“Why historians have failed to recognize Mises’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Theory and History</Emphasis>”

Theory and History is often said to be Ludwig von Mises’ least read and least appreciated book. This article argues that historians in the Anglo-American world generally did not understand the German and Austrian traditions that Mises drew on, and that their early reviews of the book therefore fundamentally misunderstood its purpose. Most saw it as a political tract. Some commented on Mises’ contribution to the debate about the autonomy of the discipline of history. Few, however, understood Mises’ apriorism or logical approach. To understand why Theory and History has not been recognized for its a contribution to historical methodology, we must first understand Mises’ place as an outsider in the debates on historiography in the 1950s.     

On Rationality,Ideal Types and Economics: Alfred Schüutz and the Austrian School

A comparison is made of the views on economic theory and method of the Austrian philosopher and sociologist Alfred Schütz (1899–1959) and those of his mentor, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973). Schütz basically agreed with the fundamental parts of the Austrian program, but he also had disagreements with Mises on the epistemological character of the core assumptions, on the formulation and status of the rationality principle, and on the use of ideal types in economic analysis. In several of these aspects Schütz had important points of value not only for the use of ideal types in economic modeling, but also within political science and sociology. In the end, however, there is more which unites than separates Schütz and Mises.     

What is extreme about Mises’s extreme apriorism?

There is something extreme about Ludwig von Mises’s methodological apriorism, namely, his epistemological justification of the a priori element(s) of economic theory. His critics have long recognized and attacked the extremeness of Mises’s epistemology of a priori knowledge. However, several of his defenders have neglected what is (and what has long been recognized by his critics to be) extreme about Mises’s apriorism. Thus, the argument is directed less against Mises than against those contributions to the secondary literature that assert his methodological moderation while overlooking what the most prominent critics have found extreme about Mises’s apriorism. Defending Mises as a merely moderate apriorist because he held only a narrow part of the foundation of economics to be a priori is a straw-man defense against criticisms of his apriorism as epistemologically extreme.     

Solving the Misesian migration conundrum

This paper reviews Ludwig Von Mises’ concerns surrounding unrestricted immigration and relates them to the current debate surrounding immigrants’ impact on destination countries’ institutions. It then outlines a policy of generally unrestricted immigration with selective restrictions that addresses Mises’ concerns and concerns about destination country institutions, while still achieving the majority of the economic gains that unrestricted immigration is forecast to achieve.

     

Liberalism,nationalism, and self-determination: Ludwig von Mises’s Nation,State, Economy after 100 years

This year, 2019, marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of Ludwig von Mises’s lesser known book, Nation, State, and Economy, which appeared in the immediate aftermath of the First World War. One of its leading themes was to trace out the interactions between language, nationalism, and the emergence of the political movement for national self-determination. On this basis, Mises formulated an explanation of nationalist imperialism within parts of, especially, Central and Eastern Europe where there were territories with overlapping linguistic or ethnic groups. Out of this came his proposed answer to national and ethnic conflicts through a system of plebiscites for a greater degree of individual self-determination to minimize intergroup tensions between and within nation-states. His proposal is then applied for an analysis of the recent international controversies over the Russian annexation of Crimea and the United Kingdom’s vote to secede from the European Union.

     

Mises’ democracy–dictatorship equivalence theorem: A critique

Ludwig von Mises argues that public opinion, not the form of government, is the ultimate determinant of policy. The implication is that, holding public opinion constant, democracies and dictatorships will have the same policies—a result I call Mises’ Democracy–Dictatorship Equivalence Theorem. According to Mises, dictators have to comply with public opinion or else they will be overthrown. I argue that he seriously overestimates the power of revolution to discipline dictators. Mises was perceptive to note that, in practice, “dictatorially imposed” policies are often democratically sustainable, but he neglected several mechanisms—all more plausible than the threat of revolution—capable of explaining this fact.

