A survey of evolutionary policy: normative and positive dimensions

We explore public policy from the perspective of evolutionary analysis. Potential entry points for developing a normative evolutionary policy theory are examined, which involves a critical examination of the related idea of “evolutionary progress”. The meaning of evolutionary policy is next studied from two different, normative and positive angles: namely, policy design informed by evolutionary thinking; and policy-making and politics as an evolutionary process. Several examples are provided to discuss the value of evolutionary thinking for policy, including in the context of the current economic crisis. Next, evolutionary policy is compared with policy advice coming from two dominant schools of policy analysis, namely neoclassical economics and public choice theory. We conclude that evolutionary thinking offers a distinct and useful perspective on public policy change and design. Nevertheless, there is a need for more synthesis and coherence among different studies as well as for policy experiments and in-depth empirical studies.     

The behavioral foundations of Austrian economics

Behavioral and experimental economics present challenges to the neoclassical theory of individual behavior, which is based on individuals making choices within the framework of utility functions that are assumed to have certain well-defined characteristics. Results in behavioral and experimental economics have shown that it is common for individual behavior to systematically deviate from the neoclassical axioms of utility maximization. Austrian economics is also based on axiomatic theories of utility maximization, but the assumptions underlying utility-maximizing behavior are much weaker in the Austrian approach. As a result, they have more solid behavioral foundations and are less subject to challenge by the empirical findings of behavioral and experimental economics. Neoclassical policy conclusions are often overly strong because of its behavioral foundations which are challenged by behavioral and experimental economics and are often misleading because of the comparative static nature of neoclassical welfare economics. For purposes of policy analysis, the Austrian approach provides better insights because of its more realistic behavioral foundations.     

The irrelevance of normative considerations for founding an Austrian law and economics: Reply to Marciano

In a comment on my paper, ??An Austrian approach to law and economics, with special reference to superstition?? (Leeson 2012), Marciano contends that Posnerian foundations ??may be problematic for an Austrian approach to law and economics??. In this reply I argue that the differences between Posner and Austrians that Marciano uses as the basis for his contention are normative. If, as Austrians claim, Austrian economics is purely positive, those differences are irrelevant to the appropriate foundations for an Austrian law and economics. They pose no problem for a Posnerian founding.     

Profit Expectations and Confidence: Some unresolved issues in the Austrian/Post-Keynesian debate

Austrian and Post-Keynesian economists both continue to make important contributions to subjectivism in economics. Yet, as the ongoing debate between members of the two schools demonstrates, Austrians and Post-Keynesians have very different views about the possibility of intertemporal coordination in a market economy. This paper returns to the debate between Hayek and Keynes in order to respond to a contemporary Austrian critique of Keynes's theory of expectations. The paper shows that the fundamental difference between the two schools ultimately boils down to the nature of conventional expectations and the question of confidence. If the conventional expectation holds to assume the future will look enough like the present to give investors confidence in their decisions, Hayek's arguments about the possibility of intertemporal coordination merit attention. If, however, this convention does not hold, as Keynes thought was sometimes likely, the self-regulating potential of a market economy is called into question.     

Lachmann and the wilderness: On Lachmann's radical subjectivism

Abstract

This paper deals with the question why in the 1940s and 1950s Ludwig Lachmann (1906–1990) failed to revive Austrian economics. Lake Keynes and Hayek, Lachmann pointed out that expectations, and hence knowledge, are important determinants of (cyclical fluctuations in) investment and economic activity. He thereby emphasized that the process of knowledge acquisition is indeterminate and open‐ended. This indeterminateness is difficult to reconcile with neoclassical attempts to provide economics with internally consistent microfoundations. This fundamental difference between his and the neoclassical research agenda explains Lachmann's failure to revive Austrian economics.     

Austrian Economics as a Progressive Paradigm: Explaining More Complex Economic Phenomena

This article examines two major issues of Austrian economics. The first is the alleged superiority of Austrian over neoclassical economics. The second is the capacity of Austrian economics to support new theoretical research. The analysis shows that Austrian economics has the widest domain of validity for explaining economic phenomena. It is also shown that Austrian economics has a progressive theoretical character due to the fact that there exist a number of analytical phenomena that Austrian economics cannot explain in its present state but that may be explained by means of a leap with continuity from Austrian anthropological presuppositions.     

