Stumbled upon this today through my daily browsing of various news and op/ed sources. Thought it was quite interesting. Curious if anyone else has read it and what their response and initial reaction was. I am particularly taken back by one specific comment accusing Mises.org and The Institute being the "big elephant in the room". As a student and someone who owes so much to Mises.org for teaching me so much I find it a bit confusing that the best site on the internet as it pertains to Austrian Economics would come under attack.
I understand the premise of the article and how it is important to differentiate between policy and practice but don't the two come to be on in the same? Belief and understanding translates to opinion and practice...
Article here: http://www.coordinationproblem.org/2010/11/what-austrian-economics-is-and-what-austrian-economics-is-not.html
Comment in question here:
Very well stated, Steve. I think focusing on those ten points is also essential for a dialogue between Austrians and other schools of thought in economics. I would suggest that the majority of those points are broadly agreed on, but the minority that aren't are important AND quite reasonable to hold. An Austrian school that focuses on those ten points can discuss the merits of those points with others. An Austrian school that assumes an unfriendliness to liberty or unfriendliness to the market on the part of non-Austrians can't be nearly as productive. It's a good set that Peter offers.
I think someone oughta bring attention to the elephant in the room here: the Mises Institute. There's a fine line between further name-calling and simply noting that a lot of the ideologization, politicization, and hostility perceived to be part and parcel with the Austrian school comes from the Mises Institute. The thing is, they do a lot of good work too in making essential texts available. But the rhetoric, I think, is ultimately damaging to you guys.
Maybe it's not a fight that the hosts of this blog want to pick right now, but I'm sure others are thinking it besides me - so I just wanted to put that out there.
Anyway, this is all good. I blog about the Austrian school and about libertarianism a lot - in many cases agreeing with the different perspective they bring, but often disagreeing. I think I distinguish between libertarians and Austrians fairly well, and I think I note the views of "some Austrians" rather than "Austrian economics", but I'll take this post as an opportunity to pay more attention to the language that I use around that.
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | November 29, 2010 at 08:45 AM
I am particularly taken back by one specific comment accusing Mises.org and The Institute being the "big elephant in the room".
Keep reading into it if you like. I used to. Then I stopped, because I realized that too much drama detracts from my efforts to learn.
I'd just ignore those kinds of statements.
>>To get from Austrian economics to conclusions on policy, one has to import some basic non-economic beliefs, such as that social cooperation, >>peace, and prosperity are desirable and that no other values are more important.
So the conclusions don't flow directly from Austrian Analysis with no other stops on the way..... they flow from Austrian Analysis and not being a misanthrope.... I think its a back handed compliment that Steve acknowledges that most of us here are not misanthropic.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Agreed, I won't dive into it any further as it does divert from more constructive uses of my time. I was however just pointing out that I was a bit shocked. Oh well. Thank you for your reply!
I like the Coordination Problem blog, and I think a lot of the commenters are correct even if they're a little too harsh on the MI. That said, the blog can sometimes descend into an unwarranted circle jerk, the amount of times they describe each others work as "terrific" or "superb" is a little worrying, there's some serious man love going on there.
EDIT:
Two more things on some other tendencies over at CP, they tend to overstate their case. First, I don't think the original blog post does justice to the fact that Austrian economics tends to highlight certain things that will, generally, make Austrian economists more inclined to the market. As an empirical matter, Austrian economists do tend to be a lot more market oriented than mainstream economists. I also think he understates the problems involved in separating normative and positive statements in economics, and I think as an analytical matter this is more difficult for Austrians than other economists.
Second, I think over there they tend to make statements that no mainstream economist would ever make.
A few random thoughts after reading through the comments:
It gets me to thinking about a conversation I recently had with someone who specifically noted the lack of policy implementations stemming from Austrian economics and thus declared the framework to be useless. I had a rather difficult time trying to explain that Austrian economics is value free, and I think John Voight hit upon an important point with respect to neoclassical texts - they do blur the line between normative and positive economics, so much so that many intelligent people think economics is, at its core, the generation of policy initiatives gleened from equations and curves, and they have a hard time seeing otherwise.
So these folks then point to the "Austrian" track record of successful policy proposals and see no such statements as "Austrian economics says the government should do X, Y, or Z. But, of course, any policy implications stemming from an Austrian framework are directly detrimental to the political class, and so rarely get considered in the public realm except as the rantings of ideologues, making it more difficult for Austrianism to crack the mainstream.
