Austrian and Mainstream Economics : How Do They Differ?

• Autorzy: Piotr Pieniążek

Warianty tytułu

Szkoła austriacka i ekonomia głównego nurtu : czym się różnią?

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial and economic crisis, mainstream economics (ME) was accused of being unable to predict, prevent, and alleviate it. In this situation, one might be curious if alternatives to mainstream economics are of any value. The aim of this paper is to answer whether the theory of the Austrian school of economics (ASE) can be considered a serious alternative to ME. This is done by examining its methodology and especially its attitude towards the use of mathematics in economic theory. Some shortcomings of the ASE's methodology are considered that make it a less attractive alternative than might initially be assumed. Next, the arguments of the ASE economists against the use of mathematics in economics are reviewed; careful examination indicates that they are not sound. All of this shows that the ASE cannot be considered a serious alternative to ME. Finally, this conclusion is illustrated with a comparison of methods with which theories of business cycles are arrived at and analyzed in the two approaches. (original abstract)

W następstwie kryzysu finansowego i gospodarczego z 2008 r. ekonomia głównego nurtu była oskarżana o nieumiejętność przewidzenia, uniknięcia i złagodzenia tegoż kryzysu. W tej sytuacji interesujące może być rozpatrzenie, czy alternatywy dla ekonomii głównego nurtu mają jakąś wartość. Celem tego artykułu jest próba odpowiedzi na pytanie, czy teoria austriackiej szkoły ekonomii może być uznana za poważną alternatywę dla ekonomii głównego nurtu. Autor poszukuje odpowiedzi poprzez zbadanie jej metodologii, a w szczególności jej stosunku do wykorzystania metod matematycznych w teorii ekonomii. Wskazane zostały pewne słabości metodologii szkoły austriackiej, które czynią ją mniej atrakcyjną, niż można by pierwotnie sądzić. Następnie dokonano przeglądu argumentów ekonomistów austriackich przeciwko matematyce w ekonomii; dokładne badanie pokazuje, że nie są one wiarygodne. Wszystko to świadczy o tym, że austriacka szkoła ekonomii nie może zostać uznana za poważną alternatywę wobec ekonomii głównego nurtu. Ostatecznie wniosek ten jest zilustrowany porównaniem metod, którymi wyprowadza się i analizuje teorie cyklu koniunkturalnego w dwóch rozważanych tu podejściach do ekonomii. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Austrian School; Economic theory; Economic methodology; Mathematical economics

PL

Austriacka szkoła ekonomii; Teoria ekonomii; Metodologia ekonomii; Ekonomia matematyczna

