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 Development of Austrian Economics: Revisiting the Neoclassical Divide

Recent developments in Austrian-market-process economics are discussed, and, despite the continuing difficulties of communicating with mainstream economics, some causes for optimism are discerned. Looking to a useful future for Austrian economics will require that further empirical work in applying its insights be done. The question of placing the burden of proof in policy discussions is examined.     

The Property System in Austrian Economics: Ronald Coase's Contribution

This paper argues that contrary to Roy Cordato's claim, Ronald Coase's work on the problem of social cost is an important contribution to Austrian economics. Coase identified a criterion that can be used to establish initial legal rights to control actions that have external effects. In other words, he discovered a criterion that, in some cases, can be directly applied to help establish a property system when there is none. The criterion also helps a government adapt, or maintain, a property system in light of continuing changes that are characteristic of the entrepreneur economy. Cordato's anti-state ethical economics, which he used to criticize Coase, is a deviation from the century-old tradition of Austrian economics. Menger, Mises and Hayek saw economics as a body of logical knowledge that is value free. In addition they recognized a role for government in defining legal rights and in maintaining the property system in light of changing conditions. Accordingly, it is wrong to invoke Austrian economics, properly understood, to criticize this aspect of Coase's work. In this paper, I argue that Cordato has followed a deviant and troubling path by trying to construct an Austrian economics based on ethics, that he has failed to understand that a changeable property system is a prerequisite for the market economy, and that he has correspondingly failed to recognize Coase's contribution to the problem of how to maintain the property system in light of continuing change.     

POLITICS AND THE NEW RESOURCE ECONOMICS

Two competing theories generally used, at least implicitly, to justify and analyze public resource management are scientific management and pluralism. We briefly review these theories and compare them to the new resource economics, an emerging body of theory which revises resource economics by introducing concepts from Austrian economics, property rights theory, and public choice. We argue that the new resource economics is superior to these traditional theories and then present specific policy proposals for the national forests, wilderness areas, and the public grazing lands. We also criticize new resource economists for not clearly distinguishing ideology from science, for emphasizing efficiency as a criterion for policy analysis, and for lacking political strategies for implementing their proposals     

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.     

Austrian Economics and Game Theory: A Stocktaking and an Evaluation

I discuss the merits and drawbacks of game theory in economics from the perspective of Austrian economics. I begin by arguing that Austrians have neglected game theory at their peril, and then suggest that game theoretic reasoning could be one way of modelling key Austrian insights. However, admittedly some aspects of game theory don't square easily with Austrian economics. Moreover, a major stumbling block for an Austrian acceptance of game theory may lie in the traditional Austrian resistance to formal methods.     

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.     

Editorial

Conclusion We keenly feel the loss of our friend, Murray N. Rothbard. We shall strive to follow the path he so ably blazed. Although none of us ever studied formally with Murray, he was our intellectual guide and mentor. He will be sorely missed.Co-editors of theReview of Austrian Economics are: Walter Block, associate professor of economics at The College of the Holy Cross, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and Joseph T. Salerno, associate professor of economics at the Lubin School of Business, Pace University.     

Austrian economics and value judgments: a critical comparison with Neoclassical Economics

This article points out the limits of Austrian economics as far as the passage from positive to normative economics is concerned. We propose a comparison with neoclassical economics and discuss the different theoretical solutions adopted by these two schools of thought in their legitimization of the normative discourse. The bridge from positive to normative economics is analyzed as resting upon two interdependent pillars, one of a technical nature, the other of an ethical one. In neoclassical theory, these two pillars are, respectively, the Pareto principle and the so-called minimal benevolence principle. In the case of Austrian economics, they are the coordination principle and a set of value judgments considered to be ‘quasi-universal’. One problem for Austrian economics is that the coordination principle turns out to be incompatible with process analysis, the latter being a central tenet of the Austrian theory. A second problem, which creates serious difficulties for both schools, has to do with distribution. Our thesis is that whereas the neoclassical solution of the distributive problem is formally consistent (although deeply unrealistic), the Austrian solution is theoretically untenable and based on strong, although implicit, value judgments.     

In Honor of Israel M. Kirzner

Israel M. Kirzner has been a pivotal figure in the development of modern Austrian economics. His scholarly contributions have been, of course, his main contribution. However, it is less well known that he has been a successful academic entrepreneur who established an important program at New York University. This program has educated many influential figures in the current renaissance of Austrian thought and continues to hold an internationally recognized weekly colloquium devoted to the enrichment of the Austrian tradition.     

奥地利学派对理论经济学前提的追问——论米塞斯的经济认识论

奥地利经济学有着坚实的哲学认识论基础.在社会科学的定位上,奥地利经济学反对逻辑上的心理学要素,反对本能主义、行为主义和整体主义,主张有机的自由主义;在经济学的定位上,奥地利经济学反对笼统地划分理性与非理性,反对对经济学作表面层次的物质主义的定义,强调稀缺性由其引致的自由选择才是经济学的根本前提.     

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.     

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.     

Using Psychology to Reinforce the Austrian Argument for Freedom: The Case of Loan Decisions

The emphatic statements of F. A. Hayek, and other members of the Austrian school of economics, in advocacy of a free society have produced much misgivings among the economics profession. The paper aims to make the Austrian views more intelligible by tracing them back to a theory of the mind that Hayek develops in The Sensory Order. More generally, the paper argues that Austrian economics would greatly benefit from extending itself from a pure logic of choice toward psychological analysis. The argument is illustrated throughout the paper by examples taken from the loan decision process of a banker.     

An Austrian approach to law and economics, with special reference to superstition

This paper has two purposes. First, it considers what the components of an ??Austrian?? law and economics might consist of. I argue that Ronald Coase??s conception of law and economics precludes the economic analysis of legal institutions and, in particular, the beliefs that support them. In doing so, Coase??s conception precludes an Austrian law and economics. In contrast, Richard Posner??s conception of law and economics makes such analysis the core of its study. In doing so, Posner??s conception provides a productive foundation for an Austrian law and economics. Second, to illustrate what some aspects of an Austrian law and economics might look like in practice, I consider several examples of the economic analysis of beliefs of import for the law. I focus on objectively false beliefs, or superstitions, and argue that some such beliefs are socially productive.     

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 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.     

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.     

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.     

Foundations of The Economics of Time and Ignorance

The Economics of Time and Ignorance grew out of the need to reinvigorate the Austrian School in light of the challenges of contemporary economics. It did this by re-examining the foundations of the Austrian tradition and by making explicit many of its hidden assumptions and implications. The book also attempted to make Austrian economics more of an open system than it had been in the conservationist decades of the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The degree to which it has been successful is examined in this essay.