Menger’s causal-realist analysis in modern economics

Carl Menger pioneered a unique theoretical research method which served as the foundation of the early Austrian school of economics. Menger’s causal-realist analysis was revived and formalized just before and after World War 2 by Ludwig von Mises as the “praxeological method.” Murray Rothbard, a student of von Mises’, utilized the method in formulating a comprehensive system of economic theory in his treatise, Man Economy, and State published in the early 1960s. Rothbard’s treatise became the foundational work for the “Austrian revival” in the 1970s. In this paper, we address several issues related to the role of Menger’s method in modern economics. First, ample evidence is adduced that von Mises and Rothbard each expressed a surprising ambivalence with respect to his own work in relation to the early Austrian school. Second, von Mises viewed Rothbard’s treatise as beginning a new epoch in economic theory. Third, contrary to the conventional view, a careful analysis of his treatise shows that Rothbard drew heavily on the contemporary neoclassical literature in developing his theoretical system and that his intent was never to set up a heterodox movement to challenge mainstream economics. Rather, his main aim was to consistently apply the praxeological method to rescue economics from what he considered the alien methodology of positivism, which was imported into economics after World War 2. Lastly, I will tentatively suggest that the term “Austrian economics” as the designation for the intellectual movement that coalesced in the early 1970s may now have outlived its usefulness. This term, which initially served an important strategic purpose in promoting the revival of the broad Mengerian tradition, may have come to obscure the meaning and importance of the praxeological research paradigm that Menger originated.     

On not doing due diligence: Bagus and Howden on free banking

In their recent article in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Bagus and Howden (2010) present “quibbles” with fractional-reserve free banking. Specifically, they raise what they call “unaddressed issues” in this system, with a particular emphasis on Selgin (1988). We deem their arguments to be more substantial than “quibbles” and see them as part of a longstanding debate about fundamental aspects of monetary theory. We respond to their objections and attempt to specify how debate between the two sides might proceed more productively.     

Theory,history, and the great recession

This paper honors Don Lavoie’s work on the relationship between theory and history in Austrian economics by using the current recession as an example of many of the ideas found in his paper on the “Interpretive Dimension of Economics.” More specifically, I start from the premise that all history comes from theory because it is theory that guides what we count as “facts” or “data.” From Menger onward, a core element of the Austrian approach has been to see the purpose of theory as rendering human action and its unintended consequences intelligible. We do that by telling historical narratives where theory is the logical glue that holds the story together. I look at the Austrian story of the Great Recession in light of these ideas. What the Great Recession demonstrates is that the core theoretical elements of Austrian business cycle theory are narrower than we might think, but that consciously recognizing the contingent elements gives the theory additional flexibility to explain more of various real-world crises when augmented by additional ideal typifications properly used.     

Liberty and Economic Growth in Adam Smith’s Possible World

Constitutional economics proposes and pursues a solution to public-policy problems, one that supplies rules designed to narrow the opportunity set of rational politicians. This work proposes and pursues “rational policy” as a complementary strategy to solve public-policy problems, where rational policy is public-policy that actualizes Adam Smith’s simple system of natural liberty. When individuals pursue their objectives by means of exchange in Smith’s simple system of natural liberty, they foster the growth of per-capita income. By contrast, all limitations on liberty limit the growth of per-capita income. The paper concludes by presenting two implications that follow from these conclusions. JEL classification: B31, H1     

Is H.A. Simon a theoretician of decentralized planning? A comparison with F.A. Hayek on planning,market, and organizations

Herbert A. Simon acknowledged Friedrich A. Hayek as a founder of the notion of bounded rationality; yet Simon considered Hayek’s perspective incomplete, and, more in general, their views on market mechanisms, planning, and organization exhibit considerable differences. The comparison between these authors sheds light on Simon’s interpretation of planning, which emerges within his theory of organization (and not in traditional debates on socialism). Contrary to Hayek, he maintained that planning, in specific circumstances, is more advantageous than the market; and in both administration and organization, it involves a decentralized structure based on near independent sub-units. Decentralization of decisions also appears in social planning, which evolves through continuous interactions among planners (i.e., agents and institutions), and it is a process connoted by the absence of “fixed goals”. Finally, Simon defined modern economies more in terms of “organizational economies” than in those of “market economies” and this highlights a further difference with respect to the Austrian economist. This leads to analysis of the nature of organizations as hierarchical and “near-decomposable” structures, which refers to Simon’s theory of complexity and gives an epistemological explanation to the relation between centralization and decentralization.     

