It has always been very difficult to get a read on Masonomics, that is, the style of economics taught at George Mason University, generally under the term “Austrian Economics.” But thanks to Pete Boettke’s prodigious blogging, we learn more and more about it every day. Pete has in the past referred to research at GMU as “a stew of Menger, Boehm-Bawerk, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Kirzner, Lachmann, Alchian, Buchanan, Coase, Demsetz, and North”. Pete also recently characterized the Austrian track of the Ph.D. program at GMU as “a broader program in philosophy of economics and political economy.”
But these off-the-cuff descriptions are useless for young Austrians interested in pursuing a career in academia and seeking hard information that will assist them in choosing among various Ph.D. programs in the U.S. and abroad. I have often pressed Pete to remedy this information asymmetry and give an explicit characterization of Masonomics but have usually been churlishly rebuffed with a tedious listing of the “success” that GMU grads have had in job placement and journal publications.
In a few recent posts, however, Pete has given us some hints about the substance of Masonomics and the criteria of success GMU graduates are measured by. In one post Pete
of advancing the cause of “good economics” by which he means “Austrian economics and the Virginia Political Economy tradition.” But in a post the day before, Pete extolled the web-based research program of anti-globalist and Marxist philosopher Daniel Little and encouraged people to “Take some time and explore Little’s efforts.”
And a student interested in the unfolding research program of Masonomics indeed would be well advised to go to Little’s website and click on the syllabus for his Philosophy of the Social Science course.
Boettke then went on to conclude his post on Little, “From my perspective, historical sociology restructured to produce a comparative-historical political economy is how progress will be made.” He also revealed that he and two co-authors had a paper on this topic currently under revise and resubmit at the leftish heterodox Cambridge Journal of Economics. When this article appears it should be nothing short of a Masonomics Manifesto that we will all be the wiser for.
Regarding the standards for judging a successful Ph.D. student, Boettke gives an amazingly specific–almost mathematically exact–set of criteria, none of which refer to productivity in researching in and advancing the Austrian paradigm Rather according to Boettke:
“Success equals a tenure track job in a school with a 3-3 teaching load or less, and students with an average SAT score around 1200 or higher. This means appointment at a good liberal arts college, a public ivy, or a PhD granting institution. To achieve that, they must have: PhD in hand + refereed publications + good teaching evaluations – the lunch tax of their personality = tenure track job.”
So if a newly-minted Ph.D. teaches at a small state college or a second tier liberal arts college and writes a path-breaking book on Hayekian capital theory or the application of the Austrian business cycle theory to the current financial crisis are we to infer that they are not a success? This post is not meant to challenge Pete’s vision of the substance or strategic approach of Masonomics, but merely to cast a little more light on it in the interest of providing young Austrians with more information on alternative academic career paths. For the sake of the youngsters, keep a-blogging, Pete.
{ 43 comments }
What Pete writes on the economics profession often looks like an attempt to vindicate the scientific standing of his own research group as “science”.
If you see Boettke’s writing here as an effort in self-validation for an academic with an insecure place in the “Republic of Science”, I it takes you a long way in making sense of his arguments, which are often very weak tea as “philosophy of science”.
I think you have to remember the context of Pete’s little formula. It *assumes* that one is committed to Austrian economics. It further assumes that one believes that an academic career is the best way to forward those ideas. Given those two assumptions, he is then attempting to define what one needs to do to become successful.
He is not, nor have I ever heard him say in verbal presentations of this point, arguing that the Mason program defines success ONLY in those terms – that is, producing students who get those kind of jobs – regardless of the content of their ideas. Success is understood as placing economists looking to forward Austrian ideas in those kind of jobs.
I don’t think Pete would think he’d been successful if one of his students got a great job but then utterly abandoned Austrian economics. The point is to forward the ideas.
Pete might be wrong about how he defines success. Joe’s point about the lower-tier liberal arts college is well-taken, as is the point about an independent scholar writing a book applying ABCT to the current crisis (fwiw, Woods’ book is great, though not perfect).
But that’s a debate over what constitutes success for Austrian economics, not an argument that Mason isn’t interested in producing Austrian economists, which is what Joe’s posts (and prior ones on this topic) strongly imply.
Joe,
My point is even more basic. If you write a pathbreaking work, that is truly pathbreaking, you will not be teaching at a low-level state university or second-tier liberal arts college. My working hypothesis is that good work in economics is rewarded within the economics profession. Do good work and you will get the good jobs. Do bad work and you will not. We want those in our “research group” to get the good jobs but by doing the best work they can within our paradigm.