From this perspective, it makes me more sympathetic to the work and perspective of the LvMI and makes me think the original poster's objective may be more of an uphill struggle than he believes. Getting economics professors to embrace Austrianism and its methodology is one thing, but it seems to me that doesn't necessarily translate into politicians accepting it when the vast majority of ignorant Americans are the ones going to the polls. Like it or not, the general public must, in some way it seems, be given a healthy dose of Austrianism to somehow combat this circumstance.
These are just my initial thoughts as a layman.
I had a rather difficult time trying to explain that Austrian economics is value free, and I think John Voight hit upon an important point with respect to neoclassical texts - they do blur the line between normative and positive economics, so much so that many intelligent people think economics is, at its core, the generation of policy initiatives gleened from equations and curves, and they have a hard time seeing otherwise.
Can you back this statement up? Because otherwise I call BS.
Perhaps principles texts can blur the distinction, but this is to be expected.
Can you back this statement up? Because otherwise I call BS. Perhaps principles texts can blur the distinction, but this is to be expected.
Then let me rephrase so as to not overstate my case - college intro principles books. Just pulled mine off the shelf (Case & Fair) and flipped to an entire macro section on stabilization policy, the unstated assumption being that it is role the of government to stabilize the economy and what options they have available. I taught high school econ for five years and the text we used has similar chapters.
This is where most people who have had some economics (high school and maybe some intro college courses) are getting their understanding of what the discipline is (that and the media). Even if the texts themselves fail to support what I've said, I think my point still stands.
Can anyone fill me in on the Coordination Problem and its problems with the MI? Thanks.
BlackNumero:Can anyone fill me in on the Coordination Problem and its problems with the MI? Thanks
One word. Rothbard.
And what about Rothbard? They don't like him? I've seen Peter Boetekke write favorably of MES on his blog.
On a scholarly level, there are differences in terms of methodology and points of emphasis. CP guys tend to be a little more open minded about methodology and focus more on the interaction between theory and history than a priorism as a lot of MI guys define it. Some of them are more receptive towards math (some use game theoretic arguments, others use econometrics etc.) although, they're by no means homogeneous in this regard. The former also tend to view Hayek and Mises as complementary goods rather than substitutes, where Hayek's arguments about knowledge are something of a fleshing out of Mises' calculation argument. Whereas MI economists (and there's a lot of variation in this over at the MI) tend to see the two as substitutes with Mises' argument being superior. Other differences include opinions on business cycle research, hermeneutics (not a big issue at CP anymore) and a focus on institutions and uncertainty (which I would say are more stressed at GMU/ CP).
On a political level, anarchists are well represented in the CP camp, but probably less so than over here at Mises and they tend to be of a more cosmopolitan variety than MI which I'd say is pretty conservative (although, guys like Roderick Long are hardly conservative, but he's also associated with Cato/ CP/ GMU guys).
In terms of their mission, CP are all for public policy education and laud the MI's efforts to this extent. But generally believe that economists should be scholars as opposed to laymen, whereas MI is a little more populist in their efforts and believe anybody can make contributions. Hence the emphasis that GMU economists put on interacting with other groups of economists (primarily institutional economists, public choice economists, post keynesian economists I'd say) alongside publishing in mainstream journals and getting positions at non-Austrian institutes (both of which I'd say they do a pretty poor job of doing, but hey, that's besides the point).
In personal terms there's just a lot of bad blood because of historical reasons I'd say. There's probably truth in both accounts, insults have certainly flown both ways and both camps try to act morally superior to the other in some regard. The reality is that it's just a lot of bullshit, the nastiness is the cause of a minority of internet trolls who can like to cause problems.
EconomistInTraining:CP guys tend to be a little more open minded about methodology
How do you distinguish between open minded and inconsistent? Being all over the place can make you belong to the latter you know.
EconomistInTraining:and focus more on the interaction between theory and history than a priorism as a lot of MI guys define it
I would argue it's completely the other way around. Now, if you are talking about building economic theory on the basis of [subjective] historical accounts and empirical data, then I would agree with you. But this goes back to the first remark about whether they are open minded or inconsistent.
