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.

     

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.     

The problem of order in Austrian economics: Kirzner vs. Lachmann ∗

The current controversy among Austrian economists concerns the precise way in which time and ignorance is to be incorporated into market analysis. While both sides think the market process is fundamentally orderly and coherent, they disagree about how to conceptualize that order. One side, associated mostly with Israel Kirzner, conceives of economic order in the conventional sense of a system converging towards a neoclassical notion of equilibrium. The Austrian contribution to this analysis is to emphasize the important role of entrepreneurial alertness in bringing about convergence towards equilibrium. Kirzner's theory of alertness is able to incorporate partial ignorance into economic analysis, but it does not give a satisfactory account of the consequences of real time.

The other side, following Ludwig Lachmann, argues that a full appreciation of the implications of time and ignorance in economics forces us to abandon conventional notions of equilibrium and instead formulate a theory of the ‘kaleidic society’. Lachmann makes a convincing case for the inappropriateness of conventional notions of equilibrium, but fails to weave his critiques into a theory of social order.     

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.     

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 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.     

Taking the modern for nature: methodological individualism as an interesting mistake

Abstract

Marx claims that what early modern writers took as the isolated individual in nature, was actually the individual in modern civil society. This is a mistake, but an interesting one. The paper traces the idea of the methodological individualist isolated individual in Hobbes, Locke, Bentham, Austrian and neoclassical economics. The idea is untenable because it prevents a distinction between the individual and the economy in which it supposedly pursues its interest. But the mistake pushes beyond itself, pointing to a tenable alternative, plural individuality. The alternative view is thus grounded in its contrary, rather than simply rejecting it.     

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 New Economics of Labor Migration: Beware of Neoclassicals Bearing Gifts

Abstract

Until the emergence of the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) in the 1980s, migration scholars were largely divided into two main theoretical camps, viz. the neoclassical and historical-structural approaches to migration. Against this background, the NELM presented itself as a theoretical ‘third way’ between the two latter approaches, and purported to reconcile agency and structure in a way previously unachieved by either of them. While those pretensions gained a fair amount of acceptance and popularity, this paper argues that they are fundamentally misleading, and that the NELM is little more than a slightly more sophisticated avatar of the neoclassical approach to migration, whose fundamental weaknesses it has not, and cannot, shed. This paper further argues that, in so doing, the NELM effectively constitutes migration theory's own instance of economics imperialism, i.e. the attempt to advance the fundamental tenets of neoclassical economics (methodological individualism and the assumption of optimizing rationality) within the context of the study and interpretation of various social phenomena. In order to put forth these arguments, this paper provides a summary presentation of the standard neoclassical theory of migration, the historical-structural heterodoxy and the NELM; highlights why it is that the NELM should be regarded as a ‘reworked’ version of the neoclassical theoretical framework and discusses its inception in the context of the ‘information-theoretic revolution’ in economics; and argues for a new and improved ‘historical-structural synthesis’ as a more satisfactory alternative to both the NELM and the standard neoclassical theory.     

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 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.     

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.

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.     

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.     

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.     

Natural resources in the theory of production: the Georgescu-Roegen/Daly versus Solow/Stiglitz controversy

Abstract

This paper provides a theoretical and methodological account of an important controversy between neoclassical resource economics and ecological economics from the early 1970s to the end of the 1990s. It shows that the assumption of unbounded resource productivity in the work of Solow and Stiglitz–and the related concepts of substitution and technical progress–rest on a model-based methodology. On the other hand, Georgescu-Roegen’s assumption of thermodynamic limits to production, later revived by Daly, comes from a methodology of interdisciplinary consistency. I conclude that neither side provided a definitive proof of its own claim because both face important conceptual issues.     

The changing face of mainstream economics

This article argues that economics is currently undergoing a fundamental shift in its method, away from neoclassical economics and into something new. Although that something new has not been fully developed, it is beginning to take form and is centered on dynamics, recursive methods and complexity theory. The foundation of this change is coming from economists who are doing cutting edge work and influencing mainstream economics. These economists are defining and laying the theoretical groundwork for the fundamental shift that is occurring in the economics profession.     

The Microfoundations of Austrian Economics through a New Classical Theoretical Lens

This paper is an attempt to contribute to the microfoundations debate by discussing the distinctive methodological characteristics of the Austrian school, and how they relate to different conceptions of equilibrium and general equilibrium models. Further, we shall focus on one specific branch of the Austrian school (those who see markets as exhibiting equilibrating tendencies) and one specific branch of neoclassical economics (the New Classical School) to highlight some hitherto overlooked points of tangency. Indeed, we shall use the monetary theories of Hayek and Lucas to argue that the limitations of New Classical models may lead to Austrian solutions.     

Institutions as knowledge capital: Ludwig M. Lachmann's interpretative institutionalism

This article revisits the socioeconomic theory of the AustrianSchool economist Ludwig M. Lachmann. By showing that the commonclaim that Lachmann's idiosyncratic (i.e., eclectic and multidisciplinary)approach to economics entails nihilism is unfounded, it reachesthe following conclusions. (1) Lachmann held a sophisticatedinstitutional position vis-à-vis economics that anticipateddevelopments in contemporary new institutional economics. (2)Lachmann's sociological and economic reading of institutionsoffers insights for the problem of coordination.     

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.