On “good” note that I distinguish between Austrian ECONOMICS and Virginia School of POLITICAL ECONOMY. I give priority to Austrian economics in my own work, but do have a significant place for Virginia School of Political Economy. Guys like Dick Wagner, Randy Holcombe, Bruce Benson, Robert Higgs, Richard Vedder, and Tom DiLorenzo all fall within the same sort of approach I am trying to suggest.
And do note that I teach both courses — Austrian Theory of the Market Process, and Constitutional Political Economy. I also run a weekly workshop in philosophy, politics and economics that brings in guest speakers each week. Some are focused exclusively on Austrian topics (e.g. Richard Ebeling), others are philosophers with some connection to our concerns (e.g., Loren Lomasky), and still others are removed from those concerns but working on broader ideas in social change research ( — that was the point of steering readers to Little’s page; I think Austrians can contribute to the broad idea of social change research).
To put a blunt point on all of this. I want more and more Austrian programs to emerge all over the place. But what I objected to in your analysis is (a) the claim that GMU doesn’t offer Austrian students a chance to study Austrian economics in-depth, and (b) that somehow GMU is not a good education in economics. I pointed you and your readers to (1) the syllabii and seminars that are offered at GMU; (2) the publication record of faculty and students at GMU in the field of Austrian economics; and (3) the placement record.
All of this is public and students can make the choices based on their own criteria.
I love economics and would like to see more students go into the discipline. So lets encourage students across the board to learn the economic way of thinking and encourage them to boldly stretch the limits of the discipline across disciplinary boundaries — philosophy, history, sociology, politics, business, etc. can all benefit from the economic way of thinking, and take inspiration from Mises and Hayek.
BTW, you should see my blog comments fighting for the name Masonomics as well — I resist the idea that Masonomics is the economics of Caplan, Cowen, and Hanson and instead suggest that Masonomics consists of the economics of Hayek, Buchanan and V. Smith (3 Nobel Prize winners). Within that configuration of Masonomics, the soup that I talk about does take form. Within the Masonomics that Arnold Kling writes about, I am not sure that the soup is recognized.
And keep in mind that in my recipe for the soup, we do have Alchian, Buchanan, Coase and Demsetz in there, but we also have Hayek, Kirzner, Mises, and Rothbard.
My questions to you have always been more or less empirical. Where else can a student interested in these ideas pursue them with encouragement at the PhD level, take courses where they work with these ideas, write their thesis directly on these ideas, spend 4 years talking with others who are interested in these ideas on a daily basis, etc.?
Do I think it is the best of all possible worlds to study Austrian economics at GMU? NO — we could do so much better. In fact, I would argue it WAS better in the 1980s when there were 7 faculty at one time as members of the Center for the Study of Market Processes — including Tom DiLorenzo and John Egger, etc. I would like to see us get back to that, but not sure we can find the people that will pass through the standards established by my colleagues for appointment as a professor in our department.
But please note, I would absolutely be thrilled if there were students coming out of Harvard, Chicago, or Stanford that did PhD in Austrian economics, wrote papers in Austrian economics, and made those fundamental contributions to capital theory, and even market theory. This would be a huge cause of celebration.
Please just show me the results. Heck I want to know the best free market minds in our profession that our out there. GMU has been trying to hire 5 chaired professors over the past 3 years. Give me a list of names of all the best thinkers out there that our making these path breaking contributions, I will make sure that there names are considered.
Pete
This is an absurd position for an “Austrian”. Neither Hayek nor Mises could get tenured positions on the economics faculty at top Universities.
Great work gets marginalized all the time in the Universities — Wittgenstein’s later work is still marginalized by most of the “top” philosophers, who demonstrably don’t understand it.
Plate techtonics was considered bad science for decades — and its proponent was marginalized.
Hayek’s pathbreaking work in neuroscience was identified at great at the time — but found very little place within the academic structure as it then existed.
All sorts of pathbreaking non-behaviorist work was marginalized in the 1940s and 1950s. The history of science is replete with stories like this.
It took time even for Einstein to get a position.
If you know your history of science and your history of economics, you know that Pete is simply writing things that history says isn’t true.
Pete writes:
“My point is even more basic. If you write a pathbreaking work, that is truly pathbreaking, you will not be teaching at a low-level state university or second-tier liberal arts college.”
