Search

Walter Lippmann is widely acknowledged as the Father of modern American Journalism and one of the most profound public thinkers of the twentieth century. Though he extensively corresponded with economists, political philosophers, political scientists, and statesmen on both sides of the Atlantic, Lippmann’s interest in political economy has only come under serious academic investigation within the last 20 years. When Lippmann has been explored in the history of economic thought, he has generally been considered to be a propagator and popularizer of others’ ideas rather than a serious theorist in his own right, particularly his role in spreading Keynesianism as one of the early supporters of the New Deal. This chapter directly challenges this dominant interpretation on two fronts. First, it acknowledges and explores Lippmann’s role as a contributor to the economic discourse of his time. Second, it challenges categorizing Lippmann as a Keynesian by highlighting the closeness of many of his ideas to the Austrian school of thought. It accomplishes this by giving a holistic view of Lippmann’s thought, not only in the Great Depression and New Deal Era, but how he evolved from a student sympathetic to socialism at Harvard in 1910 to a theorist concerned with epistemological problems of good political, social, and economic order. The development of Lippmann’s thought in this broader lens parallels much of the work of Hayek, Mises, and others during this period, and presents rich new research opportunities for both modern Austrian economists as well as historians of economic thought.

During the interwar period, Austrian school economists played a fundamental role in establishing marginalism as a central principle of economics. In those years, the role of Mises in Vienna was especially pivotal in building up economics as a science based on the notion of subjective utility within a free institutional framework. As is well known, Mises was surrounded by several colleagues and students who were members of his intellectual circle (Mises's Kreis). This paper sheds some light on the theoretical contribution of Martha Stephanie (Steffy) Braun (Browne), a neglected Austrian economist in Mises's circle. Embedded in the Viennese cultural milieu of the time and trained as an Austrian school economist, Braun originally helped develop, and sometimes anticipated, some pivotal aspects of the economic theory of the Austrian school. Her focus was mainly on monetary issues, the nature of economic policy, and economic education, especially for women.

İktisadi düşünce oldukça uzun bir sürece yayılmıştır. Bu süreç, iktisadi okullar içinde birbirinden farklı birçok iktisatçının iktisadi düşüncelerinden oluşmuştur. Farklı iktisat okullarının düşünürleri bir önceki dönemin düşüncelerinden etkilenerek gelecek için yeni iktisadi düşünceler, çözüm yolları ve yeni bilgi süreçleri üretmek için çabalamışlardır. Bu okullardan bir tanesi de Avusturya İktisat Okulu olmuştur. Bu okulun düşünsel temelleri Carl Menger ile ortaya çıkmıştır. Carl Menger’in iktisat teorisini Klasik iktisattan daha farklı ve sağlam temeller üzerine yerleştirme fikri Alman Tarihçi Okul tarafından kabul edilmemiştir. Böylece Alman Tarihçi Okul ile başlayan metodoloji çalışması Avusturya Okulu’nun iktisadi düşünce temellerini iktisat bilimine yerleştirmeye başlamıştır. Avusturya İktisat Okulu hem iktisat teorisini daha sağlıklı bir şekilde analiz etmeye çabalamış hem de metodolojik olarak iktisat biliminde “marjinalist devrimi” önemli bir dönüm noktası haline getirmiştir. “Çok Yönlü Bir Düşünce Yaklaşımı Olan Avusturya İktisat Okulu: Teorisi, Metodolojisi, Felsefesi ve Temsilcileri” isimli çalışmada, Avusturya İktisat Okulu’nun iktisadi düşünceye katkıları, metodolojisi ve temsilcileri hakkında bilgi verilmiştir. Çalışma sonuç bölümüyle tamamlanmıştır., Economic thought has spread over a long period. This process was comprised of the economic thoughts of various economists within the schools of economics. The thinkers of different schools of economics, influenced by the thoughts of the previous periods, have strived for generating new economic ideas, solutions and information processes for the future. One of these schools was the Austrian School of Economics. The intellectual foundations of this school were laid by Carl Menger. Carl Menger’s idea of establishing economic theory on solid foundations other than the Classical economics was not embraced by the German Historian School. Thus, the methodology study, which started with the German Historian School, began to establish the economic thought foundations of the Austrian School into the science of economics. The Austrian School of Economics strived for analyzing economic theory in a healthier manner and rendered the “marginalist revolution” a methodologically crucial turning point for economics. In the study entitled “Austrian School of Economics: Its Theory, Methodology, Philosophy and Representatives”, a multi-faceted approach of thought, information is given about the contributions of the Austrian School of Economics to economic thought, as well as its methodology and representatives. The study is finalized with the conclusion part.

