Pluralism and heterodoxy in economic methodology

Economists work within models that are simplified depictions of reality. An argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics is that different approaches lend insight by looking at different phenomena from different viewpoints. While all economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, Austrian school economists must be more pluralistic in their understanding and presentation of ideas than mainstream economists if they want their ideas to have an impact on mainstream economics. Despite the argument for a pluralistic understanding of economics, in research, as in other activities, specialization increases productivity. While Austrian school economists can benefit from taking a pluralistic approach to understanding economics, they are likely to be most productive in their research by specializing in the development of Austrian school methods and ideas.     

Remembering Jim Buchanan

James Buchanan was an important influence on the Austrian revival and not incidentally on my own career. By taking the work of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Israel Kirzner seriously at a time when Austrian economics was ignored by the economics profession and by making his own contributions to subjectivist economics, Buchanan helped make the Austrian perspective professionally respectable, and inspired a generation of young economists interested in the Austrian school.     

Do economists have anything to contribute to the debate on urban sprawl? (and would anbody listen to them if they did?)

This essay explores reasons for the relative shortage of work by economists on the subject of urban sprawl. I argue that a correct economic understanding of the sprawl issue is difficult to communicate. Meanwhile, a simplified caricature of economic thinking on sprawl has emerged. It argues that decentralized, low-density development has been chosen by the “free market”, therefore the problem signified by the word sprawl does not exist. This argument, made in the name of economics but not always by economists, has served to polarize the detabe as much as to enlighten it. I propose an alternative understanding of the economics of sprawl that provides common ground for debate among economists, planners, and politicians. The author is associate director of the Center for Regional Economic Issues at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management. In a prior life, he studied cost-of-sprawl issues for the New Jersey Office of State Planning. Thanks go to Rachael Callanan for assistance on this paper.     

International impact of Austrian economists

This paper attempts to document the contributions of Austrian economists to the development of economics. To this purpose we investigated the publications in international economics journals as well as citations of Austrian economists in the period from 1980 to 1989. Our results show only a very limited presence of Austrian economists in the ongoing scientific discussions, with marked differences between university departments.

---

Zusammenfassung Die vorliegende Arbeit versucht, den Beitrag österreichischer Universitäts- und Forschungsinstitute zur internationalen Forschung in den Wirtschaftswissenschaften anhand von Publikationen und Zitationen für den Zeitraum 1980 bis 1989 quantitativ zu erfassen. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, daß österreichische Ökonomen in internationalen, besonders in anglo-amerikanischen Zeitschriften wenig präsent sind, wobei erhebliche Unterschiede zwischen den einzelnen Universitätsinstituten bestehen.

---

---

We are greatly indebted to R. Niegl (Universitätsbibliothek Wien), D. Spenger (University of Regensburg), and H. Wurm (University of Vienna) for compiling and processing the data.The circulation of earlier drafts as well as the presentation of our study at WIFO and IHS has aroused various responses, comments, and suggestions, most of them very interesting and stimulating, but too numerous to thank each of our colleagues individually. We feel, however, especially indebted to Gunther Tichy and Alexander Van der Bellen for their extensive written comments. Finally, we would like to thank three anonymous referees and the editor for valuable suggestions.     

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.     

Structure,agency and causality in post-revival Austrian economics: tensions and resolutions

Abstract

This paper aims to illustrate the benefits that accrue from critical realism's sustained, explicit reflection about ontological issues. The paper pursues this aim by examining the work of radical subjectivist Austrian economists as it has developed since the post-1974 revival in the fortunes of the Austrian school, focusing in particular on their account of the generation of socio-economic order in decentralized market economies. Ambiguities and tensions can be discerned in the radical subjectivist account of the causal forces at work in the market process. It is argued that the conceptual resources required for resolving those tensions and ambiguities are to be found in critical realism. The final section of the paper draws out some of the broader implications of the suggested resolution for radical subjectivist Austrian economics.     

Contributions of German and American jesuits to economics: The last 100 years

This article focuses on the contributions of six economists schooled in the Jesuit tradition. Four are Jesuit priests: Heinrich Pesch and Oswald von Nell-Breuning who are German, and Bernard Dempsey and Joseph Becker who are American. Two others, Goetz Briefs and William Waters, are lay persons who are referred to as “Jesuits without collars.” Five have direct ties to one another. Von Nell Breuning was a student of Pesch, as was Briefs. Waters was a student of Briefs, and Dempsey was influenced by Pesch and von Nell-Breuning. All five are solidarist economists who think about economics and economic affairs in a distinct way which originates with Pesch. Today they would be called personalist economists. The distinctive work of these six Jesuits is barely visible in the ranks of academic economists. Their contributions should be highlighted before they are lost forever to those who sense there is something inadequate about mainstream economics.     