Academia — especially non-physical science academic — is heavily dominated by what the biologists call “founder effects”. The highly narrow / non-diverse genetics of the small group that founds a new population transforms the genetic makeup of the group as compared with the group from whence it came.
Who by chance happens to be at Harvard and a few other places — and who ends up by chance dominating those departments ends up having profound “founder effects” on the later “genentic” makeup of the whole population.
I have one further question for Pete.
Does he consider the work of Robert Higgs to be pathbraking?
If so, why was Higgs teaching at Seattle University and not Harvard?
Did Salerno get snubbed by GMU or something? I don’t understand the animosity here. Are you trying to sell prospective grad students on all the non-existent places to study Austrian economics? Are you worried about the contamination of non-Misesian texts as opposed to other programs? Boettke has said to go to the best program that pays your way.
– Lawrence White
– Bruce Caldwell
– Roger Garrison
– George Selgin
– Steven Horwitz
Pete writes:
“GMU has been trying to hire 5 chaired professors over the past 3 years. Give me a list of names of all the best thinkers out there that our making these path breaking contributions, I will make sure that there names are considered.”
Hi Greg,
Bob Higgs was a tenured faculty member at the University of Washington and held an endowed chair at Lafayette College. This undoubtedly helped him and the acceptance of his excellent work. (As well as allowing him to train some wonderful students, such as Price Fishback).
Greg, that’s an excellent insight. I would modify it slightly, however. Non-physical science academia is dominated by the founder and his coterie who provides a rationale and justification to power. Both Keynes and Friedman served their purposes in this manner, the latter for establishing a foundation for fiat money after the collapse of Bretton Woods. In this vein, Austrian economics is merely titillation; an intellectual curiosity, but of no importance whatsoever.
Austrians are kidding themselves to think that they create any significance for themselves by clawing their way into Ivy League institutions.
It will be left to men of action to create a political order whereupon Mises bust replaces Keynes on some pedestal in a palace. Until that day, it’s about as useful as a Rubik’s cube…and the men of action are nowhere to be seen…
Josh — In the status conscious world of graduate school economics, U. of W. and Lafayette College are what Pete calls “low level” state schools and “second tier” liberal arts schools.
Greg,
You’ve just revealed your ignorance here. Lafayette meets Pete’s criteria: teaching load I believe is 3-2, SAT scores 1200 etc. It’s a top 50 if not top 30 liberal arts college. (US News ranks it 35 nationally). U of W is not a “mid-level” state school. It’s a good, if not great, public institution. Bob had a long career in academia and chose to leave it.
One more point Greg:
If Pete’s arguments are merely attempts at self-justification, why shouldn’t we read the complaints of people like yourself as merely rationalizations for why you aren’t at better/top schools?
Steve — I went to the U. of Washington, so I’m up on what departments are top 10 in the nation, and which are not. Medical School, full of top 10 programs. Sociology, top 20 I believe. Econ. not not in the top 50 (if I remember right).
I studied economics with Paul Heyne at the U. of W. Heyne was an untenured lecturer, so my credentials are doubly weak — weak institution, non-tenured instructor.
#
Some of Pete’s arguments are strong (I agree on his pragmatic strategy for Austrian econ and for graduate students).
Some of Pete’s arguments are weak and seem impervious to evidence and argument — I begin to look elsewhere to find what sustains them.
Are my arguments impervious to evidence and argument? Are they weak arguments? If they are, you might look elsewhere to explain them.
Larry Wright — an expert on informal argument and explanation — always pointed out that the “ad hominem” fallacy was only a fallacy in limited context. Conversely, in some context, arguments from authority have value and strength.
Pete and I argue repeatedly over where the “argument from authority” gives us a criterion for identifying “science” and where it doesn’t — this isn’t an easy topic, but there is evidence out there and I’d suggest a lot of it supports my own position.
Steve writes:
“One more point Greg:
“If Pete’s arguments are merely attempts at self-justification, why shouldn’t we read the complaints of people like yourself as merely rationalizations for why you aren’t at better/top schools?”
Dear Peter Boettke,
You said: “I want to know the best free market minds in our profession that are out there. GMU has been trying to hire 5 chaired professors over the past 3 years. Give me a list of names of all the best thinkers out there that are making these path breaking contributions, I will make sure that their names are considered.”
