试论米塞斯经济学方法论的先验论

新奥地利经济学派与新自由主义经济学重要代表人物米塞斯以其经济学认识论与方法论而著称.在其行动学方法论中,米塞斯通过对逻辑实证主义的批判而持守着新康德主义基本理念.米塞斯的理性主义立场具有鲜明的先验论色彩.对米塞斯行动学方法论的先验论进行比较分析,有益于我们更好地理解和把握现代经济学的方法论研究路径.     

企业成长动力研究的若干视角

本文系统地回顾了新古典经济学兴起以来经济学对企业成长动力研究的一些主要理论视角，它们包括企业资源理论、新熊彼特主义、企业能力理论、企业制度变迁理论、奥地利经济学企业理论等。文章对每一种理论视角的主体逻辑和核心成果进行了扼要的表述，包含对以往文献的梳理和新近动态的说明。     

经济计算与组织的限度

本文着重阐明奥地利主义对企业理论的特殊贡献,这些贡献在奥地利主义文献的内部和外部都被大大忽视了。米塞斯的经济计算的概念应该被置于组织性质及设计的奥地利主义研究的中心。第三代、第四代奥地利主义经济学家对市场以及对中央计划下的资源配置困难有着独到见解,但他们一直是含蓄地去理解组织经济学。罗斯巴德对企业规模的分析首次明确采纳了罗纳德·科斯1937年提出的分析框架,这一框架是大多数现代企业理论的分析基础。米塞斯和罗斯巴德不仅预见了现代文献的部分内容,而且还有重大创新,尽管这还没有被普遍认识到。     

经济学的"均衡"与"过程"方法比较

"均衡"与"过程"分别是新古典经济学与奥地利经济学的市场观.本文指出经济学的"市场观"与"方法论"之间存在着内在的关系.经验实证方法建立在"均衡"思想之上,而先验的方法建立在"过程"思想之上.文章最后指出经验实证方法与先验方法各自的不足,以及经济学方法论的困境.     

自由主义与干预主义的新综合——新兴新古典综合学派评析

自凯恩斯革命以来，西方主流经济学经历了分裂综合再分裂再综合几个阶段。1936年《通论》的出版，打破了新古典经济学的统治地位，经济思想分裂成经济自由主义和国家干预主义，在学术上表现为新古典经济学和凯恩斯经济学的对立。1948年萨缪尔森的《经济学》教科书出版，标志着西方经济学的一次大综合，在汉森、萨缪尔森等人的努力下，新古典经济学和凯恩斯主义融合在一起，形成了新古典综合派。这个学派曾经在战后西方经济学界占据了似乎不可动摇的主流地位。20世纪70年代的滞胀危机动摇了新古典综合学派的地位。     

奥地利学派与芝加哥学派关于大危机理论分歧及其原因分析

奥地利学派是以卡尔.门格尔创立的,以路德威斯.冯.米塞斯和弗里德里希.哈耶克、罗斯巴德为代表的,而芝加哥学派米尔顿·弗里德曼、乔治.斯蒂格勒、加里.贝克尔等为代表的。奥地利学派与芝加哥学派同为自由主义的代表学派,他们都是亚当.斯密等古典经济学家自由放任经济学的继承者。然而对于同样一个经济事件,他们却有不同的经济理论和经济分析方法。本文以大危机为例,探讨奥地利学派和芝加哥学派对大危机的不同分析,并揭示两大学派产生分歧的内在原因。     

新凯恩斯主义货币经济学的新发展

垄断竞争和价格的刚性是新凯恩斯经济学的两大基础。垄断竞争造成了经济中的无效率;而价格调整的刚性则被认为是造成经济波动的重要因素。近年来,新凯恩斯主义的货币经济学通过结合垄断竞争和名义刚性两大理论基石,形成了一个标准的货币分析框架,即新新古典综合理论。新凯恩斯主义货币经济学的这次综合在充分吸收了理性预期等新古典经济学概念的同时,从本质上改变了传统的凯恩斯经济理论。     

新老制度经济学价值观和方法论的比较

通过对新老制度经济学的思想起源和主要贡献的回顾,引出了新老制度经济学价值观和方法论比较的问题.总的来看,老制度主义价值观是一种重视使用价值的整体价值观;而新制度主义价值观则是一种重视交换价值的个体价值观.在研究方法上,老制度主义以结构分析、整体分析和非均衡演化分析方法为主要研究方法;而新制度经济学则是以一般均衡分析方法、个体理性分析方法来研究经济现象和经济问题.     