Good Judgment,Good Luck: Frank Fetter’s Neglected Theory of Entrepreneurship

Frank Fetter’s contributions to entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm are usually overlooked although his original treatments are relevant to both the history of economic thought and contemporary entrepreneurship research. This article highlights three ways in which Fetter’s work adds to our understanding of the entrepreneurial process. First, entrepreneurs direct their enterprises through the careful delegation of authority to managers, thereby maintaining residual control over the firm; similar views were pioneered by Frank Knight and the Austrian economists who continue to study cognate problems like judgmental decision making and proxy-entrepreneurship. Second, Fetter foreshadows Knight’s influential distinction between risk and uncertainty by arguing that entrepreneurs bear uncertainty through their investment decisions. However, Fetter extends Knight’s work by explicitly considering the role that chance and luck play in entrepreneurial success, a problem still debated in entrepreneurship studies. Third, Fetter argues that scarcity implies the active investment of resources, and thus the need for entrepreneurship. This view hints at current research on entrepreneurial bricolage as well as work emphasizing investment rather than opportunity as the defining concept of entrepreneurship. It also provides the microfoundations for strategic entrepreneurship research.     

The Political Economy of Frank Knight: Classical Liberalism from Chicago

Frank Knight, the founder of the Chicago School, isa leading twentieth century political economist who remains barelyknown in political science circles. The article surveys the politicaleconomy element in his work in the context of the classicalliberal tradition from the Scottish Enlightenment to Hayek. Itis argued that in the major compartments of Knight's politicaleconomy—his psychological assumptions of actor behaviour,his perspective on the nature of liberalism, his attention tothe maintenance of order by way of traditions and morals—herenews classical [as opposed to other versions of] liberalismin modern times. The final section deals with Knight's thoughtson political democracy which, it is contended, complement hisclassical liberalism.     

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.     

A critique of Powell, Woods, and Murphy on the 1920�C1921 depression

A series of recent reviews of the depression of 1920?C1921 by Austrian School and libertarian economists have argued that the downturn demonstrates the poverty of Keynesian policy recommendations. However, these writers misrepresent important characteristics of the 1920?C1921 downturn, understating the actions of the Federal Reserve and overestimating the relevance of the Harding administration??s fiscal policy. They also engage a caricatured version of Keynesian theory and policy, which ignores Keynes??s views on the efficacy of nominal wage reductions and the preconditions for monetary and fiscal intervention. This paper argues that the government??s response to the 1920?C1921 depression was consistent with Keynesian recommendations. It offers suggestions for when Austrian School and Keynesian economics share common ground and argues that the two schools come into conflict primarily in downturns where nominal interest rates are low and demand is depressed. Neither of these conditions held true in the 1920?C1921 depression.     

The place of Austrian economics in contemporary entrepreneurship research

We review the place of Austrian economics in contemporary entrepreneurship and management research, focusing on the contributions of Israel Kirzner. We show that Kirzner’s central concept of entrepreneurial discovery has been vastly influential in theoretical and applied work on entrepreneurship, even though Kirzner’s larger research program has not been well understood. We also describe and assess a number of methodological, ontological, and cognitive critiques of the opportunity-discovery approach and review the most important alternatives, including the judgment-based view associated with Knight (1921) and more recent contributors. We conclude that the entrepreneurship and management literatures provide a useful example of how Austrian economics—Kirznerian economics in particular—can play an important role in shaping mainstream discussions, debates, and research programs in the social sciences.     

Information and Knowledge: Austrian Economics in Search of its Uniqueness

The Austrian School of Economics since WWII has increasingly claimed a unique position within the scientific community of economists. This paper argues that the most persuasive way to make this claim to uniqueness is to focus on the distinction scholars in the Austrian tradition place between information and knowledge in their work. In other words, it is the epistemic-cognitive turn that the Austrian school took in the wake of the socialist calculation debate that separates the school from other branches of neo-classicism within economic science that constitutes its best case for analytical uniqueness.     

Are residual economic relationships normally distributed? Testing an assumption of neoclassical economics

In both theoretical and applied contexts, neoclassical economics typically assumes that residual economic relationships are mean-zero, finite-variance, normally distributed random variables. However, many have challenged this view, from various perspectives. The Austrian economists, specifically in the tradition of Mises and Rothbard, reject outright the effort to mathematically model human choices. This Austrian view is often derided as unscientific. However, some of the most mathematically sophisticated work in financial economics also rejects the orthodox bell curve. In this paper, we test Benoit Mandelbrot’s “stable Paretian” hypothesis on ten major macroeconomic data sets and reject the normal distribution in nine of them. We further argue that the stable Paretian hypothesis (and, more generally, the field of “chaos theory”) is far more compatible with the Austrian position than one might initially suspect.