The role of the German Historical School in the development of Mises’s thought

Hülsmann (2007) and Hayek ([1922] 1981) have argued that Mises’s first book The Development of the Relationship between Lords of Manor and Peasants in Galicia, 1772–1848 (1902) is written in the tradition of the German Historical School. Historicist contemporaries of Mises also considered his first academic work a continuation of the Knapp-Grünberg tradition (Kaser Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich, 28(1), 374–79, 1904; Wimbersky, 1906). We argue that von Mises (1902) does not represent the younger German Historical School. First, Mises provides a rationalization of the history rather than ethical and cultural explanation of historical events. Second, he does not support the Knapp-Grünberg argument about the historical development of serfdom under a Slavic rule. Finally, von Mises (1902) does not adhere to the ideology of the Historical School regarding the virtues of the Prussian bureaucracy.     

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.     

Incommensurability of Economic Paradigms: A case study of the monetary theories of Mises and Marx

Influenced by postmodern philosophy, economists have held that substantive propositions made by rival schools of economics are parts of 'incommensurable paradigms'. The incommensurability thesis implies that one cannot cross evaluate or adjudicate between substantive propositions made within rival paradigms. This paper provides a framework to examine the tenets of the incommensurability thesis through a comparative case study of the rival monetary theories of Ludwig von Mises and Karl Marx. Section 1 presents the case for the incommensurability of economic paradigms as postmodernists and their predecessors assert. It defines three elements that constitute an economic paradigm? starting points, methodological procedures, and conceptual schemes. Sections 2, 3 and 4 examine whether the three paradigmatic elements in the monetary theories of Mises and Marx are incommensurable. Section 5 concludes by drawing implications for paradigm (in)commensurability.     

Bemerkungen zu den Ertragsgesetzen

Ohne ZusammenfassungZu den nachstehenden Bemerkungen wurde ich durch ein Gespräch mit Prof. L. v. Mises angeregt, dem ich auch an dieser Stelle meinen besten Dank aussprechen Möchte.     

Praxeology,Experimental Economics and the Process of Choice: F.A. Hayek and Vernon Smith on the Misesian Action Axiom

Mises’s action axiom postulates that human action is purposeful behavior. While this axiom is the building block for a powerful methodology, it is also incomplete, because it sets aside the underlying processes of decision-making. And while Mises does not dismiss the gap between intention and action, he is silent on it, relegating such a study to psychology. We contend that a study of underlying thought patterns and the process of choice – rather than contradicting praxeology and the action axiom – in fact complements the writings of Mises. To demonstrate this, we look at two authors: F.A. Hayek and Vernon Smith. Hayek’s theory of the sensory order sheds light on the process of choice, and explains how decision-making is contextually embedded. Smith’s concepts of ecological rationality and neurological “hard-wiring” help us understand decision-making. We argue that cognitive foundations enrich our understanding of the process of choice, and thus of the Misesian action axiom.     

1985: A defining year in the history of modern Austrian economics

Mises and Hayek in the 1920s and 1940s thought of their work as within the orthodoxy of economic science. But after WWII it became increasingly obvious that the contributions of Mises and Hayek were out of step with the way the economics profession was evolving. But starting in 1974, due to the organizational efforts of Murray Rothbard and Israel Kirzner, and bolstered by the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Economic Science to FA Hayek, a resurgence of interest in Austrian economics by young scholars was initiated. Starting in 1984, but significantly in 1985, the work of the new generation of Austrian economics started to have an impact in the mainstream outlets in terms of journals and university presses. We argue that this is a defining year in the modern history of the Austrian school and that it reflected both the quality of work being done by the new generation as well as a methodological crisis within the mainstream of economic scholarship. Don Lavoie’s work in comparative economics, as well as his work in methodology, reflected this shift within the economic conversation.     

Value and capital: Austrian capital theory,retrospect and Prospect

The time is right for a reexamination of Austrian capital-theory. We attempt to capture the essence of Carl Menger’s approach to capital, highlighting the important distinction between goods and the valuable services they yield (implying that goods are valuable only because they yield valuable services) and highlighting also the importance of money in facilitating exchange and production and in providing the means to value them. We look at the capital-theory of Böhm-Bawerk and suggest that, in many respects, this was a wrong turn, although it did set in motion valuable efforts to clarify the importance of the heterogeneity of productive-resources and their growing complexity over time. We examine the production-function, micro and macro, and show that it is logically untenable and useless as an instrument for empirical investigation, and that this has been known for decades. Of the Austrians after Menger, only Mises followed Irving Fisher in focusing on valuation. He did so in the context of explaining the importance of calculation. Mises’s approach to capital has been insufficiently understood and appreciated. By way of conclusion we draw from our considerations to provide a research agenda in Austrian capital theory.     

