Veblen and Hayek on Instincts and Evolution

1990 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles G. Leathers

In his 1898 article Why is Economics Not An Evolutionary Science ,Thorstein Veblen criticized the Austrian School (as represented by Carl Menger) for being unable to break with the classical tradition that economics is a taxonomic science(Veblen 1898, p. 73). The Austrian failure was attributed to a "faulty conception of human nature (ibid.).

Author(s):  
Noriko Ishida

AbstractThe fact that Veblen was a keen critic of the neo-classical concept of “economic man” is well known. However, the following issues have not been discussed in enough depth: how he rebuilt the traditional theory of human nature through his new methodology of economics, how much his methodological revision broadened the scope of economics, and what kind of phenomena Veblen’s economic theory elucidates. This article examines these issues and aims to show the logical connection between Veblen’s controversial proposal on the methodology of economics and his analysis of economic phenomena. Specifically, it reconsiders Veblen’s analysis of economic action using a unique concept of instincts, his logic of explaining the relation between society and human nature, his way of drawing history from the relativistic worldview, and his characteristic method of grasping the cause and effect of economic phenomena. Finally, it highlights the importance of modifying the concept of “economic man” by focusing on the qualitative aspect. Particular reference is made to the economic concepts of utility, efficiency, and intangibility.


Author(s):  
James R. Wible

More than a century ago, one of the most famous essays ever written in American economics appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics: “Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” There, Thorstein Veblen claimed that economics was too dominated by a mechanistic view to address the problems of economic life. Since the world and the economy had come to be viewed from an evolutionary perspective after Charles Darwin, it was rather straightforward to argue that the increasingly abstract mathematical character of economics was non-evolutionary. However, Veblen had studied with a first-rate intellect, Charles Sanders Peirce, attending his elementary logic class. If Peirce had written about the future of economics in 1898, it would have been very different than Veblen’s essay. Peirce could have written that economics should become an evolutionary mathematical science and that much of classical and neoclassical economics could be interpreted from an evolutionary perspective.


1974 ◽  
Vol 84 (334) ◽  
pp. 400 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Jaffe ◽  
J. R. Hicks ◽  
W. Weber

Economica ◽  
1974 ◽  
Vol 41 (164) ◽  
pp. 451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald L. Meek ◽  
J. R. Hicks ◽  
W. Weber

Author(s):  
J. Barkley Rosser

There is a deep link between complexity economics and Austrian economics. Ideas of complexity were foundational in the work of Austrian economics from its generally recognized beginnings in the work of Carl Menger to the modern day, with Friedrich Hayek being probably the most important carrier of this theme in the school. Although interest in complexity economics among Austrians has waxed and waned over time, today such ideas are quite influential in the work of many Austrian economists. This chapter discusses the varieties of economic complexity and the connection with the Austrian school of economics from Menger to Hayek, as well as more recent developments of Austrian views on complexity.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Wible

More than a century ago one of the most famous essays ever written in American economics appeared in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, “Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?” There Thorstein Veblen claimed that economics was too dominated by a mechanistic view to address the problems of economic life. Since the world and the economy had come to be viewed from an evolutionary perspective after Darwin, it was rather straight forward to argue that the increasingly abstract mathematical character of economics was non-evolutionary. However, Veblen had studied with a first-rate intellect, Charles Sanders Peirce, attending his elementary logic class. If Peirce had written about the future of economics in 1898, it would have been very different than Veblen’s essay. Peirce could have written that economics should become an evolutionary mathematical science and that much of classical and neoclassical economics could be interpreted from an evolutionary perspective.