Thought experiments, counterfactuals and comparative analysis

This article discusses the problem of “thought experiments” in Austrian economics and takes as a starting point Lawrence Moss’ argument on the divide between the older Austrian economists—for whom thought experiments were crucial—and the new generation that, in Moss’ view, has “abandoned” such methods. The article is an attempt not only to bridge this alleged divide but also to contribute to the development of the Austrian methodology. It is argued that what may be perceived as “abandonment” bolsters rather than precludes the role of thought experiments in the Austrian paradigm. The article identifies an entire family of comparative and counterfactual analysis research strategies available to the Austrians, all enjoying a solid epistemological and methodological grounding. The “comparative-counterfactual analytics” pattern threads together the conjectural histories, spontaneous orders and empirical case studies of the contemporary Austrians, with the classic tradition of older works. Consequently, the recent evolution of Austrian scholarship should not be seen as an aberration or abandonment but as a deliberate, natural and commendable development.

Exchange and evolution

This paper offers an extension of the distinction of [Kohn, Cato Journal, 24:303–339 (2004)] between the two paradigms of modern economic theory—value and exchange—as derived from the generic–operant framework of [Dopfer and Potts, The general theory of economic evolution, Routledge, London, (2007)]. I argue that Austrian and evolutionary economics can be analytically unified about a general framework of rule coordination and change that I shall call the generic value paradigm. This is an analytic generalization of Kohn’s “exchange paradigm” that will allow us to redefine his conception of the “value paradigm” as the operational value paradigm in terms of the economics of known and fully exploited opportunities. The generic value paradigm, in turn, underpins the economics of the growth of knowledge and the evolution of the economic order as an open-system process due to the origination, adoption, and retention of novel generic rules. Austrian economics is then circumscribed as a special case of the more general “generic” analysis of the coordination and evolution of economic rules.      

Economics,Democracy, and the Distribution of Capital Ownership

This article holds that widespread, practical access to capital acquisition is essential for sustainable widespread economic prosperity and democracy. The founders of the U.S.A. agreed that sustainable democracy required widespread ownership of land to provide a viable earning capacity sufficient to support robust participation in democratic government. The importance of widespread land ownership to individual prosperity and sustainable democracy was supported not only by the prevailing philosophical views of property, it was also apparent to the common man and woman. Compared to Europe, America offered widespread access to land ownership, higher wages, better work conditions, cheaper staples and greater individual freedom, equal opportunity, prosperity, and political participation. This conviction that widespread access to ownership is a necessary condition for widespread prosperity and sustainable democracy continued throughout most of the nineteenth century, but today public discourse reveals virtually no trace of this once universally held opinion. This article suggests that the disappearance of this conviction can be traced to an erroneous view shaped by neoclassical economics and Keynesian economics. According to this view, (1) the disappearance of the American frontier and industrialization made the goal of widespread capital ownership either impractical or of little or no economic significance and (2) by way of technological advance, sufficient earning capacity and consumer demand to promote growth and sustain democracy can be achieved, without widespread ownership, primarily through jobs and welfare. Although differing in many respects, both mainstream schools, along with Adam Smith’s classical economics, share one common but unstated economic assumption: the broader distribution of capital acquisition (in itself) has no fundamental relationship to the fuller employment of people and capital, the broader distribution of greater individual earning capacity, and growth. Contemporary thinking, shaped by these economic schools, also tacitly assumes that widespread capital ownership is not essential for the sustainable individual earning capacity needed to support robust democracy. This erroneous “ownership-neutrality assumption” (1) contradicts both the views of America’s founders and the colonial experience, and (2) provides theoretical justification for structuring capital markets and capital acquisition transactions to unfairly and dysfunctionally favor existing owners at the expense of broader ownership distribution, more widely shared prosperity, greater efficiency, ecologically friendly growth, and a vital democracy. America’s conscientious founders would be shocked by the diminished importance of the distribution of ownership in the mainstream analysis of prices, efficiency, production, growth, and democracy. Rather than enhancing democracy, they would view the “ownership-neutrality assumption” of mainstream economics as contributing to its deterioration and corruption. They would openly search for economic analysis built on an alternate assumption more consistent with their understanding of the requisite conditions for sustainable democracy. This article advances an economic analysis that suspends the ownership-neutrality assumption, replaces it with a “broader-ownership-growth assumption,” and suggests a voluntary market strategy for substantially broadening capital ownership, enhancing individual earning capacity, and providing the widespread economic prosperity needed for robust democracy.     

The time structure of production in the US, 2002–2009

The US time structure of production during the 2002 through 2009 business cycle is characterized empirically using industry-level input-output data. An industry’s total industry output requirement (TIOR) is proposed as a metric for “roundaboutness”. I find that the time structure of production lengthened following the Federal Reserve’s 2002 expansionary deviation from the Taylor rule and then contracted during the Great Recession. Value added growth in the most-roundabout of US industries accelerated relative to that of the least-roundabout industries. Heading into the Great Recession, value-added growth in the most-roundabout industries contracted early and turned negative in 2007 while value-added growth in the least-roundabout industries remained positive until 2009. The stylized facts of the time structure of production are consistent with Austrian Business Cycle Theory.     

