What Austrian Economics IS and What It Is NOT - 經濟

最近好像因為凱因斯大戰海耶克的影片讓奧國學派的名字常常出現 XD
之前看到這篇文章, 供板友參考

其中這段文字挺有意思,
套在其他理論(特別是所謂的總體經濟學派), 不也是一樣?

"Austrian economics IS a set of analytical propositions about the world and
how to study it. It is NOT a set of policy conclusions or settled
interpretations of history."


http://thinkmarkets.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/what-austrian-economics-is-and-
what-it-is-not/


What Austrian Economics IS and What It Is NOT
November 29, 2010

by Steve Horwitz*


Since the start of the financial crisis and recession, there has been a
renewed interest in the ideas of Austrian economics by scholars, public
intellectuals, and even the media. For the first time in a long time, the
analytical framework of Austrian economics is being taken note of, if not
taken seriously, by a variety of opinion makers. This is, of course, a good
development.

However, at the same time, this popularity has led to many people using the
"Austrian" label to refer to their views on issues beyond those involving the
analytical framework they bring to economics. In particular, "Austrian"
has become the near-equivalent of "free market" or "libertarian" not
only indirectly, but directly through the use of terms such as
"Austro-libertarian" to describe particular policy preferences or broader
worldviews. The result is that, despite the additional publicity, what
Austrian economics IS has often been distorted into something it is NOT.

For example, earlier this month, columnist J. D. Hamel wrote “Viewed through
an Austrian perspective, public policy judgments [by Austrians] are hastily
rendered and motives easily impugned” and referred to “the Austrian school's
disdain for American foreign policy and willingness to call Lincoln a
tyrant.” Austrians should view as troubling the beliefs that: a) our
"perspective" involves “hastily rendered” policy judgments; b) our
perspective means one needs to impugn the motives of others; and c) Austrian
economics requires that one have a particular view on US foreign policy or
the Civil War.

When this is what people associate with Austrian economics, we have failed in
communicating its basic ideas and we have especially failed in communicating
that it is an approach to the study of human action and the social world, not
a set of policy conclusions. If we really want to understand the world for
the purpose of improving it, we need the ideas of Austrian economics and we
do not need to be pushing people away by creating the impression that
Austrian economics requires that one believe things (some of which may be
perceived as “nutty,” rightly or wrongly) that are not part of that
analytical framework.

I would argue that the blame for this situation is two-fold. First, many
journalists and commentators either don’t take the time to understand what
Austrian economics is really about despite the abundance of high-quality
information on the web and/or have their own biases that lead them to accept
whatever caricature of Austrians they can find or invent. Second,
self-described Austrians bear blame for this situation too by not making
clear the distinctions among “Austrian economics,” “libertarianism,” and
their particular views on historical or policy issues. The irony is that
Austrians historically, and particularly Mises, were very clear about the
idea of “value freedom” and the differences between theory and historical
application or understanding.

So as a help to those who want a clearer understanding of what Austrian
economics IS so as to also help understand what it is NOT, I would suggest a
reading of co-blogger Pete Boettke’s entry on “Austrian Economics” at the
Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, which is precisely the sort of source that
responsible journalists could look at. There, he offers 10 propositions that
define Austrian economics. I will list them below, then offer a few comments
afterward.

1. Only individuals choose.
2. The study of the market order is fundamentally about exchange behavior and
the institutions within which exchanges take place.
3. The “facts” of the social sciences are what people believe and think.
4. Utility and costs are subjective.
5. The price system economizes on the information that people need to process
in making their decisions.
6. Private property in the means of production is a necessary condition for
rational economic calculation.
7. The competitive market is a process of entrepreneurial discovery.
8. Money is nonneutral.
9. The capital structure consists of heterogeneous goods that have
multispecific uses that must be aligned.
10. Social institutions often are the result of human action, but not of
human design.

Pete does a terrific job in explicating these propositions in the linked
article, and there’s no need for me to repeat what he has to say. Instead,
I just want to point out how each of these is a statement about the nature of
the socio-economic world and/or how we should be analyzing it. Not one of
them offers a policy conclusion on economic issues or anything else. To
repeat: Austrian economics is a set of ideas useful for analyzing and
understanding the world; it is not a set of policy conclusions. There are
plenty of non-Austrian economists who hold strongly libertarian policy views
(e.g., Bryan Caplan) and there are economists who would accept most if not
all of the propositions above, but who are not self-described libertarians
(e.g., Roger Koppl). And there are plenty of people who believe Lincoln was
a tyrant and US foreign policy is an imperialist nighmare who are not
Austrians (and there are Austrians who would disagree with both of those
claims).

To get from Austrian economics to conclusions on policy, one has to import
some basic non-economic beliefs, such as that social cooperation, peace, and
prosperity are desirable and that no other values are more important. In
addition, making such claims, especially when they rest on historical
understanding, also involves the interpretive judgment of the economist in
ways that take him beyond Austrian economics strictly speaking. To say
something about policy or history requires that the economist use knowledge
from other areas and invoke her understanding of history and the actors of
the present. Austrian economic theory alone cannot render such policy
judgments or provide such historical understanding.

Consider what Mises says about the task of the historian:

In dealing with a historical problem the historian makes use of the knowledge
provided by logic, mathematics, the natural sciences, and especially by
praxeology. However, the mental tools of these nonhistorical disciplines do
not suffice for his task. They are indispensible auxiliaries for him, in
themselves they do not make it possible to answer those questions he has to
deal with….

He cannot solve this problem on the ground of the theorems provided by all
other sciences alone. There always remains at the bottom of each of his
problems something which resists analysis at the hand of these teachings of
other sciences. It is these individual and unique characteristics of each
event which are studied by the understanding. … It is the method which all
historians and all other people always apply in commenting upon human events
of the past and in forecasting future events. (Human Action pp. 49-50)

Austrian economics (praxeology) has nothing to say in and of itself about
issues such as US foreign policy, the Civil War, whether the Federal Reserve
System was the product of a secret bankers’ conspiracy, whether the Bush
family has ties to the Nazis, whether same-sex marriage should be legalized,
whether Israel is a rogue state, whether intellectual property is legitimate,
or whether the atomic bombing of Japan was justified. Again, Austrian
theoretical ideas will be, of course, of use in our attempts to understand
these issues (as Chris Coyne’s work on US foreign policy demonstrates), but
there is nothing, repeat, nothing, that “requires” that someone using
Austrian ideas take one position or another on those issues. And no position
so taken can rightly be described as “the” Austrian view of the issue.

In addition, Austrian economics has nothing to say about “natural rights.”
In fact, Mises denied the existence of natural rights and it isn’t clear
what use economics of any school is if one prefers natural rights arguments
over consequentialist ones.

Austrian economics IS a set of analytical propositions about the world and
how to study it. It is NOT a set of policy conclusions or settled
interpretations of history. Whatever one’s views on these other issues, it
is incumbent upon Austrians to make clear that they are not a necessary
component of making use of an Austrian framework for analysis. And if we can
do a better job in making that very Misesian distinction clear, we will be
even more likely to get our ideas not just heard but accepted by divorcing
them from specific positions on issues that have no necessary connection to
Austrian economics and frequently drive away those who might otherwise be
sympathetic.

--