Was there a Marxian bias in Austrian manufacturing? Evidence on the direction of technical change, 1978–1994

This paper presents a study of the bias of technical change for 20 industries of the Austrian manufacturing sector for the period 1978 to 1994 using empirical methods derived from both classical and neoclassical economics. Overall, the results suggest that the technical bias in Austrian manufacturing did not follow a Marxian pattern. Estimates based on the classical framework suggest that 5 out of the 20 industries show a Marxian bias over the period 1978–1994. Evidence based on a neoclassical CES production function is provided and critically evaluated.     

Entrepreneurship: Catallactic and constitutional perspectives

The most important distinction between Virginia political economy (VPE) and the other branches of public choice scholarship is a close affinity of the former to Austrian economics. Contributions in both the Virginia and the Vienna (Austrian) traditions have emphasized this connection and highlighted the analytical and ideological interdependencies of the two schools. This paper argues that an application of the Austrian theory of political entrepreneurship to the VPE framework can provide important insights regarding the direction of political change. Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship explains that coordination of individual action is possible where price signals provide information. When price signals are absent the entrepreneurial process breaks down. There is common ground between Kirznerian entrepreneurship and Buchanan’s creative action. Scholars at the intersection of the Virginia and the Vienna traditions can use this common ground to make pattern predictions regarding the direction of political change.     

Paths of the Weberian–Austrian Interconnection

This paper centers on the theoretical–methodological interconnections between Weber and the Austrian economists. First, the influence of classical Austrian economics, especially Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, on Weber is reexamined. Then we are concerned with the importance of Weber's ideas in neoclassical Austrian economics, including Schumpeter, Mises and Hayek. Also, Weber's legacy in modern economics is reconsidered. Since little research is done on these interconnections between Weber's sociology and Austrian economics, the paper thereby contributes toward spanning a gap in the present economic and sociological literature.     

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.      

Market Theoretical Frameworks—Which One?*

The problem of choice between theoretical frameworks forms the focal point of this paper. Its intention is to discuss a possible choice between two distinct approaches to the market order—the ‘neoclassical’ and the ‘Austrian’. Firstly, the basis upon which the two theoretical frameworks are distinguished is explained. Secondly, an attempt is made to show that the two are indeed different and to derive the implications of their differences for policy, for the practice of economics as a social science and for human well-being. Finally, a defensible criterion is suggested along with the ensuing choice, and an explanation is offered as to the relevance of such a choice.     

两种价值判断与改革目标选择--论新马克思经济学综合创新学派和新自由主义经济学派

从经济学中的价值判断入手,可将中国经济改革中的已形成的经济学派主要分为:新马克思经济学综合创新学派和新自由主义经济学派,由于它们有不同的价值观,从而对中国经济改革有不同的观点。中国的新自由主义经济学派秉承了西方新古典经济学传统,并在这种经济学价值判断指导下来思考、分析中国经济改革,从而进行相应的改革路径选择;而中国新马克思经济学综合创新学派则是基于马克思主义经济学的基本思想和理论逻辑,并在新的历史条件下进行综合创新和发展。它与中国新自由主义经济学派的最大区别在于:认为经济改革是通过社会主义制度的自我完善和发展来促进社会主义生产力发展,从而由社会主义的初级阶段过渡到更高阶段的社会主义。     

Neoclassical versus evolutionary economics in developing countries: convergence of policy implications

This paper aims to determine whether the dichotomy between the science, technology, and innovation policy based on neoclassical and evolutionary schools of economics is applicable to developing countries. Regarding the fundamental differences in foundations of these two economic paradigms, policymakers have been forced to select and to follow one of the two seemingly competing views. However, in developing countries, due to various market and government coordination failures, complying with one of the schools has not been successful in practice. From the past, there has been some controversy between neoclassical and evolutionary schools on the subject of science, technology and innovation policy. Using a survey questionnaire and statistical analyses of the results, this paper shows that, due to the institutional setting and structural conditions in developing countries, despite the fundamentally different foundations of the competing schools of thought, the policy implications of the schools have converged. Drawing on Theme Analysis Method, the rationales are first conceptualized and then the fuzzy method is applied to reveal the respondents’ tendency to the extracted rationales and implications of the two competing schools. In conclusion, the statistical results validate the proposed hypothesis.     