Considered for what? What if the so-defined ‘academia’ route does not produce the best free market thinkers? What if the so-defined requirements in academia cull the best free market thinkers because they haven’t followed the ‘academia-defined’ route?
I challenge any of the academically trained economists out there to match the insights and magnificence of the divine economy theory, or even more specifically, to match the dynamic economic potency of the Divine Economy Model ©, the Divine Microeconomy Model ©, or the Ethics of the Divine Economy Model ©.
Unless proven otherwise I suggest that ‘academia’ has an obsolescence element built into it. True entrepreneurial discovery of the best free market thinkers is constrained by barriers to entry. Do you think economic laws don’t apply to ‘academia?’ Intervention is intervention no matter where it finds a home!
So even though GMU may find someone to fill its vacancies do not fool yourself that they will be one of the best free market thinkers.
Sincerely,
Bruce Koerber
Coincidentally a quote from a Masonomicist was posted on a very different blog by a third greg:
http://www.futilitycloset.com/2009/04/19/the-great-filter/
“The larger the remaining filter we face, the more carefully humanity should try to avoid negative scenarios,” writes George Mason University economist Robin Hanson. “Our main data point, the Great Silence, would be telling us that at least one of these scenarios [e.g., nuclear war, ecological collapse] is much more probable than it otherwise looks.”
What does LvMI has against the GMU people? Is it the Hayekian flavor of their economics? Or is it something personal?
Joe,
Which is it? Do you know enough about GMU’s Austrian curriculum to diagnose it as non-rigorous or impure Austrianism. Or has Pete never been willing to divulge enough about the program for you or potential students to make an assessment? It doesn’t seem like you can make both of these claims simultaneously.
Dan
I stand corrected.
Steve writes:
“Lafayette meets Pete’s criteria: teaching load I believe is 3-2, SAT scores 1200 etc. It’s a top 50 if not top 30 liberal arts college. (US News ranks it 35 nationally).”
“Pete”,
If you think pathbreaking work is rewarded with tenure at an Establishment Ivy League college you are deluded.
Ludwig von Mises was shunned by the Establishment colleges. So too Murray Rothbard.
If you think true pathbreaking work is rewarded with Establishment recognition, you probably also believe we’re living in a truly free market with sound money and a free press.
Sometimes the dregs rise to the top in where connections matter more than anything else. We often here about the oligarchs in Russia. I doubt whether an Austrian received tenure in the USSR. The current “Keynesian” dominated economcs Establishment is proof positive that it cannot stand true innovation, much like the old Soviet Union.
The completely unknown but brilliant Antal E. Fekete for example has been treated as a leper. Why? Hulsmann. Why? Polliet. Why? Henry C.K. Liu. Why?
All these guys predicted a crash and were ignored or derided. They continue even today to be ignored.
Scum floats to the top when the water is polluted with black oil.
“#
What does LvMI has against the GMU people? Is it the Hayekian flavor of their economics? Or is it something personal?”
I wish I knew, but then factional wars never interested me. Of course I am a throroughoing Misesian.
As for professors who deserve a place teaching, Reisman and Hoppe would both count IMNHO…
I understand the animosity between the two camps; a lot of the things GMU does (e.g., radical uncertainty) is just bad economics, period, never mind bad Austrian economics. (That’s what happens when you exaggerate the importance of subjectivism at the expense of marginalism.) But then, Prof. Salerno should just come out and say so.
Below I reply to three comments on my original post.
Steve: I like and agree with much of your first comment on the thread. It is clear, concise and on point. While your interpretation of Pete’s vision of what constitutes “success” for a GMU grad may well be correct, it cannot be inferred from Pete’s two blog posts on the Austrian Economists that I was commenting on. My lone quibble is with your last paragraph in which you say that I imply and have implied in the past that ” “Mason isn’t interested in producing Austrian economists.” In fact I do not possess and have never claimed to possess any direct knowledge of the overriding goals and intentions of the GMU Ph.D. program, if such there are. Rather my point is that judging from Pete’s scattered, and at times contradictory, statements about the GMU program it is not a dedicated program in Austrian economics but a broad-ranging and eclectic program in free-market political economy that includes Austrian insights. In fact Pete admits in his comment above that Masonomics is a “soup” of Austrian as well as non-Austrian thinkers. It should thus advertise itself as such for the benefit of prospective appicants and their advisors.
