Product Code Database
The Austrian school is a heterodox (2025). 9780631225737, Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 9780631225737 school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism, the concept that social phenomena result primarily from the motivations and actions of individuals along with their self-interest. Austrian-school theorists hold that economic theory should be exclusively derived from basic principles of human action.Ludwig von Mises. Human Action, p. 11, "Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction". Referenced 2011-11-23.
The Austrian school originated in 1871 in Vienna with the work of Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others.Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of economic analysis, Oxford University Press 1996, . It was methodologically opposed to the Historical school, in a dispute known as Methodenstreit, or methodology quarrel. Current-day economists working in this tradition are located in many countries, but their work is still referred to as Austrian economics. Among the theoretical contributions of the early years of the Austrian school are the subjective theory of value, marginalism in Microeconomics and the formulation of the economic calculation problem.
In the 1970s, the Austrian school attracted some renewed interest after Friedrich Hayek shared the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Gunnar Myrdal.
Despite such claim, John Stuart Mill had used value in use in this sense in 1848 in Principles of Political Economy,Ahiakpor, J. C. W. (2003): Classical Macroeconomics. Some Modern Variations and Distortions, Routledge, p. 21. where he wrote: "Value in use, or as Mr. De Quincey calls it, Teleology value, is the extreme limit of value in exchange. The exchange value of a thing may fall short, to any amount, of its value in use; but that it can ever exceed the value in use, implies a contradiction; it supposes that persons will give, to possess a thing, more than the utmost value which they themselves put upon it as a means of gratifying their inclinations."Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of Political Economy.
While marginalism was generally influential, there was also a more specific school that began to coalesce around Menger's work, which came to be known as the "psychological school", "Vienna school", or "Austrian school". Menger's contributions to economic theory were closely followed by those of Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Friedrich von Wieser. These three economists became what is known as the "first wave" of the Austrian school. Böhm-Bawerk wrote extensive critiques of Karl Marx in the 1880s and 1890s and was part of the Austrians' participation in the late 19th-century Methodenstreit, during which they attacked the Hegelianism doctrines of the historical school.
After the 1940s, Austrian economics can be divided into two schools of economic thought and the school split to some degree in the late 20th century. One camp of Austrians, exemplified by Mises, regards neoclassical methodology to be irredeemably flawed; the other camp, exemplified by Friedrich Hayek, accepts a large part of neoclassical methodology and is more accepting of government intervention in the economy. Henry Hazlitt wrote economics columns and editorials for a number of publications and wrote many books on the topic of Austrian economics from the 1930s to the 1980s. Hazlitt's thinking was influenced by Mises. His book Economics in One Lesson (1946) sold over a million copies and he is also known for The Failure of the "New Economics" (1959), a line-by-line critique of John Maynard Keynes's General Theory.
The reputation of the Austrian school rose in the late 20th century due in part to the work of Israel Kirzner and Ludwig Lachmann at New York University and to renewed public awareness of the work of Hayek after he won the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. (1995). 9780415122832, Routledge. ISBN 9780415122832 Hayek's work was influential in the revival of laissez-faire thought in the 20th century.
In a 1999 book published by the Mises Institute, Hoppe asserted that Rothbard was the leader of the "mainstream within Austrian Economics" and contrasted Rothbard with Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek, whom he identified as a British empiricist and an opponent of the thought of Mises and Rothbard. Hoppe acknowledged that Hayek was the most prominent Austrian economist within academia, but stated that Hayek was an opponent of the Austrian tradition which led from Carl Menger and Böhm-Bawerk through Mises to Rothbard. Austrian economist Walter Block says that the Austrian school can be distinguished from other schools of economic thought through two categories—economic theory and political theory. According to Block, while Hayek can be considered an Austrian economist, his views on political theory clash with the libertarian political theory which Block sees as an integral part of the Austrian school.
Both criticism from Hoppe and Block to Hayek apply to Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian school. Hoppe emphasizes that Hayek, which for him is from the English empirical tradition, is an opponent of the supposed rationalist tradition of the Austrian school; Menger made strong critiques to rationalism in his works in similar vein as Hayek's. He emphasized the idea that there are several institutions which were not deliberately created, have a kind of "superior wisdom" and serve important functions to society. He also talked about Edmund Burke and the English tradition to sustain these positions.
When saying that the libertarian political theory is an integral part of the Austrian school and supposing Hayek is not a libertarian, Block excludes Menger from the Austrian school, too, since Menger seems to defend broader state activity than Hayek—for example, progressive taxation and extensive labour legislation.
Economists of the Hayekian view are affiliated with the Cato Institute, George Mason University (GMU) and New York University, among other institutions. They include Peter Boettke, Roger Garrison, Steven Horwitz, Peter Leeson and George Reisman. Economists of the Mises–Rothbard view include Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesús Huerta de Soto and Robert P. Murphy, each of whom is associated with the Mises Institute and some of them also with academic institutions. According to Murphy, a "truce between (for lack of better terms) the GMU Austro-libertarians and the Auburn Austro-libertarians" was signed around 2011.
Former American Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the founders of the Austrian school "reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country".Greenspan, Alan. "Hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Financial Services". U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Financial Services. Washington, D.C.. 25 July 2000. In 1987, Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan told an interviewer: "I have no objections to being called an Austrian. Hayek and Mises might consider me an Austrian but, surely some of the others would not".
