lausanne is built on the scientific project of the triptych; it developed together with the joint analysis of logical and non-logical actions; and the revival in favour of “politics” that occurred at the Nouvelle Ecole de Lausanne unsuccessfully recalled the necessary interdependence between the economic, social and political arenas. Though that school’s protagonists seem to beckon us to embark in that direction, it is paradoxical for historians of economic thought to use the phrase Ecole de Lausanne in a meaning that is rather related to doxography (Rorty 1984).Roberto Baranzini and Francois Allisson
See also:
Maurice Allais (I); Kenneth Joseph Arrow (I); Enrico Barone (I); Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz (I); Gustav Cassel (I); Competition (III); Econometrics (III); Gerard Debreu (I); Formalization and mathematical modelling (III); General equilibrium theory (III); John Richard Hicks (I); Oskar Ryszard Lange (I); Robert E. Lucas (I); Michio Morishima (I); Takashi Negishi (I); Maffeo Pantaleoni (I): Vilfredo Pareto (I); Don Patinkin (I); Paul Anthony Samuelson (I); Marie-Esprit-Leon Walras (I); Welfare economics (III); Knut Wicksell (I).