Pete: I believe Greg Ransom did a great job of rebutting your claim, which I find either incredibly naive or downright disingenuous, that Austrians who do path-breaking work within the Austrian paradigm will obtain great jobs in mainstream academia.
Dan: You write: “Which is it? Do you know enough about GMU’s Austrian curriculum to diagnose it as non-rigorous or impure Austrianism. Or has Pete never been willing to divulge enough about the program for you or potential students to make an assessment? It doesn’t seem like you can make both of these claims simultaneously.” My answer is that, as in the case of all human endeavors and organizations, there is asymmetric information about the GMU program. The insiders know more than the outsiders and Pete certainly knows more about the program than I do. However based on what I have gleaned from his various characterizations of the program, including what he has said above, I certainly can make a reasonable inference that it is not an exclusively Austrian program but a “soup” as Pete now describes it. Looking at the faculty, there are some idiosyncratic niche thinkers (Cowan, Klein, Caplan, Hanson, etc.), a few GMU-trained Austrians (Boettke, Leeson), and a pathbreaking and creative economist who embodies the best of the Austrian and Virginia schools (Wagner). The faculty is certainly formidable but truth in advertising dictates that you do not label it an Austrian program without significant and explicit qualifications. In fact I suggest dropping the label altogether and calling it “Masonomics,” as Pete seems somewhat amenable to in his comment above..
Joe – you seem to believe that there is a single, unique PhD “program” at GMU and the issue is whether it can be classified as “exclusively Austrian” or a “soup”.
I think this is a false distinction – no one would argue that you can pass through the GMU program without being subjected to non-Austrian ideas.
The fact that Mathematical Economics and Econometrics are compulsory mean that Austrian students cannot pursue a solely Austrian syllabus.
But if we did take a hypothetical program that was “exclusively Austrian” would it not include readings from Keynes? An understanding of positivism? Courses to discuss methodology?
If so, it suggests that whether a particular program constitutes being an “Austrian” one or not depends not so much on the viewpoint of the program director or individual faculty, but on the attitude of the *student*.
Hence if the purpose of this debate is to provide more information for potential PhD students, they should be aware that at Mason they will receive courses that are devised and delivered by people knowledge of Austrian economics, and are willing to support students that wish to specialise in those ideas.
Joe,
I agree Mason is NOT a purely Austrian PhD program, though I can’t recall anyone ever claiming that it was. But this does NOT imply that thorough going Austrian students should not enroll. If there was a purely Austrian program of comparable credentials to GMU, I would support that. If GMU was to marginally become more Austrian, or purely Austrian, I would support that too.
Given that there are no Austrian-only PhD programs, I would hold strong in characterizing GMU as THE BEST available option for pursuing graduate school specifically in Austrian economics. If one is trying to maximize their professional career than obviously they should not be turning down offers from Harvard, MIT, or Chicago to go to Mason. Though one would get the opposite impression from your essays on economics as a vocation.
When Austro-libertarian students turn down Mason to go to mainstream programs below the top twenty econ programs, I worry that they are choosing poorly. This is based upon the recent success rates of GMU students. Compare this modest amount of tractable success to the near zero set of closet-Austrian success stories. Not to mention, that open-Austrian’s enjoy the work they do, I’ve rarely if ever met grad-students in mid-tier econ programs who enjoy their coursework or dissertation experiences.
In a mainstream program below the top twenty an Austro-libertarian student DOES NOT hone a proficiency of the mainstream in order to erupt it from within. Instead they constantly confront the glass ceiling of being below the top programs without a comparative advantage to circumvent it. When you’re an open, out-of-the-closet Austrian, at least you’re unique. At a mid to low tier mainstream program as a closet Austrian you signal that you’re mediocre on mainstream topics (not top 20) and isolated in your Austrianism (not working directly with the experts in your field). Why would a hiring committee from a mainstream program take a risk on you? While GMU’s signal of mainstream competencies is below the top 20 admittedly, it’s still up there (top 50 or so) but at least you signal a top-field expertise in a number of possible fields (Austrian, Public Choice, History of Thought, etc.). The same hiring committee has something to sink their teeth into.
Let’s not forget the ongoing really weird obsession with Don Lavoie at GMU…
I just want to echo a point of Dan’s: I have NEVER heard Mason sold as ONLY an “Austrian PhD program.” It has always been described as a PhD program where one can, if one so chooses, study Austrian economics in depth and write a dissertation on a very Austrian topic, etc.. I think that’s an important distinction.
