Austrian School of Economics

Author(s):  
Stephen D. Parsons
2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-511
Author(s):  
Tim Christiaens

In his lectures on neoliberalism, Michel Foucault argues that neoliberalism produces subjects as ‘entrepreneurs of themselves’. He bases this claim on Gary Becker’s conception of the utility-maximizing agent who solely acts upon cost/benefit-calculations. Not all neoliberalized subjects, however, are encouraged to maximize their utility through mere calculation. This article argues that Foucault’s description of neoliberal subjectivity obscures a non-calculative, more audacious side to neoliberal subjectivity. Precarious workers in the creative industries, for example, are encouraged not merely to rationally manage their human capital, but also to take a leap of faith to acquire unpredictable successes. It is this latter risk-loving, extra-calculative side to neoliberal subjectivity that economists usually designate as ‘entrepreneurial’. By confronting Foucault with the theories of entrepreneurship of the Austrian School of Economics, Frank Knight, and Joseph Schumpeter, the Foucauldian analytical framework is enriched. Neoliberal subjectivation is not the monolithic promotion of utility-maximizing agents, but the generation of a multiplicity of modes for entrepreneurs to relate to oneself and the market.


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

2021 ◽  
pp. 255-304
Author(s):  
Diego E. Quijano Durán

The Austrian school of economics and the investment method known as value investing have a similar conception of the world, so that it is possible to find multiple links between them and form a coherent structure. To the economist, this allows for a much deeper understanding of the entrepreneurial function and the manner in which economic calculation is actually performed. To the investor, it offers a theoretical framework that explains economic phenomena, permitting him to better understand the role of the entrepreneur and to protect his investment when dangerous patterns can be observed. In this essay, we begin from the common stance of both schools of thought towards common sense, the use of realistic assumptions, the importance of prudence and the low value of complex mathematics in the fields of economics and finance. We then proceed to develop in greater depth nine aspects that have strong philosophical and scientific links. Key words: Value investing, Austrian school of economics, entrepreneurship, dynamic efficiency, economic calculation. JEL Classification: A12, G17, M20. Resumen: La Escuela Austriaca de Economía y el método de inversión en valor tienen una concepción similar del mundo que permite entrelazarlas coherentemente. Al economista, le permite profundizar el conocimiento del ejercicio de la función empresarial y la realización del cálculo económico en la práctica. Al inversor, le ofrece un marco teórico para comprender mejor el papel del empresario y los fenómenos económicos y detectar temprano patrones peligrosos y así protegerse. En este trabajo partimos de la base de que ambas escuelas de pensamiento tienen sus raíces en el sentido común y los supuestos realistas, que son prudentes a la hora de ver el futuro y que dudan de la utilidad de las matemáticas complejas en los campos económicos y financieros. Sobre ello, desarrollamos nueve aspectos en los cuales hay fuertes conexiones como, por ejemplo, la manera en que el ejercicio de la empresarialidad mejora la eficiencia del mercado y coordina los planes de las personas. Palabras clave: Inversión en valor, escuela austriaca de economía, empre-sarialidad, eficiencia dinámica, cálculo económico. Clasificación JEL: A12, G17, M20.


2003 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hansjörg Klausinger

The development of Austrian economics in the interwar period was marked by the contrast between its high esteem at the beginning of the 1930s and its dwindling influence throughout the remainder of the decade. A variety of reasons have been conjectured for this decline (and the eventual dissolution) of the Austrian school of economics (see Caldwell 1988, pp. 517–21). A rarely mentioned factor of a more sociological nature that may have contributed to or that at least indicated the school's decline was its loss of coherence during the late 1930s, when, as a consequence of the emigration of the most prominent members, Vienna lost its role as the Austrian school's main center of communication. Insofar as this lack of coherence led not just to diversity within a unifying framework but to crucial divergences among the school's leading members, this might help to explain why after 1945 the Austrians were no longer perceived as a distinct school—some parts of their thinking had been fused into the neoclassical mainstream and others had largely fallen into disregard.


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.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-32
Author(s):  
Bruno Carvalho Dantas

AbstractThis essay will employ theoretical tools from the Austrian school of economics in order to study law as a social system and develop a more accurate comprehension of its functions and of the evolutionary processes to which it is subject. By building up from Hayek’s theories of institutions and complex phenomena, both of which emphasize the “spontaneous” nature of social phenomena vis-à-vis proposals of conscious “steering” by means of central planning, we’ll try to show how neoclassical approaches to legal theory are based on unrealistic assumptions about human cognition and, as such, turn out to be a subclass of the so-called “constructivist” thought, severely criticized by Hayek in his works. At the end of the article, we’ll discuss in passing some internal difficulties with the Hayekian approach itself.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document