关于新自由主义经济学与中国经济体制改革的思考

文章认为建设有中国特色的社会主义市场经济需要引进、吸收、借鉴当代西方经济学的先进成果和当代西方市场经济运作的有益经验,但必须理性地对待以新自由主义经济学为核心的西方经济学。在批判“拿来主义”的全面吸收论的同时,也必须反对将西方经济学以及新自由主义经济学妖魔化,进而全盘否定的观点。最后本文提出了在中国经济体制改革中科学运用新自由主义经济学的理论应采取的科学态度及若干基本原则。     

历史学派与奥地利学派“方法论之争”及其对现代经济学的影响

德国历史学派和奥地利学派是19世纪世界上两个重要的经济思想流派,他们在19世纪中后期展开的关于经济学方法论的大论战名留青史。文章先对此次的论战经过进行了简单介绍,指出该论战是一场关于归纳和演绎两种方法的争论:历史学派主张运用历史归纳法分析经济现象,角度系统化;奥地利学派则强调运用抽象演绎法研究经济问题,从个体效用视角出发。然后分析了这场论战过程中所体现出来的方法论的演进特征。最后探究了这两大经济思想的碰撞与演进对现代经济学持续而广泛的影响。     

Statogenic climate change? Julian Simon and Institutions

The Review of Austrian Economics - Outside of economics (and even within), Julian Simon is mostly remembered for his famous bet on resource prices against biologist Paul Ehrlich. The bet is...     

Reflections on The economics of time and ignorance coming of age

The re-appraisal after 25 years of The Economics of Time and Ignorance by G.P. O’Driscoll and M.J. Rizzo seeks to accomplish three things: (1) to situate the beginnings of the book against the background of the “doom and gloom” scenario of economics in the late 1970s; (2) to gauge reviewers’ response on its publication; (3) to consider its impact both on Austrian economics and mainstream economics; and, finally, to speculate on its ramifications for the future of Austrian economics.     

Social innovation and Austrian economics: Exploring the gains from intellectual trade

The Review of Austrian Economics - The Austrian school of economics has played a key contribution toward an improved understanding of the characteristics of economic innovation. Over recent decades...     

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.     

A review essay on The European Guilds

The Review of Austrian Economics - Ogilvie’s The European Guilds is a major contribution to economic history and institutional economics. This review essay surveys the main contributions of...     

Economic policy of a free society

The Review of Austrian Economics - Liberalism correctly understood is little more than the persistent and consistent applications of the principles of economics of the affairs of men be they...     

Information,Knowledge and Agency: The Information Theoretic Approach and the Austrians

Both the Information Theoretic Economics and Austrian Economics investigate the impact on market activity of problems of information and knowledge. The conceptions of information and knowledge they employ, however, as well as their respective views on and treatment of economic agency, are quite different. The purpose of this paper is to examine these differences, not primarily from an abstract philosophical point of view, but by looking at substantive examples of the economics offered by the two approaches. An attempt is made to explain the Austrian preference for non-formalist approaches to economic analysis.     

Strategic marketing & Austrian economics: The foundations of resource-advantage theory

The Review of Austrian Economics - Contrary to popular belief, marketing was not born under management, but under economics. Issues such as markets and exchanges are at the core of both disciplines...     

Is the economics of time and ignorance a “classic”?

A history of economic thought perspective on The Economics of Time and Ignorance reveals that the book rehabilitates some major themes in the Austrian tradition that were all but lost subsequent to the formalist revolution in economics that took place in the middle of the twentieth-century. The book also anticipates some important ideas that were extended and applied in Austrian economics after it was first published. Reviews have claimed that the book was a “classic” and also “original”. The book is too close in a temporal sense to judge whether or not future generations will canonize it as a “classic”. Using Stigler’s criteria as to what constitutes scientific “originality”, it is concluded that, taken as a whole, the book was not original. From the vantage point of the overall discipline of economics, it was a work advancing controversial ideas that would not easily change the beliefs, practices and interests of economists in general but it offered sound reasons for taking the Austrian thought-trajectory more seriously. It would be more fitting to view the authors as providers of many innovations contributing to the mature Austrian economics of the twenty-first century.     

James M. Buchanan: An appreciation

James M. Buchanan co-founded the field of Public Choice. He was influenced by Austrian economics, and in turn influenced Austrian economics. In particular, he advanced the understanding of subjectivist cost theory. His individualist approach to public policy making has been adopted by many Austrian economists. With Richard Wagner, he analyzed the politics of Keynesian economics. They explained why Keynesianism in practice led to a larger government, permanent deficits and inflationary monetary policy.