I find elements of “Masonomics” as people like Kling and Cowen describe it to be powerful and I find other elements to be much less so. Whatever it is that defines the program as a whole, it’s NOT Austrian economics, nor has anyone, to my knowledge, ever claimed it was.
The claim is only that one can choose the Austrian path if one wishes. I’d gladly admit I’m wrong if someone can show me evidence of it.
Joe,
I just wrote a blog post to make it clear in the advertising. GMU economics is NOT a “pure Austrian program”.
See http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/04/reading-human-action-reading-man-economy-and-state.html
But on the publishing issue — I must be “naive” becasue I honestly believe what I said about good work in economics. I actually think my position is not naive as I have a lot of evidence to back my argument. I imagine that you would suggest my evidence is weak and provide counter-evidence of all the truly great contributions that have been written in Austrian economics that were published in obscure outlets and were consciously ignored by the mainstream.
Alternatively, consider my contention. Here is the way my argument works. Publish rigorously argued (not necessarily formalistic) papers in the best journals you can, publish insightful books at the highest ranked book publishers you can. If you are able to do so, then you will get a better job than those who don’t do this. Austrians such as White and Lavoie published with Cambridge, Higgs publishes with Oxford; White, Garrison, O’Driscoll, Kirzner, Caldwell, etc. have published papers in the AER, JPE, JEL, etc. Austrians that meet that test have taught at NYU, Georgia, LSE, Auburn, Duke, etc.
Younger Austrians are now publishing in the JPE and with Princeton and Stanford University Press.
So it seems to be straightforward — the best work ends up in the higher profile journals and with more prestigous publishers, and the best publishers end up with the appointments at higher ranked departments, and the higher ranked departments provide access to the better students and more resources for research and graduate education. This in turn produces new students interested in research and teaching economics at the highest profile programs that their talents will permit.
As we work with young scholars coming into the field it is our moral responsibility as teachers to teach the truth to the best of our ability, encourage intellectual curiosity and responsible radicalism, and steer them in a direction which can result in gainful employment while they pursue truth as they see it, demonstrate their intellectual curiosity in their scholarship, and exhibit responsible radicalism in the topics they pursue and the way in which they do their work.
Pete
Pete,
It would be great if you could recommend some good Austrian papers/publications – in these top journals, and publishers which you mentioned.
Cheers
Pete, is this is the thread in which you claimed all those incorrect “facts” about Mises that were clearly and already contradicted in the Hulsmann bio, the bio you said had nothing new in it but which you haven’t apparently studied in any detail?
And speaking of prestige etc., we had two good bids from old-line academic publishers to publish that book but we chose to do it ourselves so that we could get higher production values, lower price, and distribute it also online so that people who blog more than they read books could also learn from it.
I too would like to see the GMU folks give Hulsmann’s book some attention, specifically regarding his thesis that two distinct strands of thought can be identified within the Austrian school, one that is more consistent with the original ideas of Menger, and one that is more strongly influenced by Wieser’s thought. (The relevance to the calculation debate is pretty clear.) The possibility of such a distinction really seems to bother the GMU school pretty deeply, so I’d like to see how they respond.
No Jeff, that is a different thread. Also the thread where I point to alternative evidence in the Hayek archives at the Hoover Institution that relates to the letters from Mises to Hayek and the correspondence between Hayek and Machlup concerning the difficulties with landing Mises and job. And also where I admit that I was willing to re-examine the facts and admit my error.
To DNA — I disagree with that interpretation of the Austrian school concerning the Menger/Wieser distinction. And I also have challenged the interpretation of the socialist calculation debate that follows in several essays. But it is even deeper than that because it runs to the core of our understanding of the nature of price theory. Joe and others are building up an argument about a Menger-Mises-Rothbard tradition of price theory. I am part of the school that sees a Mises-Hayek-Kirzner theory of the market process and price theory.
Let me be clear, I don’t deny that individuals can learn a lot by studying the theoretical line that Joe and others highlight. I think there are important points of emphasis that follow from their position. But I also think it misses some essential elements of how markets work that can only be found in the Mises-Hayek-Kirzner theory of the competitive entrepreneurial market process.
What I deny is that one branch denies Mises and the other faithfully embraces him. I see both as following Mises, but with slightly different points of emphasis.