Ludwig von Mises and the Austrian School of Economics

Conclusions The Austrian tradition is identified by an built upon praxeology—the application of deductive reasoning to the irrefutable fact of human action. This method is the red thread that runs from Menger to B?hm-Bawerk to Mises to Murray Rothbard and the modern practitioners of Austrian economics. Working within this tradition, economists have produced a great edifice of irrefutable, universally applicable economic theory. They have shown how the free market advances mankind in its struggle against scarcity and why socialism cannot do so. They have taught us that we must choose one of these two social arrangements, since no system exists between them. We must make our selection and advance, by education and persuasion, either capitalism or socialism. Let us choose wisely.     

Austrian theories of entrepreneurship: Insights from complexity theory

This paper examines various Austrian theories of entrepreneurship through the lens of complexity theory, more specifically via the concept of a dancing fitness landscape. Problems in many fields (including economics) can be characterized as attempting to find the highest peak on a fitness landscape (which corresponds to an efficient or optimal resource allocation). A rugged fitness landscape is one characterized by many peaks and troughs, while a dancing fitness landscape is one where the peaks and troughs change over time due either to exogenous or endogenous activity. I argue that several key disagreements among Austrian economists can be better understood through the metaphor of a fitness landscape. The implications of this insight for various branches of Austrian economics are also considered. This study is timely as radical Austrian views are starting to percolate into business schools leading to increased debate among management scholars about the precise nature of the entrepreneurial process (Chiles et al. 2007; Sarasvathy and Dew 2008; Alvarez et al. 2010).     

1985: A defining year in the history of modern Austrian economics

Mises and Hayek in the 1920s and 1940s thought of their work as within the orthodoxy of economic science. But after WWII it became increasingly obvious that the contributions of Mises and Hayek were out of step with the way the economics profession was evolving. But starting in 1974, due to the organizational efforts of Murray Rothbard and Israel Kirzner, and bolstered by the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science to FA Hayek, a resurgence of interest in Austrian economics by young scholars was initiated. Starting in 1984, but significantly in 1985, the work of the new generation of Austrian economics started to have an impact in the mainstream outlets in terms of journals and university presses. We argue that this is a defining year in the modern history of the Austrian school and that it reflected both the quality of work being done by the new generation as well as a methodological crisis within the mainstream of economic scholarship. Don Lavoie’s work in comparative economics, as well as his work in methodology, reflected this shift within the economic conversation.     

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.     

Austrian economics at the cutting edge

Austrian economists today have a valuable opportunity to rejoin the mainstream of the economics profession. As Colander, Holt, and Rosser have argued, neoclassical orthodoxy is no long mainstream. What I call the “heterodox mainstream” is an emerging new orthodoxy. The five leading characteristics of the emerging new orthodoxy are bounded rationality, rule following, institutions, cognition, and evolution. When listed in this order, they suggest the acronym BRICE. The Austrian school is also an example of BRICE economics. The shared themes of BRICE economics create an opportunity for intellectual exchange between Austrians and other elements of the heterodox mainstream. Although Austrians should engage the heterodox mainstream energetically, they should also defend the essential elements of an early version of neoclassical economics, elements at risk of becoming half-forgotten themes of an earlier era. These elements are supply and demand, marginalist logic, opportunity-cost reasoning, and the elementary theory of markets. JEL Codes A14, B50, B53 This text is an edited version of a talk given in Washington, D.C. on 19 November 2005 at the SDAE annual dinner. I thank persons present at that time for a helpful discussion. I also thank William Butos, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, and Peter Lewin for useful comments on an earlier draft.     

Austrian economics behind the iron curtain: The rebirth of an intellectual tradition

This article documents the spread of the Austrian school of economics in central and eastern Europe following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Extensive research based on interviews, fieldwork and archival analysis records the development of distinct epistemic communities throughout the region and the subsequent networks that have emerged to unite them. In doing so, we provide a rare history of ‘centre-right’ political ideas in eastern Europe, a chronology of the development and influence of libertarianism, cursory intellectual biographies of neglected Austrian economists and empirical evidence that contributes to the epistemic communities approach to the study of idea diffusion. The findings support the view that the policy reforms during the transition process were built on neoclassical orthodoxy rather than ‘neoliberalism’ or ‘market fundamentalism’ but point to a fast-growing epistemic community that has had increasingly significant policy influence.