Calculation in kind and marketless socialism: On Otto Neurath's utopian economics

Abstract

Otto Neurath is notorious amongst economists for his plans for a socialist economy with calculation in kind in place of a market. This paper considers the common criticism of “utopianism” from an immanent point of view. To do so, it will first be established in what Neurath recognized a negative sense of utopianism that was opposed to his own self-confessed “scientific utopianism”. Then it will be considered in what respect, if any, Neurath's stance in the socialist calculation debate can be shown to be objectionably utopian in this sense by the counter-arguments put forward by Ludwig von Mises.     

Ludwig von Mises on the epistemological foundation for social sciences reconstructed

This paper focuses on Ludwig von Mises’s attempt to establish an epistemological/methodological foundation for the social sciences (praxeology). I reconstruct Mises’s writings by disentangling the distinct realms of ontology and epistemology in his arguments. Although Mises’s line of reasoning is squarely based on the distinction between ontology and epistemology, he nonetheless tends to mix ontological and epistemological viewpoints in his argumentation, thereby clouding the issue involved. I believe this is one reason why the writings of Mises appear to be so difficult and engendered different as well as competing readings amongst Austrian economists. Furthermore, this analysis also allows us to assess whether or not Mises offers a sound theory of knowledge. I conclude that praxeology displays internal tensions and explain the reasons for these tensions.

Toward a deconstruction of utility and welfare economics

David Gordon is a senior fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.     

Austrian Economics,Socialism and Impure Forms of Economic Organisation

Modern supporters of the Austrian school of economics maintain that their critical stance towards impure forms of economic organisation - such as the mixed economy - grew out of the arguments of Mises and Hayek during the socialist calculation debate of the 1930s. The paper assesses the two theorists, contributions in the debate and argues that their ideas cannot provide the basis for a general rejection of impure forms of economic organisation. First of all, and contrary to most modern Austrians, who consider the contributions of Mises and Hayek as essentially consistent, it is argued that Hayek's critique of socialism is much more effective than Mises' as it rests on his concept of tacit knowldge and on an evolutionary account of the emergence of capitalist institutions. However, the paper goes on to argue that, if Hayek's critique of state intervention is to have any relevance for contemporary capitalist economies, it must be in a position to show the non-viability not only of a fully centrally planned economy of the Soviet type but also of the mixed economy. It is argued that it is precisely in this that Hayek's evolutionism fails, for his teleological approach is not persuasive in ruling out the possibility of impure forms of capitalism in a manner that is consistent with truly evolutionary - i.e. non-teleological - ideas.     

Mises and the moderns on the inessentiality of money in equilibrium

The challenge of rendering monetary exchange intelligible within a Walrasian general equilibrium framework is well known. Perhaps less well known is the difficulty of integrating monetary and exchange economies in decentralized conceptions of equilibrium, of which the evenly rotating economy of Ludwig von Mises (1949) is an early example. After reviewing the prospect for money in the evenly rotating economy, I survey the modern literature on frictions that make money useful for exchange. While exploring techniques commonly used to generate a useful role for money in this environment, I make a distinction between exchange frictions and epistemic frictions. Although theoretical efforts have largely focused on exchange frictions, recent experimental evidence suggests that epistemic frictions warrant further attention. I conclude that Mises should be seen as a pioneer in this literature, though recent advances demonstrate that the set of frictions capable of rendering money useful is much larger than he envisioned.     

Evenly rotating economy: A new modeling technique for an old equilibrium construct

In the middle of the twentieth century, just five years before Arrow and Debreu proved the existence of an equilibrium for a competitive economy in the Walrasian system, Ludwig von Mises introduced the English-speaking world to his alternative equilibrium construct: the evenly rotating economy. In contrast to Arrow and Debreu, which characterizes equilibrium as a unique vector of prices and quantities, Mises depicts equilibrium as a pattern of behavior. After reviewing the Misesian conception of equilibrium and its failure to take hold in the profession, I turn to the modern literature. I contend that the evenly rotating economy is a special case of the now-prevalent class of search-theoretic exchange models. As such, I argue that this class of models is particularly well suited for applications considered by economists working in the Austrian tradition.