This writer claims that Friedrick Hayek is not an Austrian economist. "My equation of Austrian economics with Mises and Rothbard rather than F.A. Hayek is bound to be controversial. The primary justification for this is simply that Mises and Rothbard clearly rejected many of the key elements of modern neoclassical economics, while Hayek did not. If Mises and Rothbard are right, then modern neoclassical economics is wrong; but if Hayek is right, then mainstream economics merely needs to adjust its focus."
What say you?
There's a lot of dispute over that, Huelsmann covers it in his work on Mises. Essentially Hayek had one foot in the Walrasian camp, the other in the Austrian camp. He was definately heavily influenced by Walras, and he had no issues with the use of math in economics. However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he wasn't an Austrian, since the Austrian school has many different opinions within. He was just a member of the Menger - Wieser - Hayek - Kirzner branch of the school as opposed to the more rationalist Menger - Bohm Bawerk - Mises - Rothbard - Hoppe.
He also did wonderful work in Austrian macroeconomics.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Alasdair MacIntyre gave as good a definition of a tradition as I've ever seen:
an argument extended through time in which certainfundamental agreements are defined and redefined interms of two kinds of conflict: those with critics andenemies external to the tradition who reject all or atleast key parts of those fundamental agreements, andthose internal, interpretative debates through which themeaning and rationale of the fundamental agreementscome to be expressed and by whose progress a traditionis constituted.
Thus, yes, Hayek was an Austrian economist (just as NeoLiberals and Libertarians are both liberals); and it is simply factionalism to deny anyone the title because they do not follow 'the party line'. Even if you think the party line is correct, rejecting others from the tradition just because they are dissimilar on a few points is just plain cranky.
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." - Avicenna
What about this?: "If Mises and Rothbard are right, then modern neoclassical economics is wrong; but if Hayek is right, then mainstream economics merely needs to adjust its focus."
Didn't Hayek win the Nobel prize for promoting the Austrian theory of the business cycle? How far is ABCT from mainstream economics?
Individualist: What about this?: "If Mises and Rothbard are right, then modern neoclassical economics is wrong; but if Hayek is right, then mainstream economics merely needs to adjust its focus." Didn't Hayek win the Nobel prize for promoting the Austrian theory of the business cycle? How far is ABCT from mainstream economics?
31 min +
And I agree with Rothbard's friends. They waited for Mises to die, and then gave it to Hayek because he wasn't a "monster" like Mises. Hayek was a compromiser.
To not include Hayek in the rank of Austrian economists is an arrogent, and foolish decision that denies the movement one of its most fruitful thinkers.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Conza88:Hayek was a compromiser.
Hayek was a compromiser, which is why the people following his tradition have overseen the growth of leviathan, and massive human suffering through American militarism.
And the fringe Mises/Rothbard orbit has produced the modern radical libertarian movement which rejects state, rejects violence and doesn't equivocate on the market.
I'm sure Hayek thought what he was doing was right, but the fact that the ABCT is promoted by LvMI and not GMU or Cato, that it is Tom Woods from LvMI with a NYT bestseller explaining ABCT, and only Ron Paul who will speak on the political trail about his theory, that should speak for itself.
liberty student:Hayek was a compromiser, which is why the people following his tradition have overseen the growth of leviathan, and massive human suffering through American militarism.
And who actually claims to be Hayek's tradition? Surely there is the Mt. Pelerin Society, but that's not a Hayekian tradition, that's just an organization that he created, and that will reflect the politics, and values of whoever is in it. Also keep in mind that organizations founded to reflect certain values may turn towards completely different values; for instance, Rothbard's involvement with Cato, and the LP.
liberty student:I'm sure Hayek thought what he was doing was right, but the fact that the ABCT is promoted by LvMI and not GMU or Cato that it is Tom Woods from LvMI with a NYT bestseller explaining ABCT, and only Ron Paul who will speak on the political trail about his theory, that should speak for itself.
The last time I checked neither were created by Hayek, nor do they claim to be continuing a purely "Hayekian" tradition.
Hayek was all alone. Mises arrived in America into the waiting arms of the New York Libertarians. Hayek was just a professor in socialist England.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
There's a word for statements like this. It's "nonsense".
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Hayek was an equilibrium theorist after his teacher, Wieser, he also considered maths to be allowable in economics. Whereas the Misesian line of Austrianism rejects equilibrium theorizing and mathematics.
It's said that it's easiest to read Hayek as a neoclassical with a background in Austrianism. His best work is by far with ABCT work, which is quite a distance from the mainstream. Nonetheless, he is considerably closer to the mainstream than Rothbard and Mises were.
Jon Irenicus: What about this?: "If Mises and Rothbard are right, then modern neoclassical economics is wrong; but if Hayek is right, then mainstream economics merely needs to adjust its focus." There's a word for statements like this. It's "nonsense".
I wouldn't say so, there's definately some extent of truth in that statement, not enough to deny him of being an Austrian though, but Caplan never said that.
liberty student:I'm sure Hayek thought what he was doing was right, but the fact that the ABCT is promoted by LvMI and not GMU or Cato, that it is Tom Woods from LvMI with a NYT bestseller explaining ABCT, and only Ron Paul who will speak on the political trail about his theory, that should speak for itself.
The ABCT was more Hayek's doing than Mises's, granted the latter came up with it (although, not intentionally) but Hayek elaborated upon it and integrated Austrian capital theory.
Hayek's views on capital (and his earlier ones on methodology) are so utterly at odds with those embraced by mainstream economics that I cannot understand how that statement could be anything but nonsense. If mainstream econ "adjusted its focus" that way it'd be morphing into Austrian econ, with merely a few more steps needed to render it consistent with subjectivism (and purge it of any remaining scientistic garbage.)
Jon Irenicus: I wouldn't say so, there's definately some extent of truth in that statement, not enough to deny him of being an Austrian though, but Caplan never said that. Hayek's views on capital (and his earlier ones on methodology) are so utterly at odds with those embraced by mainstream economics that I cannot understand how that statement could be anything but nonsense. If mainstream econ "adjusted its focus" that way it'd be morphing into Austrian econ, with merely a few more steps needed to render it consistent with subjectivism (and purge it of any remaining scientistic garbage.)
I was thinking about later Hayek when I wrote that post. As for capital, it could be included into mainstream macroeconomic theorizing just by relaxing some of the aggregation, granted, it still wouldn't be consistent Austrian subjectivism, but that was sort of Caplan's point.