Towards an Austro–German theory of uneven economic development? A plea for theorising by inclusion

Based on Meir Kohn’s distinction between research programmes based on ‘value’ and ‘exchange’ (2004), this paper argues for a ‘production’ paradigm based on the tradition of Menger and Schumpeter. It is suggested that this production-based programme could use, as its starting point, Schumpeter’s (Wesen und Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie, 1908) attempt to mediate in the Methodenstreit by arguing that different types of economic problems require theories at different levels of abstraction. This opens up for ‘theorising by inclusion’, an approach combining key elements both of traditional German economics and of Austrian economics in the Mengerian tradition.     

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.     

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.     

“The Economics of Time and Ignorance”: A critical re-examination after 25 years

This article serves as the introduction to a symposium on O’Driscoll and Rizzo’s The Economics of Time and Ignorance. The book was first published in 1985. The symposium aims to provide a retrospective assessment of the book’s contribution to modern Austrian economics. The article characterizes the book’s essential features and gives a brief sketch of the intellectual backdrop that provided the impetus for the book. It also summarizes the five other papers that are part of the symposium, including the responses by the two authors themselves.     

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.     

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.     

Ludwig Lachmann’s peculiar status within Austrian economics

Lachmann occupies a strange position within modern Austrian economics. He is viewed as something of an outsider and his views are often regarded as outside the mainline of modern Austrian thought. But, on several key issues – especially subjectivism and institutions – Lachmann’s positions are the dominant positions within the school. This article argues that, with little fanfare but in several important respects, Austrian economics has moved in a decidedly Lachmannian direction.

     

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.     

State-led humanitarian aid: Another case of “government failure”

A review essay on Christopher Coyne’s Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013). The book considers whether state-led humanitarian actions can be expected to succeed in reducing human suffering. Finding that as a rule they cannot be expected to do so, Coyne devotes the greater part of the book to an analysis of such programs in the light of the economic way of thinking, which in his approach blends public choice, basic applied price theory, Austrian economics, and the new institutional economics. He concludes that the best way to reduce human suffering in the long run is by promoting sustained economic development and that the best way to achieve such development is by adopting institutions that protect economic freedom.     

The epistemic claim to the life-world: Alfred Schutz and the debates of the austrian school of economics

The aim of this article is to make a contribution to the reflection on the “interpretive turn” within Austrian economics going back to Alfred Schutz’s notion of life-world sketched out in his first book The Phenomenology of the Social World. In the context of the discussions on how hermeneutics can enrich economics, the problem of objectivism in the production of knowledge is emphasized, i.e., the danger of substitution of social reality upheld by social scientists. Although Schutz’s links with the Austrian School are well known, specialized literature, has not found in Schutz’s work comprehensive solution to the problem that objectivism sets forth regarding the production of knowledge in social sciences. In this article we aim to recover the radical character that Schutz granted his project on phenomenological foundation of social science concepts based on a thorough philosophical analysis of the features of the life-world. We will argue that Schutz sets off based on the problem objectivism in the production of knowledge and offers an answer geared towards the epistemic claim to the life-world. In this regard Schutz draws up a solution that brings together both at the life-world level and at the scientific reflection level, the subjective and objective, the aprioristic and the historical aspects of experience in a phenomenologically based continuum. Finally, and deeply connected to these considerations, new conceptual elements are brought forth to think of the problem of social order.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The difficulty of applying the economics of time and ignorance

The Economics of Time & Ignorance (1985) is a key text within Austrian economics. Among the so-called “third generation” of modern Austrian economists, however, the book seems to have had very little impact compared to the notable influence it had upon the proceeding generation. Several possible reasons are considered, including a disagreement with the substantive claims made in Time & Ignorance or the possibility that Time & Ignorance has nothing to offer this generation. We challenge these potential explanations and, argue, that the root cause of this seeming neglect is the movement by this generation towards applied research, an area where Time & Ignorance has relatively less to offer.     