EconomistInTraining: On a scholarly level, there are differences in terms of methodology and points of emphasis. CP guys tend to be a little more open minded about methodology and focus more on the interaction between theory and history than a priorism as a lot of MI guys define it. This is not true. Their 'empirical work' is completely and utterly consistent with the Misesian framework and his careful laid out difference between 'theory' and 'history' - as, amongst others, put forth in 'theory and history'. Again: Mises - nor Rothbard - was against 'empirical research'. We just have to realize the epistemological difference between constructing theory and analyzing empirical stuf/history. EconomistInTraining:Some of them are more receptive towards math (some use game theoretic arguments, others use econometrics etc.) although, they're by no means homogeneous in this regard. Oh, really? Could you please show me the author and his paper who participates at the CP-blog who used 'econometrics' (as a tool to predict the future and/or to deduce theory)? I'm also not sure what you mean by being 'receptive to math'. Could you give an example of what you mean by that? I, more or less, agree with your other notes. Something else I would like to note is that a lot of the work that (some) people at the CP-blog do is the fact that they apply austrian insights to analyze the real world, while (a lot) of the Mises institute focusses on establishing pure theory. (Obviously, imo, we need both.) If you look at the work of Leeson (development/pirates), Boettke (real existing socialism) and Coyne (nation-building) it all has one thing in comment: people trying to achieve ends by using means in suboptimal and real existing institutional constraints. The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is. | Post Points: 20
On a scholarly level, there are differences in terms of methodology and points of emphasis. CP guys tend to be a little more open minded about methodology and focus more on the interaction between theory and history than a priorism as a lot of MI guys define it.
This is not true. Their 'empirical work' is completely and utterly consistent with the Misesian framework and his careful laid out difference between 'theory' and 'history' - as, amongst others, put forth in 'theory and history'. Again: Mises - nor Rothbard - was against 'empirical research'. We just have to realize the epistemological difference between constructing theory and analyzing empirical stuf/history.
EconomistInTraining:Some of them are more receptive towards math (some use game theoretic arguments, others use econometrics etc.) although, they're by no means homogeneous in this regard.
Oh, really? Could you please show me the author and his paper who participates at the CP-blog who used 'econometrics' (as a tool to predict the future and/or to deduce theory)? I'm also not sure what you mean by being 'receptive to math'. Could you give an example of what you mean by that?
I, more or less, agree with your other notes.
Something else I would like to note is that a lot of the work that (some) people at the CP-blog do is the fact that they apply austrian insights to analyze the real world, while (a lot) of the Mises institute focusses on establishing pure theory. (Obviously, imo, we need both.) If you look at the work of Leeson (development/pirates), Boettke (real existing socialism) and Coyne (nation-building) it all has one thing in comment: people trying to achieve ends by using means in suboptimal and real existing institutional constraints.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
DD5:How do you distinguish between open minded and inconsistent? Being all over the place can make belong to the latter you know.
I would argue that EIT his assessment is wrong on this one. Their empirical work is, as far as I can see, in line of the (correct) Misesian methodological framework.
As someone who specifically studies methodology, I can't find that many epistemological mistakes from the work of Leeson/Boettke/Coyne. (I can't speak onthe work of MI of Horwitz and White.)
Can anyone fill me in on the Coordination Problem and its problems with the MI?
They are the types that try to gain ground as improved professional Neo-classical/Keynesian economists by incorporating some Austrian-Lite. LvMI doesn't advocate bank bailouts/QE/whatever-you-want-to-call-it as Keynesians do; it doesn't incorporate what Neo-classicals believe is useful research. In other words, they have a doctrine of synthesis of every school, whereas LvMI is hard-pressed to buy into other schools.
Thanks guys. Someone mentioned earlier that they don't like Rothbard, is there any truth to this?
Boettke and Horwitz are big fans of Rothbard.
Horwitz disagrees with Rothbard about on some matters of money, banking, and business cycles, but Rothbard is certainly among Horwitz's major intellectual influences. Boettke seems to agree with Rothbard more often than Horwitz, and assigns Man, Economy and State to his students. Both generally have very nice things to say about Rothbard. I am not sure about Leeson, Sautet, or Prychitko.
The regular commenters usually are less fond of Rothbard, like myself, but the main bloggers are big fans.
Horwitz disagrees with Rothbard about on some matters of money, banking, and business cycles, but Rothbard is certainly among Horwitz's major intellectual influences.
That is a typically ambiguous description of the connection between this group and AE economists. I'm not sure in concrete terms what is the exclusive common ground.
Off the top of my head only Roger Koppl comes to mind, perhaps there's other that I'm missing, but he certainly makes use of econometric tools in his book on Big Players. Besides that George Selgin is quite open to mathematical modelling and has used it in papers and Barkley Rosser's work is mathematical even by the standards of mainstream economics.
All three comment regularly on the CP blog.
Of course, I agree with this, what I was actually trying to say was something more along the lines of :
Which puts it very nicely.