Transmission of information within transnational social networks: a field experiment

Several studies have shown a relationship between the stocks of migrants and country-level investment in the home country; however the mechanism through which this relationship operates is still unexplored. We use a field experiment in which participants who are recent immigrants send information about risky decisions to others in their social network in their home country. The results demonstrate how this information influences decisions in the home country. We find that the advice given by family members and decisions made by friends significantly affects an individual’s risky decision-making.     

Trade liberalization,democratization, and technology adoption

A general equilibrium theory with heterogeneous skills predicts a complementarity between trade and democracy in creating demand for superior technologies. Trade liberalization or democratization alone may lead to vested interests that limit technology adoption. We use panel data on technology adoption, at a disaggregated level, for the period 1980–2000. Exploiting within-country variation over time and the heterogeneous timing of trade liberalization and democratization, we document a significant and sizable positive interaction between trade openness and democratization for technology adoption. The result that transitions to open democracies are beneficial for technological dynamics is robust to a large set of checks.     

Methodological individualism: True and false

I apply Hayek’s distinction between ‘true’ and ‘false’ individualism to methodological individualism. Hayek traced ‘false’ individualism to Cartesian rationalism; Hayek’s rejection of Mises’ praxeology was due to its rationalist underpinnings. The first half of this paper identifies praxeology’s foundational philosophical concepts, emphasising their Cartesian nature, and illustrates how together they constitute a case for methodological individualism: intuition and deduction; reductionism; judgement; dualism. In the second half of this paper, I draw upon philosophy and cognitive science to articulate ‘Hayekian’ (N.B. not Hayek’s) alternatives to these Cartesian concepts. The Hayekian alternative allows a ‘gestalt switch’ from the individual- to the system-level perspective. I therefore suggest that methodological individualism is both true and false: true, in that economic phenomena are grounded in the actions of individuals; false, in that certain problems might be reconceived/discovered at the system-level. I finish by suggesting three avenues of research at system-level: optimisation; stigmergy; computational complexity.     

Misjudging the character of the welfare state: Hayek,generality, and the knowledge problem

What are the limits of collective action? As James Buchanan famously worried, is it possible to empower the productive state without lapsing into the predatory state? This paper uses insights from F.A. Hayek to address problems of public goods and the role of the state. Hayek convincingly argued that no central planner has sufficient knowledge to run an economy. Yet Hayek also allowed for state provision of some goods beyond the prevention of coercion. The question, then, is whether Hayek’s safeguards offer a satisfactory response to Buchanan’s worry. This paper contends that Hayek violated his own conditions for permissible government activity. Nevertheless, he offers a serious research agenda for limiting state abuses.     

On <Emphasis Type="Italic">Private Governance</Emphasis>

Edward Peter Stringham’s book Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life (2015) is a compelling defense of the proposition that private governance is more widely used and more effective than most people think. Stringham looks to history to see how people solved problems of fraud and cheating without government intervention and provides example after compelling example to contradict the strong claim that a government or any third-party enforcer is necessary for voluntary exchange. While Stringham doesn’t take on the tough problem that private governance is not sufficient for its task, his book is intended to be the beginning, not the end, of thinking about private governance.     

“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.     

A research agenda for disaster entrepreneurship

This paper addresses questions raised by Storr, Haeffele-Balch and Grube in their book Community Revival in the Wake of Disaster: Lessons in Local Entrepreneurship (2015). I review the reasons why the book is timely, especially the rising number and costs of disasters globally and the shifting norms on the role of government in disaster management. Social capital serves as a critical engine for resilience to crisis, and I move to demonstrate its importance in the mitigation and recovery stages. Then, I raise a research agenda based on their writings, focusing on building quantitative evidence to match the qualitative data already gathered by the authors. Specifically, I focus on testing claims about the definition and density of entrepreneurs, the role of polycentricity, and the public policy pools that would build entrepreneurial talent in vulnerable communities.     

The classical roots of the Austrian theory of capital and entrepreneurship

The paper deals with the continuities and discontinuities between some classical, Austrian and neo-Austrian authors with regard first to the theory of capital and then to the theory of entrepreneurship. Part I focuses on the elements of continuity between the classical and the Austrian theory of capital. These elements have been singled out by dealing first with the distinction between individual and national capital; and then with the difference between the resulting circulating-fixed capital and free-invested capital distinctions in the light, first, of the concept of roundaboutness and, then, of the method of vertical integration. Part II focuses on the elements of continuity between the Austrian theory of individual behaviour and the classical theory of national wealth. The distinctions between logical and historical time and between economics of time and economics in time are used to assess the links between the theory of capital as developed by the classics and Böhm-Bawerk, on the one hand, and the theory of entrepreneurship as developed by the neo-Austrians, on the other.