Mere quibbles: Bagus and Howden’s critique of the theory of free banking

Despite its title, Philipp Bagus and David Howden’s critique of The Theory of Free Banking does more than merely “quibble” with that book’s arguments; their criticisms of those arguments are such as to suggest that the very foundation upon which my defense of free banking rests is deeply flawed. Here, I defend my work against Bagus and Howden’s criticisms, by showing that they rest upon careless or disingenuous readings of my arguments and a poor grasp of basic monetary economics.     

The Arrow-Debreu model: How math can hide a fatal conceptual error

I argue that math, like love, can cover a multitude of sins, and I use the neoclassical object of adoration, the Arrow-Debreu model, as the case in point. It is commonplace that the Arrow-Debreu (AD) model of general equilibrium does not describe the real world, but it is equally commonplace to accept it as representing the pure logic of the competitive capitalist economy in an idealized world free of transactions costs. I show that the AD model fails even as an idealized model; it actually mistakes the logic of pure capitalism. Unlike McKenzie’s model of idealized general equilibrium under constant returns to scale, Arrow and Debreu claim to have shown the existence of competitive equilibrium under decreasing returns to scale and positive pure profits. The AD model (again unlike the McKinzie model) needs to assign the profits to individuals and this is done using the notion of “ownership of the production set.” But this notion suffers from a fatal ambiguity. If Arrow and Debreu interpret it to mean “ownership of a corporation” then a simple argument in the form “labor can hire capital or capital can hire labor” defeats the alleged necessity of assigning residual claimancy to the corporation. A given corporation may or may not end up exploiting a set of production opportunities (represented by a production set) depending on whether it hires in labor and undertakes production or hires out its capital to others (all by assumption at the parametrically given prices). In the latter case, residual claimancy is elsewhere. There is no such property right as “ownership of a production set” in a private property market economy. The legal party which purchases or already owns all the inputs used up in production has the defensible legal claim on the outputs: there is no need to also “purchase the production set.” At any set of prices that allow positive pure profits, anyone in the idealized AD model could bid up the price of the inputs and thus try to reap a smaller but still positive profit. Therefore,pace Arrow and Debreu, there could be no equilibrium with positive pure profits. In the Appendix, the property rights fallacy that afflicts the AD model is shown to also afflict orthodox capital theory and corporate finance theory. World Bank The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations or to the members of its Board of Directors or the countries they represent.     

Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant: On Markets,Duties, and Moral Sentiments

This note points out a neglected parallel between the philosophies of Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant related to their views on self-interest, morality, and society. First, I explain the distinction between Kant’s perfect and imperfect duties, and how they result from his moral philosophy. Next, I summarize Smith’s two major perspectives on human behavior, as presented in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, and discuss the apparent conflict between them. Finally, I use Kant’s two types of duties, along with his concept of the kingdom of ends, to explicate my interpretation of the relationship between Smith’s two strains of thought. By explaining these dual aspects of Kant’s ethical system in relation to Smith, I hope to give a new perspective on the apparent duality in Smith’s thought, as well as help bring out the oft-neglected social aspects of Kant’s.     

Globalisation and local labour markets

This paper begins with a review of the literature on the labour market’s impact of globalisation. An interesting case-study is provided by the province of Brescia, an industrial area in Northern Italy, where both de-localisation and immigration have been two important means of reducing the pressure of labour demand on the locally scarce human resources. The conclusion is that, in order to preserve competitive positions in the long run, it is worthy to consider the qualitative consequences, e.g. the indispensable changes in the structure of production, rather than focusing on the quantitative effects on domestic employment. This paper was presented at the International Conference on “Developments in Economic Theory and Policy, Institutions and European Integration”, Bilbao, 15–17 July, 2004. It is part of a wider research: see the Working Paper by Albertini and Marelli (2003). The sections prepared by S.Albertini, referring to organisational change and human resources management implications, are not included in this final paper. I am grateful to anonymous referees for helpful comments.     