• Czasopismo: Ekonomista
• Rocznik: 2018
• Numer: nr 2
• Strony: 209--238

Twórcy

autor

Piotr Pieniążek

• European University Institute, Florence, Italy

Bibliografia

• Baily M.N., Responding to Professor Krugman's Opus, 2009 (http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/09/08-krugman-baily).
• Bismans E, Mougeot C, Austrian Business Cycle Theory: Empirical Evidence, "The Review of Austrian Economics" 2009, no. 22(3), pp. 241-257.
• Boaz D., Economists against the Stimulus, 2009 (http://www.cato.org/blog/economists-against-stimulus).
• Boettke P. J., Where Did Economics Go Wrong? Modern Economics as a Flight from Reality, "Critical Review" 1997, no 11(1), pp. 11-64.
• Boettke P.J., Austrian School of Economics, "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics" 2008 (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AustrianSchoolofEconomics.html)
• Buchanan J.M., Game Theory, Mathematics, and Economics, "Journal of Economic Methodology" 2001, no. 8(1), pp. 27-32.
• Caldwell B., Praxeology and Its Critics: an Appraisal, "History of Political Economy" 1984, no. 16(3), pp. 363-379.
• Callahan G., Rothbard's Critique of the Multiplier, 2012 (http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2012/07/rothbards-critique-of-multiplier.html).
• Caplan B., The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations, "Southern Economic Journal" 1999, nr 65(4), pp. 823-838.
• Chiang A.C., Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics, McGraw-Hill, New York i in. 1984 (1967).
• Chiang A.C., Elements of Dynamic Optimization, McGraw-Hill, New York i in., 1992.
• Cochran J.P., What To Do While Waiting to End the Fed, 2015 (https://mises.org/library/ what-do-while-waiting-end-fed).
• Cochrane J.H., How Did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?, "Economic Affairs" 2011, no. 31(2), pp. 36-40.
• Cowen T., Fink R., Inconsistent Equilibrium Constructs: The Evenly Rotating Economy of Mises and Rothbard, "The American Economic Review" 1985, no. 75(4), pp. 866-869.
• Fillieule R., The "Values-Riches" Model: An Alternative to Garrison's Model in the Austrian Macroeconomics of Growth and Cycle, "The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics" 2005, no. 8(2), pp. 3-19.
• Fillieule R.,^4 Formal Model in Hayekian Macroeconomics: The Proportional Goods-in-Process Structure of Production, "The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics" 2007, no. 10(3), pp. 193-208.
• Garrison R.W., Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure, Routledge, London-New York 2001.
• Gorazda M., Filozofia ekonomii, Copernicus Center Press, Krakow 2014.
• Gordon D., The Essential Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2007.
• Gruchy A.G., Machlup F, Discussion, "The American Economic Review" 1952, no. 42(2): Papers and Proceedings of the Sixty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, pp. 67-73.
• Hausman D.M., Economic Methodology in a Nutshell, "The Journal of Economic Perspectives" 1989, no. 3(2), pp. 115-127.
• Hayek FA. von, The Pretence of Knowledge, Prize Lecture. Lecture to the memory of Alfred Nobel, 1974 (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/lau-reates/1974/hayek-lecture.html).
• Higgs R., The Dangers of Samuelson's Economic Method, "The Independent Review" 2011, no. 15(3), pp. 471-476.
• Hoover K.D., Economic Theory and Causal Inference, in: Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, vol. 13, Philosophy of Economics, U. Maki (ed.), North Holland, San Diego 2012, pp. 89-113.
• Hudik M., "Mises and Hayek Mathematized": Toward Mathematical Austrian Economics, in: The Next Generation of Austrian Economics. Essays in Honor of Joseph T Salerno, P. Bylund, D. Howden (eds.), Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2015.
• Huerta de Soto J., The Ongoing Methodenstreit of the Austrian School, "Journal des Econ-omistes et des Etudes Humaines" 1998, no. 8(1), pp. 75-113.
• Huerta de Soto J., Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2006 (1998).
• Hiilsmann J.G., Mises. The East Knight of Liberalism, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama 2007.
• Kay J., The Map Is Not the Territory: An Essay on the State of Economics, 2011 (http://ine-teconomics.org/about/news/2011/the-map-is-not-the-territory-an-essay-on-the-state--of-economics).
• Kay J., The Map is Not the Territory: Models, Scientists, and the State of Modern Macroeconomics, "Critical Review" 2012, no. 24(1), pp. 87-99.
• Krugman P., How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?, "The New York Times Magazine" 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html).
• Krugman P., End This Depression Now!, WW Norton & Company, New York-London 2012.
• Lanchester J., The Major Blind Spots in Macroeconomics, "The New York Times Magazine" 2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/magazine/the-major-blind-spots-in-macro-economics.html).
• Leijonhufvud A., Out of the Corridor: Keynes and the Crisis, "Cambridge Journal of Economics" 2009, no. 33, pp. 741-757.
• Lester R.B., Wolff J.S., The Empirical Relevance of the Mises-Hayek Theory of the Ttrade Cycle, "The Review of Austrian Economics" 2013, no. 26(4), pp. 433-461.
• Levine D., An Open Tetter to Paul Krugman, 2009 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ david-k-levine/an-open-letter-to-paul-kr_b_289768.html).
