Market failure vs. system failure as a rationale for economic policy? A critique from an evolutionary perspective

This paper reconsiders the explanation of economic policy from an evolutionary economics perspective. It contrasts the neoclassical equilibrium notions of market and government failure with the dominant evolutionary neo-Schumpeterian and Austrian-Hayekian perceptions. Based on this comparison, the paper criticizes the fact that neoclassical reasoning still prevails in non-equilibrium evolutionary economics when economic policy issues are examined. This is more than surprising, since proponents of evolutionary economics usually view their approach as incompatible with its neoclassical counterpart. In addition, it is shown that this “fallacy of failure thinking” even finds its continuation in the alternative concept of “system failure” with which some evolutionary economists try to explain and legitimate policy interventions in local, regional or national innovation systems. The paper argues that in order to prevent the otherwise fruitful and more realistic evolutionary approach from undermining its own criticism of neoclassical economics and to create a consistent as well as objective evolutionary policy framework, it is necessary to eliminate the equilibrium spirit. Finally, the paper delivers an alternative evolutionary explanation of economic policy which is able to overcome the theory-immanent contradiction of the hitherto evolutionary view on this subject.     

Moving Beyond Culturalism and Formalism: Islam,Women, and Political Unrest in the Middle East

ABSTRACT

Scenes of political unrest throughout the Middle East are often coupled with media reports and public debates in the United States that have a recurring theme: the relationship between women and Islam. After discussing the culturalist accounts that portray women as being in grave danger from Islam and in need of Western protection and supervision, this contribution examines an emerging trend in political science developed under the influence of the formalism of neoclassical economics. The study argues that despite ostensibly universal assumptions about human behavior and alleged objectivity, the theoretical foundations of neoclassical economics and its methodological formalism fall short in providing an alternative to culturalism, and, instead, reinforce the misperceptions and misunderstandings about the region.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Self is Never Neutral: Why Economic Agents Behave Irrationally

Modern economics understands utility from the concept of decision utility inferred from individual choice making. It explains agents' decisions or choices in turn by the paradigm of utility maximizing. From our perspective, however, this is a fatal mistake because economic agents do not always choose what they really want in order to maintain their "self-value." In fact, subjects are never neutral. When agents are not able to obtain something they want, they downplay its desirability in order to get psychological satisfaction. But when they are forced to accept what they do not want, they try to rationalize that they really did want it, again in order to save face. Although such "irrational" behavior may decrease economic utility, it gives agents psychological satisfaction and subjective comfort, thus increasing their immaterial utility. In this sense, agents remain rational when conducting such behaviors, even though they run directly contrary to neoclassical rationality concepts.     

Neoclassical versus evolutionary economics in developing countries: convergence of policy implications

This paper aims to determine whether the dichotomy between the science, technology, and innovation policy based on neoclassical and evolutionary schools of economics is applicable to developing countries. Regarding the fundamental differences in foundations of these two economic paradigms, policymakers have been forced to select and to follow one of the two seemingly competing views. However, in developing countries, due to various market and government coordination failures, complying with one of the schools has not been successful in practice. From the past, there has been some controversy between neoclassical and evolutionary schools on the subject of science, technology and innovation policy. Using a survey questionnaire and statistical analyses of the results, this paper shows that, due to the institutional setting and structural conditions in developing countries, despite the fundamentally different foundations of the competing schools of thought, the policy implications of the schools have converged. Drawing on Theme Analysis Method, the rationales are first conceptualized and then the fuzzy method is applied to reveal the respondents’ tendency to the extracted rationales and implications of the two competing schools. In conclusion, the statistical results validate the proposed hypothesis.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

基于投资主体行为差异的金融经济学分析

经典金融经济学假定投资者是同质的,无法对证券市场的产生、市场价格的随机性和波动性作出满意的解释。证券市场投资主体分为个人投资者和机构投资者,个人投资者追求效用最大化,效用取决于风险和收益;机构投资者追求利润最大化。投资主体行为差异是证券市场产生和发展的原因。     

Lachmann and the wilderness: On Lachmann's radical subjectivism

Abstract

This paper deals with the question why in the 1940s and 1950s Ludwig Lachmann (1906–1990) failed to revive Austrian economics. Lake Keynes and Hayek, Lachmann pointed out that expectations, and hence knowledge, are important determinants of (cyclical fluctuations in) investment and economic activity. He thereby emphasized that the process of knowledge acquisition is indeterminate and open‐ended. This indeterminateness is difficult to reconcile with neoclassical attempts to provide economics with internally consistent microfoundations. This fundamental difference between his and the neoclassical research agenda explains Lachmann's failure to revive Austrian economics.     

Competition, knowledge, and local government

This paper applies the insights of Austrian economics to an important issue in local political economy. Basic economic theory holds that greater competition produces superior outcomes in private goods markets. The same should be true in the ??markets?? for the output of local government. Brennan and Buchanan (1977, 1980) show that interjurisdictional competition may serve as a potential restraint on the monopoly powers of local Leviathan and Tiebout (1956) shows that it may help lead to the production of efficient quantities of local public goods. However, other potential virtues of competition in the market for local collective goods have been largely ignored. This paper explores those other virtues as well as the neoclassical theoretical foundations of the Tiebout (1956) model, upon which much of this literature is based. This has public policy implications for local governments, which have taken on increased importance given the recent global movement towards more decentralized government.     

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.