Once described as “the greatest of all economists” by Joseph Schumpeter (Reference Schumpeter1954, p. 827), Léon Walras (1834–1910) is one of the most widely studied authors in the economics discipline. Walras is primarily associated with the emergence of marginalism and the development of general equilibrium theory. Studies on various aspects of his scholarship have flourished, but Walras’s work has often been subjected to reductive and erroneous interpretations (Béraud and Numa Reference Béraud and Numa2019). For this reason, Jean-Pierre Potier’s captivating book is a welcome addition to the literature. A Professor Emeritus of economics at Université Lumière Lyon 2 in France, Potier is one of the co-editors of the remarkable fourteen volumes of Auguste and Léon Walras’s Œuvres économiques complètes (1987–Reference Walras, Walras, Dockès, Goutte, Hébert, Mouchot, Potier and Servet2005). With his latest opus, Potier makes clear that there is still a lot to learn about the founder of the Lausanne School.

Potier’s monograph is an erudite collection of published and unpublished essays written over the past thirty years. It is a true book about the history of economic thinking. The reader can learn ample details about the life and works of Léon Walras, his writings and correspondence, his intellectual influences, and the reception of his ideas. The text is richly grounded in the primary and secondary literature. In short, it is a gold mine for both neophytes and specialists of Walras. With more than 560 pages, some may find the book a bit overwhelming. Considering the complexity of the topics covered and the quality of the material unearthed by the author, it is an advantage. On Walras, more is better.

In addition to the introduction and the conclusion, the book is structured in five parts of three to four chapters, making up a total of seventeen chapters. The chapters can be read in no particular order, a strength in my view. Part 1 examines the influence of Léon’s father, the economist Auguste Walras, and the scope of Walras’s political and social system. This part starts with a bombshell for those who may be unfamiliar with the literature. The misinterpretation and trivialization of Walras’s thinking started before his death by none other than Vilfredo Pareto (among others) and continued mainly in the English-speaking world. Potier indirectly confirms what several authors have previously shown: Pareto should not be considered an actual “disciple” of Walras. Indeed, Pareto was more of a critic than a proponent of Walras’s work (for instance, see Kirman Reference Kirman2021 and Steiner Reference Steiner, Béraud and Faccarello2000). The other noteworthy theme explored by the author is the filiation between Jean-Baptiste Say and Walras. The link between the two giants is obviously Auguste Walras.

Part 2 deals with Walras’s pure economics and its reception. Potier analyzes the genesis of his general equilibrium theory, viewed as the “coronation of his intellectual efforts” (p. 121). Potier convincingly demonstrates that Walras’s pure economics is neither “positive” nor “normative,” in contrast with the claims made by numerous biased analysts. It is also argued that for Walras free competition does not aim to represent a market structure—it has nothing to do with perfect competition; in fact, Walras’s free competition “is essentially a natural behavior of rational and free individuals, who benefit from specific institutions allowing them to fully exercise their freedom” (p. 161). Yet another important topic investigated in this part is the so-called walrasian auctioneer. Potier correctly points out that this fictional character is nowhere to be found in the Éléments d’économie politique pure. The walrasian auctioneer first appeared in Joseph Schumpeter’s lectures at Harvard in the mid-1930s. Paul Samuelson then “continued the rhetoric” in his MIT lectures starting in the early 1940s (p. 176). In the secondary literature, the fiction of the auctioneer has a lot to do with the incorrect translation of key passages of the Éléments by William Jaffé. According to Potier, in Walras’s idealized world the successful coordination of supplies and demands falls on the economist mathematician; concretely speaking, the coordination is undertaken by the agents themselves (pp. 175–176). His conclusion is that there is a tension between realistic description of market exchange and mathematical consistency in Walras’s work. I strongly believe, like Alan Kirman (Reference Kirman and Bridel2011, p. 113), that we should “accept the lack of consistency in Walras’ work rather than to make the necessary modifications to make it consistent. Thus, the fact that … the auctioneer is somehow implied by Walras’ analysis is not reason enough to argue that Walras had such a figure in mind.” Not all commentators will agree with the analyses contained in Part 2. However, I have found Potier’s arguments to be careful and balanced.

Part 3 studies Walras’s views on the teaching of political economy. The most interesting chapter addresses Walras’s searing criticisms of the French higher education system. Walras lashed out at elitism, incompetence, and nepotism in the promotion of faculty. He would be displeased (and probably not so surprised) to see how little has changed since the late nineteenth century (Jovanovic and Numa Reference Jovanovic and Numa2021). He also harshly criticized the fact that political economy was taught by young lawyers who never received any training in the discipline.

Part 4 expounds on Walras’s attacks against prominent French liberals and socialists. His favorite liberal targets were Michel Chevalier, Henri Baudrillart, Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, Émile Levasseur, and Léon Say, who became his arch-enemy in the mid-1880s. These five economists epitomized a form of “orthodox liberalism” (Walras’s term). Potier does not mince words. Walras “demonstrates a very imperfect knowledge of the works of the economists he criticizes” (p. 350). Walras also crusaded against “empirical socialism,” a term used to describe the ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Louis Blanc (among other authors). His disagreements with Proudhon are well documented; Potier therefore focuses his attention on Walras’s excoriation of Blanc’s ideas. The finest section deals with Walras’s complex relationship with the Saint-Simonians, a relatively overlooked topic in the literature. Potier provides the key to better understand and retrace the roots of Walras’s attempt to reconcile individualism with communism (pp. 328, 373, 433).

The last part analyzes the liberal socialism of Walras and his project of economic, social, and political reforms. Potier notes that, though some of Walras’s ideas evolved over time, two leitmotifs emerge from his thinking: i) solving the “social question” scientifically, and ii) the fact that concrete social reforms required the intervention of the State (pp. 405, 429). Potier first delves into Walras’s idiosyncratic views on the labor market and social insurance. The author reveals that for the young Walras, “any form of regulation would disrupt the spontaneous harmony deriving from the absolute principle of freedom of employment and trade” (p. 409). Walras would later admit that in some circumstances the intervention of the State was necessary to maintain the “normal” functioning of the labor market. In other words, the role of the State was to “organize competition” by facilitating labor mobility and the circulation of information (pp. 417–418). Potier then presents Walras’s plan to nationalize land and abolish taxation, a cornerstone of Walras’s applied and social economics. Potier’s research helps explain why, despite its attractiveness, Walras’s synthesis of liberalism and socialism remained a utopia. His views were considered too moderate for some and too extreme for others (p. 427). Next, the role of the State regarding public services and natural monopolies is considered. From the mid-1870s, Walras developed his thinking on the exceptions to the principle of free competition. Potier’s arguments confirm that the concepts of market failures and externalities can be used to characterize some aspects of Walras’s analysis of competition (Béraud and Numa Reference Béraud and Numa2019; Numa Reference Numa2012). We learn about the reforms of the French political system envisioned by Walras. He scolded the political elites for prioritizing principles over facts and reality (p. 470). On this issue, too, Walras would most likely notice how little has changed in French politics since his time. Potier’s overall message is clear: Walras was a reformer, not a revolutionary (p. 469).

The book fills numerous gaps in the secondary literature on Walras. Potier’s account is accurate and honest. Nevertheless, the book is marred by the absence of chapter numbering in the table of contents, even though the author frequently refers to specific chapter numbers throughout the text. This editorial blunder quickly becomes problematic for the reader. The other letdown is that the book is in French. An English translation would greatly facilitate the dissemination of this invaluable work.