Currently, universities with a significant Austrian presence are George Mason University, (2025). 9780199811762, Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199811762 New York University, Grove City College, Loyola University New Orleans, Monmouth College, and Auburn University in the United States; King Juan Carlos University in Spain; and Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala. Austrian economic ideas are also promoted by privately funded organizations such as the Mises Institute and the Cato Institute.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, economists with a methodological lineage to the early Austrian school developed many diverse approaches and theoretical orientations. Ludwig von Mises organized his version of the subjectivist approach, which he called "praxeology", in a book published in English as Human Action in 1949.Ludwig von Mises, Nationalökonomie (Geneva, Switzerland: Union, 1940); Human Action (Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1949 1998). In it, Mises stated that praxeology could be used to deduce a priori theoretical economic truths and that deductive economic thought experiments could yield conclusions which follow irrefutably from the underlying assumptions. He wrote that conclusions could not be inferred from empirical observation or statistical analysis and argued against the use of probabilities in economic models.
Since Mises' time, some Austrian thinkers have accepted his praxeological approach while others have adopted alternative methodologies. For example, Fritz Machlup, Friedrich Hayek and others did not take Mises' strong a priori approach to economics. Ludwig Lachmann, a radical subjectivist, also largely rejected Mises' formulation of Praxeology in favor of the verstehende Methode ("interpretive method") articulated by Max Weber.
In the 20th century, various Austrians incorporated models and mathematics into their analysis. Austrian economist Steven Horwitz argued in 2000 that Austrian methodology is consistent with macroeconomics and that Austrian macroeconomics can be expressed in terms of microeconomics foundations.Horwitz, Steven: Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective (2000). Routledge. Austrian economist Roger Garrison writes that Austrian macroeconomic theory can be correctly expressed in terms of diagram. In 1944, Austrian economist Oskar Morgenstern presented a rigorous schematization of an ordinal utility function (the Von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem) in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.Von Neumann, John and Morgenstern, Oskar (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
He included two additional tenets held by the Mises branch of Austrian economics:
Opportunity cost is a key concept in mainstream economics and has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and utility". The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that resources are used efficiently.
Böhm-Bawerk's theory equates capital intensity with the degree of roundaboutness of production processes. Böhm-Bawerk also argued that the law of marginal utility necessarily implies the classical law of costs. However, many Austrian economists such as Ludwig von Mises,Mises (1949) Israel Kirzner,Kirzner (1996) Ludwig Lachmann,Lachmann (1976) and Jesús Huerta de SotoHuerta De Soto (2006) entirely reject a productivity explanation for interest rates, viewing the average period of production as an unfortunate remnant of damaged classical economic thought on Böhm-Bawerk.
Hayek claimed that inflationary stimulation exploits the lag between an increase in money supply and the consequent increase in the prices of goods and services:
Even prominent Austrian economists have been confused since Austrians define inflation as 'increase in money supply' while most people including most economists define inflation as 'rising prices'. Krugman Isn’t (Quite) Right About Austrian Economics
Max Weber reached a similar conclusion as Mises in his magnum opus "Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft", posthumously published in 1921, discussing the impossibility of centralized planning of a complex economic system.
Austrian theory emphasizes the organizing power of markets. Hayek stated that market prices reflect information, the totality of which is not known to any single individual, which determines the allocation of resources in an economy. Because socialist systems lack the individual incentives and price discovery processes by which individuals act on their personal information, Hayek argued that socialist economic planners lack all of the knowledge required to make optimal decisions. Those who agree with this criticism view it as a refutation of socialism, showing that socialism is not a viable or sustainable form of economic organization. The debate rose to prominence in the 1920s and 1930s and that specific period of the debate has come to be known by historians of economic thought as the socialist calculation debate.
Mises argued in a 1920 essay "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" that the pricing systems in socialist economies were necessarily deficient because if the government owned the means of production, then no prices could be obtained for as they were merely internal transfers of goods in a socialist system and not "objects of exchange", unlike final goods. Therefore, they were unpriced and hence the system would be necessarily inefficient since the central planners would not know how to allocate the available resources efficiently. This led him to write "that rational economic activity is impossible in a socialist commonwealth".
Mises surmised that government manipulation of money and credit in the banking system throws savings and investment out of balance, resulting in misdirected investment projects that are eventually found to be unsustainable, at which point the economy has to rebalance itself through a period of corrective recession. Austrian economist Fritz Machlup summarized the Austrian view by stating, "monetary factors cause the cycle but real phenomena constitute it." This may be unrealistic since successful entrepreneurs will realise that interest rates are artificially low and will adjust their investment decisions based on projected long term interest rates. Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist For Austrians, the only prudent strategy for government is to leave money and the financial system to the free market's competitive forces to eradicate the business cycle's inflationary booms and recessionary busts, allowing markets to keep people's saving and investment decisions in place for well-coordinated economic stability and growth.
A Keynesian would suggest government intervention during a recession to inject spending into the economy when people will not. However, the heart of Austrian macroeconomic theory assumes the government "fine tuning" through expansions and contractions in the money supply orchestrated by the government are actually the cause of business cycles because of the differing impact of the resulting interest rate changes on different stages in the structure of production. Austrian economist Thomas Woods further supports this view by arguing it is not consumption, but rather production that should be emphasized. A country cannot become rich by consuming, and therefore, by using up all their resources. Instead, production is what enables consumption as a possibility in the first place, since a producer would be working for nothing, if not for the desire to consume.
Some economists argue money is endogenous money, and argue that this refutes the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. However, this would simply shift the brunt of the blame from central banks to private banks when it comes to credit expansion; the fundamental underlying issue would be the same, and a free-market full-reserve system would still be the fix.
|
|