Comparing alleged incommensurables: Institutional and Austrian economics as rivals and possible complements? ∗

The purpose of this article is to explore the changing relationship between Austrian and Institutional economics and the common ground that they appear increasingly to share. It is maintained that both parties have something to learn from each other - there are gains to be made from intellectual trade and inter-research tradition discourse. Neither Austrian economics nor institutional economics presently provides a sufficiently robust or sophisticated approach to individual and group problem-solving activity within institutional-knowledge constraints and historical time dynamics, yet they are both beginning to seriously grapple with such issues. The gulf between the Austrian and Institutional research traditions is narrowing given that there is some convergence toward a middle ground where it is recognized that individuals do not exist in a vacuum and that institutions both constrain and enable purposeful behaviour. Through increased interaction Austrians may learn to take ‘institutional’ frameworks even more seriously whilst Institutionalists may learn to be even more earnest in their treatment of ‘individual’ action within a historical time continuum.     

On some ‘Austrian’ misreadings of Cantillon's notions of intrinsic value and market price

The article clarifies some aspects of the Cantillonian notions of intrinsic value and of market prices. Furthermore, the major flaws of the ‘Austrian’ interpretations put forward in recent years by Rothbard and Thornton are highlighted. This criticism provides an additional dimension to the view already expressed by Groenewegen against the new edition of Cantillon's Essai by Thornton. Finally, the connection between the Essai and mature classical economics is highlighted and the proposed ‘Austrian’ interpretation of Cantillon is strongly rejected.     

The Infusion of Relational Market Obligations into the Austrian Agenda—Some Lessons Learned from Economic Sociology

Given its dictum of market equilibrium, economics in general obviously does poorly in shouldering market dynamics. Pervading obligatory traits of the market (other than mere dyadic contracting) is yet another area where not much attention is devoted. Whereas the Austrian agenda fills the first of these voids in a most sophisticated manner, its current discourse appears as oblivious concerning the manner in which market exchange transforms into relational interconnected obligations. That is to say, exchange is hardly understood as an indispensable facet of durable market obligations such as relationships 'constituting the market', but exclusively as immediate entrepreneurial arbitrage. Apart from an outright peculiar failure to recognize some of its own roots in this regard this omission unnecessarily delimits the manner in which Austrians can proceed and deepen their market analysis. The principal idea of this paper is to scrutinize the manner in which relational market obligations can be introduced into Austrian reasoning by drawing on ideas from within economic sociology. Max Weber's dictum on market openness takes on a particular role in this regard. An adjacent contribution strived for is to let this scrutiny foreshadow the manner in which such a partial reconciliation of market ideas from within economic sociology and Austrian economics could proceed.     

Schumpeter: Theorist of the avant-garde

This paper argues that Schumpeter’s 1911 edition of ‘Theory of Economic Development’ can be fruitfully read as a theory of the avant-garde, in line with such theories developed by artistic avant-garde around the same time, in particular by the Italian Futurists. In particular it will show that both Schumpeter and other avant-garde theorists sought to break with past (1), identify an avant-garde who could force that break (2), find new ways to represent the dynamic world (3), embrace the new and dynamic (4) and promote a perpetual dynamic process, instead of a specific end-state or utopia (5). This new reading helps us to understand the cultural meaning of this seminal text in economics. Secondly it greatly facilitates our understanding of the differences with the later interwar German edition and English edition, which were more cautious in their embrace of the new, less focused on the individual qualities of the entrepreneur and placed more emphasis on historical continuity. Thirdly this reading suggests a different reason for the bifurcation between Schumpeter and the rest of the Austrian school of economics. Traditionally this split is explained by Schumpeter’s affinities with the Lausanne School, this paper instead suggests that the crucial break between Schumpeter on the one hand and Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and later members of the Austrian School on the other hand is their theory of and attitude toward social change.     

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.