2021 ◽  
pp. 173-215
Author(s):  
Patrick Reimers

This paper evaluates and compares the main philosophic and economic thoughts of the two great liberal minds Michael Polanyi and Friedrich A. von Hayek in regards to the concept of a ‘spontaneous order’. In several of their books and papers, both Michal Polanyi (1941, 1948, 1951) and F.A. von Hayek (1944, 1945, 1964, 1973) strongly emphasised on the impossibility of socialism and the superiority of a free market versus public interventionism. Both highlighted their conviction that central planning cannot be more efficient than a spontaneous order, since knowledge is dispersed (Hayek) and tacit (Polanyi). Although both shared very similar concerns in regards to economic matters, they did not always come to the same conclusions. Thus, also the differences between Polanyi’s and Hayek’s concepts will be discussed, such as Polanyi’s emphasis on defending subsystems as the basic units of society, and his focus on maximizing “public freedom”. Both came to different conclusions in regards to the institutional character of science, and even concluded somewhat differently on the character of knowledge. Most importantly, they developed different concepts on political economy and the ideal role of the State. Moreover, this paper will consider the impact of M. Polanyi on the concept of polycentricity and on the ideas of Elinor Ostrom, while also referring to the different understanding of the role of the State in the ideas of F.A. Hayek compared to other Austrian School economists, such as Murray N. Rothbard. In addition, the paper pretends to historically analyse the emergence of the term ‘spontaneous order’, showing that it is not the product of one mind’s design, but the consequence of the thoughts of several great minds, such as Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. von Hayek, Michael Polanyi, Walter Eucken, and Wilhelm Röpke. Keywords: liberalism, libertarianism, capitalism, Austrian school of economics, interventionism, collectivism, spontaneous order, dynamic efficiency, free market economy, polycentricity, catallactics, extended order, tacit knowledge, dispersed knowledge, F.A. Hayek, Michael Polanyi JEL Classification: A12, B10, B13, B25, H10, H40, K11, P10, P14, P16, P26, P48, P51 Resumen: Este artículo evalúa y compara los principales pensamientos económicos y filosóficos de las dos grandes mentes liberales Michael Polanyi y Friedrich A. von Hayek con respecto al concepto del orden espontáneo. En sus obras principales, tanto Michael Polanyi (1941, 1948, 1951) como F.A. von Hayek (1944, 1945, 1964, 1973) destacaron fuertemente la imposibilidad del socialismo y la superioridad de un mercado libre versus el intervencionismo público. Ambos estaban convencidos de que la planificación central no puede ser más eficiente que un orden espontáneo, ya que el conocimiento es disperso (Hayek) y tácito (Polanyi). Aunque ambos compartían preocupaciones muy similares con respecto a los asuntos económicos, no siempre llegaron a las mismas conclusiones. Por lo tanto, también se discutirán las diferencias entre los conceptos de Polanyi y Hayek, como el énfasis de Polanyi en defender los sub-sistemas como unidades básicas de la sociedad y su enfoque en maximizar la “libertad pública”. Ambos llegaron a conclusiones diferentes con respecto al carácter institucional de la ciencia y al carácter del conocimiento. Además, este artículo considerará sus diferentes conceptos sobre economía política y el papel ideal del Estado, y analiza el impacto de M. Polanyi en el concepto de policentrismo y en las ideas de Elinor Ostrom. Por otra parte, el artículo pretende analizar históricamente la aparición del término “orden espontáneo”, mostrando que no es producto del diseño de una sola mente, sino la consecuencia de los pensamientos de varias grandes mentes, como Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, FA von Hayek, Michael Polanyi, Walter Eucken y Wilhelm Röpke. Palabras clave: liberalismo, libertarismo, capitalismo, escuela austriaca de economía, intervencionismo, colectivismo, orden espontáneo, eficiencia dinámica, economía de libre mercado, policentrismo, orden extendido, conocimiento tácito, conocimiento disperso, F.A. Hayek, Michael Polanyi Clasificación JEL: A12, B10, B13, B25, H10, H40, K11, P10, P14, P16, P26, P48, P51


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-72
Author(s):  
Daniel Ricardo Casas Hernández ◽  
Claudia Milena Pico Bonilla

El presente documento reflexiona sobre el uso del método inductivo y deductivo en el análisis del consumo que realizaron dos autores del siglo XIX: Thorstein Veblen   y   Carl   Menger,   respectivamente.   Se   plantea   que   en   el   debate metodológico del siglo XIX cobró poca relevancia el ejercicio de constatación empírica  de  planteamientos  teóricos  a  raíz  de  la  conciencia  del  carácter limitado de la teoría. Sobre esta base, las teorías del consumo se construyeron a partir  de  propuestas  analíticas  propias  del  razonamiento  deductivo  sobre  tres premisas apriorísticas básicas: individuo asocial, insaciabilidad y orientación a los   bienes. Sin embargo, este programa de investigación se ha degenerado en el sentido de Lakatos por los cuestionamientos de Veblen, Galbraith, Keynes y Akerman   entre  otros.   De  ahí  que  para  favorecer   la  construcción  de  un programa de investigación progresivo en términos metodológicos y empíricos sea necesaria la integración de los métodos deductivo e inductivo en economía y el avance hacia presupuestos teóricos consistentes con realidades históricas cambiantes.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 372-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Quinn Slobodian

This article shows that the incorporation of right-wing libertarians into the Alt Right coalition was the end result of a schism in the neoliberal intellectual movement in response to the egalitarian challenge of the 1960s. In a symmetry with developments on the post-Marxist Left, one group of Austrian School economists associated with F. A. Hayek took a cultural turn. Performing their own critique of “economism,” they perceived human nature as rooted primarily in culture, adaptable over time through social learning and selective evolution. The other group of Austrian economists, linked to Murray Rothbard and culminating in the racist-libertarian alliance of the Alt Right, saw difference as rooted in biology and race as an immutable hierarchy of group traits and abilities. While many observers have described the Alt Right as a backlash against the excesses of neoliberalism, this shows that an important current of the Alt Right was born within and not against the neoliberal movement.


2021 ◽  
pp. 411-427
Author(s):  
Rafael Antonio Rivera Solórzano

It’s well known that Carl Menger, one the most remarkable con-tributors on economic theory, and father of the Austrian School of Economics, devoted a great part of his career to research money origins. According to his studies, money, just as language and eco-nomics came from a spontaneous order, otherwise known as a creation of human interaction, yet not of human design. This means that money didn’t originate from a decree, neither was an invention of a king or governor, but it comes from the regular com-munication between individuals, to satisfy a need. Needless to be said, the necessity of exchange has continuously been present on mankind; facilitating the satisfaction of the infinite human desires. Yet coinage was not present in humanity until the VIth century B.C. in Europe and XVth century A.C. in America1 when Spaniards arrived. Then how could civilizations without a well-developed coinage system progress? The purpose of this paper is to prove and show how the Mayan monetary system could work with-out a coinage system, and how efficient this civilization was solving problems commonly found in barter and commodity money, which were their leading means in commerce.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document