• Long R.T., Realism and Abstraction in Economics: Aristotle and Mises versus Friedman, "The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics" 2006, no. 9(3), pp. 3-23.
• Machaj M., O konsekwentny popperyzm, in: Pod prąd głównego nurtu ekonomii, M. Machaj (ed.), Instytut Misesa, Warszawa 2010.
• Marginal Revolutionaries, "The Economics" 2011 (http://www.economist.com/node/ 21542174).
• Mayer T, Boettke's Austrian Critique of Mainstream Economics: An Empiricist's Response, "Critical Review" 1998, no. 12(1-2), pp. 151-171.
• Menger C, Principles of Economics, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama 2004 (1950).
• Mensik J., Mathematics and Economics: the Case of Menger, "Journal of Economic Methodology" 2015, no. 22(4), pp. 479-490.
• Mirowski P., The When, the How and the Why of Mathematical Expression in the History of Economics Analysis, "The Journal of Economic Perspectives" 1991, no. 5(1), pp. 145-157.
• Mises L. von, Human Action. A Treatise on Economics, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama 1998 (1949).
• Moorhouse J.C.,^4 Critical Review of Mises on Mathematical Economics, "History of Economics Review" 1995, no. 20(1), pp. 61-74.
• Mueller P.D., An Austrian View of Expectations and Business Cycles, "The Review of Austrian Economics" 2014, no. 27(2), pp. 199-214.
• Mulligan F.R.,^4 Hayekian Analysis of the Term Structure of Production, "Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics" 2002, no. 5(2), pp. 17-33.
• Mulligan F.K., An Empirical Examination of Austrian Business Cycle Theory, "The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics" 2006, no. 9(2), pp. 69-93.
• Murphy R.P., Gabriel A., Study Guide to "Human Action. A Treatise on Economics", Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2008.
• Murphy R.P., Study Guide to Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and Market: Government and the Economy, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2006.
• Nozick R., On Austrian Methodology, "Synthese" 1977, no. 36, pp. 353-392.
• Orrell D., Economic Depression: A Commentary on Paul Romer's The Trouble With Macroeconomics, "World Economics Association Newsletter" 2016, no. 6(5).
• Romer P., Mathiness in the Theory of Economic Growth, "American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings" 2015, no. 105(5), pp. 89-93.
• Romer P., The Trouble with Macroeconomics, 2016 (https://paulromer.net/wp-content/ uploads/2016/09/WP-Trouble.pdf).
• Rosser J.B. Jr, Weintraub on the Evolution of Mathematical Economics: a Review Essay, "Journal of Post Keynesian Economics" 2003, no. 25(4), pp. 575-589.
• Rothbard M.N., Mises' "Human Action": Comment, "The American Economic Review" 1951a, no. 41(4), pp. 181-185.
• Rothbard M.N., Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller, "The American Economic Review" 1951b, no. 41(5), pp. 943-946.
• Rothbard M.N., Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics, in: On Freedom and Free Enterprise: The Economics of Free Enterprise, M. Sennholz (ed.), D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, N.J 1956.
• Rothbard M.N., In Defense of "Extreme Apriorism", "Southern Economic Journal" 1957, January, pp. 314-320.
• Rothbard M.N., Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and Market: Government and the Economy, 2nd ed., Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2009 (1962).
• Rothbard M.N., A Note On Mathematical Economics, 2009 (https://mises.org/library/ note-mathematical-economics).
• Rothbard M.N., The Mantle of Science, in: Economic Controversies, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2011 (1960).
• Rothbard M.N., Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics in: Economic Controversies, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama 2011 (1976).
• Salerno J.T., Introduction to the Second Edition of..., in: M.N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and Market: Government and the Economy, Second Edition, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2009, pp. xix-1.
• Samuelson P.A., Economic Theory and Mathematics - An Appraisal, "The American Economic Review" 1952, no. 42(2), Papers and Proceedings of the Sixty-fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, pp. 56-66.
• Schulak E.M., Unterkófler H., The Austrian School of Economics. A History of Its Ideas, Ambassadors, and Institutions, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn, Al. 2011.
• Skidelsky R., Keynes. The Return of the Master, PublicAffairs, New York 2010 (2009).
• Smith B., The Question of Apriorism, "Austrian Economics Newsletter" 1990, Fall, pp. 1-5.
• Wapshott N., Keynes Hayek: The Clash that Defined Modern Economics, WW. Norton & Company, London-New York 2011.
• Weintraub R.E., Neoclassical Economics, "The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics", Library of Economics and Liberty, 1993 (http://www.econlib.org/library/Encl/Neo-classicalEconomics.html).
• White L., The Methodology of The Austrian School Economists, Center for Libertarian Studies, New York 2003 (1977) (https://mises.org/system/tdf/methfinb.pdf7flle = 1 & type=document).
• Wiśniewski J.B., The Methodology of the Austrian School of Economics: The Present State of Knowledge, "Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review" 2014, no. 20(1), pp. 39-54.
• Żółkiewski Z., Review of Jesus Huerta de Soto, Pieniądz, kredyt bankowy i cykle koniunkturalne, "Bank i Kredyt" 2010, no. 41(3), pp. 139-149.