We study a case that applies hermeneutics to social sciences, in particular to the Austrian school of economics. We argue that an inaccurate treatment of hermeneutics contributed to an epistemological downgrade of the Austrian school in the economic scientific community. We discuss how this shortcoming can be fixed and how a proper hermeneutic application to the Austrian school explains why this school of thought is neither positivist nor postmodern.

The article investigates the significance of time, the nature of capital, and the role of technological progress in economic processes. The presented analysis of the three economic categories makes use of the theoretical achievements of notable representatives of the Austrian School of Economics, for whom a creative entrepreneur was the main protagonist of the interactions taking place in the economy. The above-mentioned economic categories, taken together, are for him the foundation of human activity. The time factor is of great importance for man – individuals constantly analyse historical events so as to attain success in contemporary economic reality, and in the future. Capital is the basis for economic calculation, which underpins all entrepreneurial activity. Technological progress, which happens in time and requires considerable capital outlay, is the driving force of economic growth.

The aim of the paper was to evaluate the usefulness of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) in explaining the changes in the wage structure occurring during different phases of the business cycle. Research methods applied are consistent with the methodological viewpoint of the Austrian School of Economics (ASE), using a mix of deductive reasoning and statistical analysis.The analysis of data on wage developments in various sectors of the Lithuanian economy in a cyclical environment has allowed confirming the research hypothesis almost entirely. The study has demonstrated that from 2004 to 2013 during expansion and contraction phases the most dynamic change in wages occurred in sectors that were in the early stages of production, i.e. most distant from consumption, and were producing the most durable consumer durables.Empirical verification of arguments formulated by the ASE is very rare. In global economic literature such studies of changes in the labour market during cyclical fluctuations are scarce. This study fills this gap by confronting the ASE theory with wage changes in a real-life economy.

Through this article we will try to get into the way of thinking of one of the most important economic schools, namely the Austrian School. Over time, many mistakes have been made by various economic schools because the fundamentals of thinking were not clear or the concepts used were not properly defined. Here we will try to clarify the foundation in general of the socio-human sciences and in particular of the mentioned school. Building theories or opinions on a fragile foundation will certainly give rise to a friable architecture. Among the various philosophers who have approached science, we believe that von Wight has a direct and clear approach to the type of human social thinking. From the information we have we do not know an approach similar to this article. The Austrian School has hitherto been understood as a methodology from the perspective of Aristotelianism. The question is whether a new perspective can make more sense. The methodology of presenting the article is narrative argumentation. The questions we try to answer in the conclusions are those related to understanding the present moment and discerning the future moment through the fog. The conclusions will be critical regarding the use of mathematics in the socio-human sciences, and the socio-human sciences must be understood only from the perspective of human motivations and intentions. Clarifying the starting point in economic thinking makes us more modest in drawing conclusions and making predictions about the future.