To Nick — how about Israel Kirzner’s JEL survey on entrepreneurship?; Larry White’s AER article on competitive money supply; George Selgin’s Econ Journ article on the productivity norm; Peter Leeson’s JPE paper on self-organization among pirates; Andy Yates JET article on the competitive market process, etc. I mentioned the books already published by Princeton, Cambridge, Oxford, and Stanford. Is that what you were asking for?
Masonomic Experts,
Since we seem to be beating around the bush I will come out and directly ask the question: Please explain hermeneutics and how it is supposed to have relevence in economics and where is the authority for such a pronouncement.
What would De Soto say? He is one of the purist Austrian thinkers of our time. Wouldn’t you agree?
Is it just me, or does Peter Boettke find great joy in using the words “competitive,” “entrepreneur”, “market,” and “process” as many times as possible?
There is no mention of hermeneutics or any assigned readings by Heideger or Gadamer on any syllabus at GMU nor has their been for several years.
I am consistently disappointed by all the importance placed on credentials over qualification.
“There is no mention of hermeneutics or any assigned readings by Heideger or Gadamer on any syllabus at GMU nor has their been for several years.”
Has it fallen out of fashion? Are the vacancies at GMU because hermeneutics is no longer an emphasis?
Is there a hermeneutics aspect that creates a distinction between Austrian economics and masonomics?
http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=67
It is not as simple as Pete thinks, and there are many forms of sucess. I achieved good success at Kean University, with an M.A. and no publications, as a mere instructor. Sure the pay was not great, but M.A.s are easy to come by and the effect on students was significant. Most of my studetns were hearing free market economics for the first time, so I was working way off the margin and realizing great gains. Most of my students entered thinking that the case for capitalism was completely unfounded or moronic. Nearly all of them left with at least some healthy skepticism about government. There are lots of other people out there who could have an impact with their MBA or MA in economics by teaching as an instructor, or as adjunct part time.
I think it is downright absurd to suggest that the more Chicago infleunced wing of GMU Econ (Cowen, Caplan, Strattman…). is not Masononomics. If anything, Austrian economics has declined at GMU, compared to the Vaughn-Lavoie heyday.
There is also more subjectivity and luck involved with the research breakthrough factor. Sandy Ikeda did much with his book, but is at SUNY Purchase. Thats OK, but not great. Walter got shafted at Holy Cross, and not because of lunch tax issues. He is very personable. I think we need to factor in idelogical/purist issues too. There are also random-blind luck factors- who has been luckier than you Pete? Don thought of the idea of applying AE to the USSR, but handed it off to you, and just before the fall of the USSR. Larry White was doing great work on free banking back then, but events of that time favored your work. Were it not for some Russian generals getting drunk one night, the USSR would have limped on for some more years, and your career might not have gone quite as far. There are Austrians who have done really good work, that simply has not been on the right ‘hot topics’ at the right time. There is genuine uncertanty here…
It is not as simple as Pete thinks, and there are many forms of sucess. I achieved good success at Kean University, with an M.A. and no publications, as a mere instructor. Sure the pay was not great, but M.A.s are easy to come by and the effect on students was significant. Most of my studetns were hearing free market economics for the first time, so I was working way off the margin and realizing great gains. Most of my students entered thinking that the case for capitalism was completely unfounded or moronic. Nearly all of them left with at least some healthy skepticism about government. There are lots of other people out there who could have an impact with their MBA or MA in economics by teaching as an instructor, or as adjunct part time.
I think it is downright absurd to suggest that the more Chicago infleunced wing of GMU Econ (Cowen, Caplan, Strattman…). is not Masononomics. If anything, Austrian economics has declined at GMU, compared to the Vaughn-Lavoie heyday.
There is also more subjectivity and luck involved with the research breakthrough factor. Sandy Ikeda did much with his book, but is at SUNY Purchase. Thats OK, but not great. Walter got shafted at Holy Cross, and not because of lunch tax issues. He is very personable. I think we need to factor in idelogical/purist issues too. There are also random-blind luck factors- who has been luckier than you Pete? Don thought of the idea of applying AE to the USSR, but handed it off to you, and just before the fall of the USSR. Larry White was doing great work on free banking back then, but events of that time favored your work. Were it not for some Russian generals getting drunk one night, the USSR would have limped on for some more years, and your career might not have gone quite as far. There are Austrians who have done really good work, that simply has not been on the right ‘hot topics’ at the right time. There is genuine uncertanty here…
to peter boettke:
can you provide a link for your papers on the socialist calculation debate? thanks.
Comments on this entry are closed.