The Sensory Order and other Adaptive Classifying Systems

Synopsis Hayek’s cognitive theory, which seeks to describe the operation of a particular order, in fact provides a paradigmatic account of knowledge-generating orders in general. We claim that this paradigm provides a fertile conceptual framework for exploring a variety of problems in economics and social theory. In particular, we shall show that Hayek’s conception of the ‘map’ and the ‘model’, which he uses to explain the operation of the complex adaptive classifying system called ‘mind’, are promising analytical devices with applications extending to social structures of various kinds and complexity. We use Hayek’s notion of the map and model to analyze how different social structures – regarded as classifying systems – work in terms of their input, processing, and output capabilities. The adaptive characteristics of such systems, via communicative routines, multi-level classification, and feedback, form central motifs for our discussion of markets, science, and other social structures. We show that by analyzing the knowledge-generating characteristics of such structures we are also able to gain insights about the circumstances affecting their adaptive properties.     

Garrison and the “Keynes Problem”

Time and Money provides a highly effective platform from which to consider macroeconomic theory, and its capacity to service the needs of comparative macroeconomic analysis is an important contribution in its own right. The book will be important for the development of Austrian economics because it identifies important questions and provides sensible answers to the questions it analyzes. Although not discussed at length in these remarks, the framework contained inTime and Money is receptive to the extension of Austrian economics, especially with respect to monetary disequilibrium theory and to comparative institutional analysis. The impetus Garrison’s book provides for the wider acceptance and extension of capital-based macroeconomics will be carried out both at the level of theory and, one hopes, at the empirical level as well.     

Hayekian expectations: Theory and empirical applications

We show that the orderliness of market processes and outcomes, and hence the realization and coordination of individuals' plans, are dependent on the social environment in which individuals function. In specific, when atomicity and stable (social) rules are compromised in the case of Big Players, markets are less orderly despite the fact that individuals are behaving rationally.—The paper provides an account of individual rationality by generating a theory of expectations based on Hayek's cognitive theory. Hayekian expectations are coherent, competitive, and endogenous. This suggests that expectational analysis must take account of the context of constraint—the “environment” or what we call “filtering conditions”—within which individuals function and to which they must adapt. The paper provides a theoretical analysis of expectations at the individual level and shows that the particular behaviors stemming from those expectations require a specification of the rules governing social and market activities. We thank Karen Palasek, Don Boudreaux, Joe Cobb, Peter Boettke, and the participants of the Hayek 1993 Memorial Symposium in Freiburg, Germany for helpful suggestions and comments on earlier drafts. All remaining errors are ours.     

Knowledge Questions: Hayek,Keynes and Beyond

This paper discusses the knowledge problem in terms of both the use and generation of knowledge. This is analyzed in the context of Hayek's failure to respond to the Keynes Challenge—the claim that markets fail to produce relevant knowledge—by suggesting that in the aftermath of The General Theory he was not well-positioned to address that problem. Ironically, his post-World War II work in cognitive psychology, The Sensory Order, offers a theory of the generation of knowledge which can provide a useful analogy for understanding the generation of market-level knowledge.     

Confidence in Keynes and Hayek: Reply to Burczak

We agree with Burczak's identification of the crucial issues. We disagree with his interpretation of them. We expand our defense of the claim that Keynes was a rationalist. We introduce the "horizon principle" to critize Keynes' dichotomy between short-term and long-term expectations. We question the statistical simile guiding some Post Keynesian dsiscussions of uncertainty. We point to the role of evolution in shaping conventions that fit the economic environment in a world with novel events. We think the evidence favors our view over Burczak's. Finally, we put in a plea for framing the issues in a way that facilitates empirical testing.     

Hayek Revisited by Boudewijn Bouckaert and Annette Godart-Van Der Kroon (Eds.)

The Review of Austrian Economics -     

Order-Dependent Knowledge and the Economics of Science

Economists approaching the study of science typically assume the applicability of a market analogy, but then base their analysis on the presumption that science constitutes an area of pervasive market failure. Given the interactions that are actually observed to occur between scientists, we suspect that the failure is in the analogy, not in the putative market. In considering how one might better apply the economic way of thinking to the understanding of science as an activity, we suggest that it is necessary to specify exactly how scientific interaction differs from market interaction, and to be clear about how the behavior of interacting scientists might be modeled in terms of the general pursuit of self-interest in a noncatallactic context. Our model of science portrays an institutionalized mode of interaction between scientists involving the publication, use, and citation of scientific papers, and it is in the exploration of the individual incentives thrown up by this arrangement that the interesting empirical implications arise. We give a short exposition of the possible lines of investigation that could be followed based on this approach.