Tomorrow, the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences will be awarded announced.
There is probably no single event responsible for the initial success of Israel Kirzner and Murray Rothbard’s efforts to revive interest in the Austrian School of Economics. in academic work in economics and scholarship than FA Hayek who won the Nobel Prize in 1974, following the South Royalton Conference that previous summer.
I use it italics above to emphasize the academic side of that argument. There has always been a small but deeply committed base of popular support for Austrian economics among free market types in business and public policy. My undergraduate teacher, Hans Sennholzto whom I owe much, he focused his energies on this, giving public lectures and focusing on popular writing and policy. It is important to emphasize that the Keynesian revolution, and more importantly, the Samuelsonian hegemony in scientific economics reduced the influence of the Austrian School of Economics to almost non-existence in the early 1970s. Older Austrian economists, such as Fritz Machlup at Princeton, had long ago stopped describing themselves as “Austrian,” even though they were very proud of their scientific origins. They simply believed that the good and long-term nature of the Austrian School had now been incorporated to a large extent into the common knowledge of neoclassical economics.
Among the opponents of this practice were Israel Kirzner, Ludwig Lachmann, and Murray Rothbard. They can have the sympathetic ears of prominent economists such as Armen Alchian, Kenneth Boulding, James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Harold Demsetz, Axel Leijonhufvud, Henry Manne, GLS Shackle, Gordon Tullock, and Leland Yeager. Those people played an important role in helping Kirzner’s efforts especially in various fields, especially in the 1970s and 1980s.
Rothbard, by the early 1970s, had shifted his focus mainly to libertarianism and developed an architectonic system in economics, ethics, and political theory. It’s an impressive body of work – ambitious in scale and scope, too encouraging. But Rothbard shifted his focus from the economics of technology to this broader project, and his work was directed at a multidisciplinary audience, rather than a few specialists.
Lachmann spent the better part of the 1950s and 1960s in educational administration, and only in the early 1970s did he return to the topics he had begun to work on in the 1950s after his work on capitatheory – namely Max Weber and the study of institutions. . The Austrian revival brought him back to work on questions of subjectivism, expectations, market process, and social science methodology. This can be seen in his 1976 JEL subject “From Mises to Shackle“.
But most of the heavy lifting is trying to get a hearing for the contributions of the Austrian school inside the invention of science fell to Israel Kirzner. Kirzner i teaching by an experienced Austrian in the PhD program (NYU) who can supervise dissertations and help initiate projects. But such efforts were against the hegemonic Samuelsonian paradigm.
The challenge of scientific progress remained the same throughout Kirzner’s career, but the opportunities for progress went from insurmountable to far-reaching conditions thanks to Hayek winning the Nobel Prize in 1974, and then the development in the world of ideas – the collapse of ideas. the Keynesian consensus and the realist world (the stagflation of the 1970s, the collapse of communism in the 1980s). Hayek’s Nobel opened an intellectual space for ideas in the economic sciences that were nearby, such as the economics of property rights (Alchian), law and economics (Coase), public choice economics (Buchanan and Tullock), and the economic process of the business market (Baumol and Kirzner).
We must admit that information about Hayek’s Nobel is different. First, he shared the prize with Gunnar Myrdal, an economist who was the opposite of Hayek in theory, and neither man liked the other. Second, there is Hayek toast the party. Hayek informed his audience that if he had been asked whether a Nobel Prize in Economics should be established, he would have said NO. As he put it: “The Nobel Prize gives a person an authority that no one should have in economics.” Third, in his own The Nobel PrizeHayek begins by clearly stating that economists have done dirty things in the world of policy and there is nothing to be proud of. He then points out that economists have made a mess because they follow the wrong theoretical framework (ie Keynesianism and the corresponding theory and the practice of aggregate demand management), and they follow this wrong framework because they accept the wrong philosophy of science (what he says). called science).
Economics is a complex science, not a simple science. Methods suitable for one are not suitable for another. In fact, Hayek argued, emergent mechanisms the majority scientifically, it will actually be at leastand those that seem less scientifically likely to be more. Furthermore, Hayek continued that unless the economist corrects their mistake not only will economics border on charlatanism, but economists will become tyrants over their fellow citizens and destroyers of civilization.
I think it’s probably safe to say that Hayek’s Nobel Lecture is the most critical scientific innovation lecture ever given in the history of the subject. Charlatanism, Dictators, Destroyers – it is difficult to imagine a strong condemnation. Some prize winners can be serious without a doubt – for example Buchanan, Coase, North, Ostrom. But Hayek’s criticism was harsh and represented an indictment of the entire post-WWII enterprise in theory and practice. Hayek was not there to win friends and influence people, but for intellectual neutrality, a radical departure from today’s practice.
Economics properly understood was an instrument of social understanding, the conception of the discipline as an instrument of social control was a sick distortion. He had to make that message clear to his scientific peers in order to challenge their mental dissatisfaction, and the special privileges they had been given by the government authorities they were addicted to. Carl Menger, the founder of the Austrian School, described economics as it was practiced as a science of control, like the ‘Police Science of Prussia’ – that was no compliment. Fine tuning or being an efficient expert in the government required economists to engage in activities that require knowledge that their field of science cannot provide, and thus seeking it, and pretending to provide it, destroys science and the legacy of the grand intellect. the tradition of political economy from Adam Smith onwards. Science kills science. The simulation of knowledge comes from science, not scientific investigation.
This year is the 50th anniversary of Hayek’s Nobel Prize. The Cato Podcast Bruce Caldwell and I had to discuss this and other topics. Caldwell a few years ago wrote a great paper describing Hayek’s experience in winning the Nobel, including his academic reaction to the work. Hayek’s Nobel Lecture remains the only such essay to receive a “revise and resubmit” recommendation when submitted for publication in the winner’s “home journal” — in Hayek’s case it was the LSE journal. Economicshe used to work as an editor. He chose not to review it, and instead published it in a book Swedish Journal of Economics.
I hope you will have the opportunity to read this article and the links provided before the announcement and think about the meaning of the Nobel Prize for the next development in scientific research programs and to think about some of the important things. missed opportunities by the Nobel committee which would have had important effects on the development of the Austrian School of Economics within the scientific establishment of economics.
Peter J. Boettke is University Professor of Economics and Philosophy, George Mason University,
Source link