The underdevelopment of service industry in china: An empirical study of cities in Yangtze River Delta

The service industry in China is underdeveloped, in comparison with not only the past experience of developed countries at the similar level of GDP per capita, but also other similar developing countries at present. We define this deviation of China’s service industry from the development trend in other countries as the “development deviation puzzle,” and propose a conceptual framework based on the “manufacturing cost disease” hypothesis to understand the reasons behind this puzzle. We test our hypothesis using the data from the urban cluster in Yangtze River Delta. The results indicate that labor productivity growth in service industry is driven by capital investment and the “development deviation puzzle” is indeed rooted in the “manufacturing cost disease.” Our analysis suggests that, to correct the underdevelopment of service industry, the strategy of investment-driven industrialization and urbanization must be changed. Expansion of producer services is important in increasing the intensities of human capital and foreign investment.     

FDI and environmental regulation: pollution haven or a race to the top?

Increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) flows accompanied with globalization have raised the concern of a “race to the bottom” phenomenon in environmental protection. This is because footloose investors of “dirty” industries tend to relocate to “pollution havens” of the developing world. However when pollutant is transboundary (as in the case of greenhouse gases), the source country’s incentive to relocate and the recipient country’s willingness to host such industries are not straightforward. This article studies the relationship between FDI and environmental regulation using a North–South market share game model in a two-country setting, when pollution is transboundary. Contrary to the pollution haven hypothesis, our model shows that if market sizes of the two countries are small, FDI will raise the emission standard of the host country, resulting in a “race-to-the-top” phenomenon; but if market sizes are large enough, FDI will not change the emission standard of the South (from its laxest form), a finding that is consistent with the “regulatory chill” argument. Equilibrium FDI is contingent on the fixed cost of FDI, as the traditional proximity–concentration tradeoff theory predicts.     

Distribution dynamics and convergence in Latin America: A non-parametric analysis

This paper examines the dynamics of income distribution and convergence in Latin America during the period 1960 to 2000. Our results, based on the intradistribution dynamics approach, reveal a “twin peaks” dynamics, which echoes findings reported for the OECD, the Asia Pacific Basin and worldwide. Notable differences, however, are found between the income dynamics in Latin America and in these other regions. Further, our findings indicate that physical capital investment and health capital serve to explain Latin America’s “twin peaks” polarization. Other factors, such as geographical proximity, trade openness and human capital, are also found to help explaining it to some extent. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions of the referee.     

Reputation, control rights and game equilibrium

Using the reputation model of Kreps (1982), Vickers (1986) and Barro(1986), we develop a dynamic game model with incomplete information to examine the relations between the managers of state-owned enterprises(SOEs) in China and the government as the enterprise’s owner. Employing the model, we show that even a noncoopertive manager will not intrude the owner’s interests until the last period of his term in order to maximize his long term utility. The paper also discusses some phenomenona in state-owned enterprises in China, such as “insiders’ control”, “59 phenomenon” and excess on-the-job consumption.      

Knowledge shifts and the business cycle: When boom turns to bust

Informational cascades can be used to augment the existing Austrian business cycle theory. As first-order users of knowledge know the direct causes of a price change, they transmit this knowledge to second-order users through the price system. Banks with direct knowledge of the sources of the fresh liquidity during a credit-induced boom have knowledge of the boom’s artificial and unsustainable nature. Higher order users lack this direct knowledge and hence continue investing largely ignorant of underlying developments. When first-order users of knowledge sense the boom has run its course, they exit the market, sending a strong signal to higher order knowledge users that the boom has ended—a fragile situation built upon an informational cascade begins collapsing. Simultaneously, the boom is characterized by an influx of capital and knowledge into the financial sector owing to increased profits relative to the real economy stemming from Cantillon effects surrounding the credit injection. As knowledge pertaining to real production has also exited, the bust commences with a misallocated productive structure requiring equilibration to become consistent with consumers’ wants. Actions which inhibit this knowledge from returning to the productive structure will unnecessarily lengthen the time to recovery.     

Institutional framing and perceptions of fairness

This paper's goal is to construct a positive theory of economic fairness. Using the theoretical schema developed by Hurwicz and others, the paper makes precise the notions of an “institution,” “fairness fraiming,” and “institutional framing.” Four fairness propositions yield an important corollary: the economic environment, the operative institution and history give meaning to the often used FORMAL PRINCIPLE OF DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE (“equals should be treated equally, and unequals unequellay, in proportion to relevant similarities and differences”). We support these four propositions and corollary by an analysis of laboratory, survey, and anecdotal evidence. Finally we describe a number of areas for future research. The authors would like to thank Allen Buchanan, James Buchanan, Joel Feinberg, Elizabeth Hoffman, David Schmitz, Linda Schnabel Stizer, Vernon Smith, Richard Wagner, the participants in the Aspen Institute's Conference on “Local Justice and Fair Allocation”, the members of the Industrial Organization Workshop of the Department of Economics at the University of Arizona, and panel participants at the Public Choice Society Meeting for their help and comments at various stages of this paper's preparation. Responsibility for errors is the authors' alone.