From Vienna to Virginia: Exchange,rules, and social cooperation an introduction to the symposium

Serving as an introduction to the essays in this volume, we put forward an intellectual hardcore for a shared research agenda between Austrian and Virginia political economy. This research agenda rests on three pillars: exchange, rules, and social cooperation. Each of these pillars forms the distinctive flavor of Austrian and Virginian political economy with respect to theoretical approach, types and applications of empirics, and even to normative questions. Our essay explores the meaning of these pillars with respect to the broader study of political economy, as well as the intellectual superstructure of each respective school.     

Examining social processes with agent-based models

It is plain that the Austrian revival that began in the 1970s has yet to succeed in convincing the mainstream of the academy to jettison their physics-based mathematical models in favor of the sort of models and forms of argumentation that contemporary Austrians advocate. Agent-based computational modeling is still in its relative infancy but is beginning to gain recognition among economists disenchanted with the neoclassical paradigm. The purpose of this paper is to assuage concerns that readers might have regarding methodological consistency between agent-based modeling and Austrian economics and to advocate its adoption as a means to convey Austrian ideas to a wider audience. I examine models developed and published by other researchers and ultimately provide an outline of how one might develop a research agenda that leverages this technique. I argue that agent-based modeling can be used to enhance Austrian theorizing and offers a viable alternative to the neoclassical paradigm.     

Emergence versus neoclassical reductions in economics

ABSTRACT

Many epistemic anomalies of the neoclassical research programme originate from its ontologically reductionist meta-axioms, which predicate how economic macro-systems are constituted from their micro-entities and how the latter behave – namely atomistic aggregativity, normative equilibration and global instrumental rationality. This paper explores the metaphysical foundations of the premise of emergence and argues that it can be a remedy to the ills of neoclassical reductions, and a foundational epistemic principle in a progressive systemic research programme in economics, which would bridge existing streams of ‘heterodox’ economic theory.     

The economics of Frank H. Knight: An Austrian interpretation

This paper interprets, in the modern Austrian economics perspective, Frank H. Knight's three core contributions; namely, economic methodology, theories of human action, uncertainty and entrepreneurship. Though Knight is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Chicago School of economics, this paper argues that Knight's contributions are essentially Austrian. Influenced by William James, Henri Bergson and Max Weber, Knight's subjectivist economics can be seen as a link between Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises in the history of Austrian subjectivism. This paper further suggests that Knight may be more appropriately located in the Austrian-German School, for the reason that the term “Austrian School” is too narrow to accommodate german influences. This paper concludes that Knight's legacies have left much to be appreciated by neoclassical mainstream economists in general and Austrian economists in particular. The author thanks Dian Kwan for her proof reading in this essay.     

Market process(es) and (un)knowledge

By extending an underdeveloped idea of Lachmann, I show that the Austrian theory of the market process à la Kirzner is unable to explain the diversity of market processes because it neglects the imperfect inter-market mobility of factors of production. I show that by taking into account the imperfect mobility of capital equipment and the associated reshuffling costs, it is possible to formulate a set of empirically testable implications about the unfolding of the market process. Furthermore, I show that reshuffling costs shape the context in which the learning process takes place and that the epistemic assumption of structural opacity on which the Austrian theory of the market process relies is not incompatible with the epistemics assumption of structural transparency of neoclassical economics. These epistemic assumptions can be seen as the two poles of a “knowledge spectrum”, from potential omniscience to sheer ignorance.     

Can neoclassical economics become social economics?

This essay has both a general and a specific purpose. Its general purpose is to pose the question: Can neoclassical economics be social economics? Its answer to this general question is: Yes, but only if it abandons its methodological soul; that is, by abandoning methodological individualism, positivism, and ahistoricism, and expressly and systematically adopting a methodological perspective which is holistic, normative, and historical. Its specific purpose is to identify and examine the major elements in the economics of one leading figure in the historical development of neoclassical economics who self-consciously attempted to combine, to paraphrase Schumpeter, a neoclassical head with a social economics heart: Alfred Marshall.     

Time-bound concepts in the catholic social teaching of the 19th and early 20th centuries

This essay has both a general and a specific purpose. Its general purpose is to pose the question: Can neoclassical economics be social economics? Its answer to this general question is: Yes, but only if it abandons its methodological soul; that is, by abandoning methodological individualism, positivism, and ahistoricism, and expressly and systematically adopting a methodological perspective which is holistic, normative, and historical. Its specific purpose is to identify and examine the major elements in the economics of one leading figure in the historical development of neoclassical economics who self-consciously attempted to combine, to paraphrase Schumpeter, a neoclassical head with a social economics heart: Alfred Marshall.