In this paper we analyse the concept of coerced exchange (and partly of voluntary exchange inasmuch as the absence of coercion is its necessary condition), which is of utmost importance to economic theory in general and to the Austrian School of Economics in particular. The subject matter literature normally assumes that a coerced action occurs under threat. Threats in turn can be studied from the perspective of speech act theory, which is concerned with the speaker’s intentions. Ultimately, our goal is to provide a descriptive (i.e. non-moralized) definitions of threat and coercion, based on the analysis of the coercer’s intentions. If successful, we would be in a position to present such an account of coerced and voluntary exchanges that is compatible with both speech act theory and the Austrian methodology. Although we focus on the Austrian School of Economics, we believe that our investigations might impact on economic theory in general. We also criticize a rights-based account of coercion employed in the research practice of some neo-Austrians and based on the libertarian ethic of property rights.

Resumen Por cambios ocurridos en el entorno de las organizaciones, como la globalización de los mercados, el aumento de la repercusión social, la contribución al desarrollo de las comunidades en las que participan las empresas por medio de prácticas y acciones que permiten el enriquecimiento económico, el bienestar social y la protección y promoción del medioambiente, estas se han visto en la necesidad de incorporar nuevas prácticas de RSE. Desde luego, para lograrlo se deben identificar las diferencias conceptuales de la RSE entre las teorías convencionales y la escuela de pensamiento austriaca. En este documento se consideran algunas acepciones teóricas de la praxeología, la RSE y la acción humana para determinar una aproximación a la interpretación de la RSE desde la praxeología. Abstract Due to the changes occurred in the environment of organizations, such as the globalization of markets, the increase in social impact, the contribution to the development of communities, in which companies participate through practices and actions that allow economic enrichment, social welfare, and the protection and promotion of the environment, these have seen the need to incorporate new CSR practices. To achieve this, the conceptual differences on CSR between conventional theories and the thinking of the Austrian school of thought must be identified. This document considered some theoretical meanings of praxeology, corporate responsibility, CSR, and human action, in order to determine an approach for interpreting CSR from praxeology. Resumo Por mudanças ocorridas no entorno das organizações, como a globalização dos mercados, o aumento da repercussão social, a contribuição ao desenvolvimento das comunidades, nas que participam as empresas por meio de práticas e ações que permitem o enriquecimento econômico, o bem-estar social, a proteção e promoção do meio ambiente, estas se têm visto na necessidade de incorporar novas práticas de RSE; e certamente para consegui-lo, devem-se identificar as diferenças conceituais sobre a RSE entre as teorias convencionais e o pensamento da escola de pensamento Austríaca; é por isto que neste documento se considera ter presente algumas acepções teóricas da praxeologia, a responsabilidade empresarial, RSE e a ação humana, para chegar a determinar uma aproximação à interpretação da RSE desde a praxeologia.

This article reconsiders the Austrian school’s historical position regarding the role of mathematics in economics in light of complexity economics’ approach to this issue. It first shows the three typical objections to the traditional use of mathematics raised by Austrian economics. Secondly, it presents complexity economics’ critique of algebraic mathematics, which is employed in mainstream economics, and its proposal for using algorithmic mathematics and computation. Then, it analyzes the similarities between the Austrian and complexity economics positions and considers whether the alternative algorithmic method that complexity economics advocates is compatible with and valuable for Austrian economics. The article concludes that Austrian economics can use algorithmic mathematics to elaborate economic theory without contradicting its own methodology and that algorithmic models and simulations can in fact enlarge Austrian theories on the working and emergence of the market process.

The three chapters of Part II focus on Schumpeter's monetary theory of development. To begin with, the current chapter addresses his intellectual upbringing in the midst of the marginalist revolution and how he drew the lines to his intellectual kinship of the Austrian School. Studying in Vienna with two of the main proponents of the marginalist revolution, his own method and concepts were thoroughly rooted in its fundamental premises. First, the attention turns to its founders (Jevons, Walras and Menger), then to the influence of Schumpeter's teachers Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser. This is followed by a discussion of the monetary theory of Knut Wicksell, who systematically applied the marginalist principles to monetary matters. Finally, we ask how Schumpeter related to the monetary theories of Ludwig Mises and Friedrich Hayek.