Advertisement

Forum for Social Economics

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 1–23 | Cite as

The economics of Frank H. Knight: An Austrian interpretation

  • Tony Fu-Lai Yu
Article

Abstract

This paper interprets, in the modern Austrian economics perspective, Frank H. Knight's three core contributions; namely, economic methodology, theories of human action, uncertainty and entrepreneurship. Though Knight is regarded as one of the founding fathers of the Chicago School of economics, this paper argues that Knight's contributions are essentially Austrian. Influenced by William James, Henri Bergson and Max Weber, Knight's subjectivist economics can be seen as a link between Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises in the history of Austrian subjectivism. This paper further suggests that Knight may be more appropriately located in the Austrian-German School, for the reason that the term “Austrian School” is too narrow to accommodate german influences. This paper concludes that Knight's legacies have left much to be appreciated by neoclassical mainstream economists in general and Austrian economists in particular.

Keywords

Social Economic Austrian Economic Austrian School Neoclassical Economic Chicago School 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berger, P. and B. Berger. (1976).Sociology: A Biographical Approach. Middlesex: Penguin.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, P. and T. Luckmann. (1966).The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  3. Blaug, Mark. (1980).Methodology in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boettke, Peter. (1987). “Virginia Political Economy: A View from Vienna.”Market Process. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 5, 2: 7–15.Google Scholar
  5. —. (1994). “Ludwig Lachmann and his Contributions to Economic Science.” Peter Boettke, Israel M. Kirzner and Mario J. Rizzo, eds.Advances in Austrian Economics. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 1, 229–256.Google Scholar
  6. Brouwer, Maria T. (2000). “Weber, Schumpeter and Knight on the Role of Entrepreneurship in Economic Development.” Paper presented at 8th Conference of the International J.A. Schumpeter Society. Manchester, UK, June 28–July 1.Google Scholar
  7. Buchanan, James. (1968). “Knight, Frank H.” David Sills, ed.International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan Press, Vol. 7, 424–428.Google Scholar
  8. Emmett, Ross B. (Spring 1999). “The Economist and the Entrepreneur: Modernist Impulses in Frank H. Knight's Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit.”History of Political Economy, 31: 29–52.Google Scholar
  9. — (2001).The Chicago Tradition in Economics, 1892–1945. London: Roultedge, 8 volume set.Google Scholar
  10. Emmett, Ross B. (2001a).Frank H. Knight: An Annotated Bibliography. www.econlib.org/library/Knight/KnightBib.htm1#/reference. August.Google Scholar
  11. Foss, Nicholai J. (Spring 1996). “The Alternative Theories of Knight And Coase, and the Modern Theory of the Firm”.Journal of The History Of Economic Thought, 18: 76–95.Google Scholar
  12. Friedman, Milton. (1953). “The Methodology of Positive Economics”.Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gonce, R. A. (1970). “Frank H. Knight on Social Control and the Scope and Method of Economics.”Southern Economic Journal, 38, 4: 547–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Granovetter, M. (1992). “Economic Institutions and Social Constructions: A Framework for Analysis.”Acta Sociologica, 35: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gunning, P. (March 1993). “Entrepreneurists and Firmists: Knight vs. the Modern Theory of the Firm.”Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 15: 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. — (1997). “The Theory of Entrepreneurship in Austrian Economics.” W. Keizer, et al., eds.Austrians in Debate. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hayek, F.A. (1945). “The Use of Knowledge in the Society.”American Economic Review, 35: 519–530. Reprinted in F.A. Hayek. (1947).Individualism and Economic Order. London: Routledge, 77–91.Google Scholar
  18. Hebert, Robert F. (1985). “Was Richard Cantillon an Austrian Economist?”Journal of Libertarian Studies, VII, 2: 269–280.Google Scholar
  19. — and Albert N. Link (1982).The Entrepreneur: Mainstream Views and Radical Critiques. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Herbenber, Jeffrey. (2001). “Human Action: What the Archives Tell Us.” www.mises.org/ downleaded on 20 August.Google Scholar
  21. High, Jack (1982) “Alertness and Judgement: Comment on Kirzner.” Isreal M. Kirzner, ed.Method, Process and Austrian Economics: Essays in Honour of Ludwig von Mises. Lexington, Mass: D.C. Heath, 161–168.Google Scholar
  22. High, Jack. (1990).Maximizing, Action and Market Adjustment. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  23. Kirzner, Israel M. (1960).The Economic Point of View. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  24. — (1973).Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. — (1979).Perception, Opportunity and Profit. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. — (1998). “Creativity and/or Alertness: A Reconsideration of the Schumpeterian Entrepreneur.”The Review of Austrian Economics, 11, 1–2: 5–17.Google Scholar
  27. Knight, Frank H. (1921).Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  28. — (1935/1951).The Ethics of Competition and Other Essays. New York: Augustus M. Kelly.Google Scholar
  29. — (1940). “What is ‘Truth’ in Economics?”Journal of Political Economy, XLVIII, 1. Reprinted inOn the History and Methods of Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (1956), 151–178.Google Scholar
  30. — (1947).Freedom and Reform. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
  31. — (1956).On the History and Methods of Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Koppl, Roger. (1994). “Lachmann on Schutz and Shackle.”Advances in Austrian Economics, 1: 289–301.Google Scholar
  33. —. (1997). “Mises and Schutz on Ideal Types.”Cultural Dynamics, 9, 1: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lachmann, L.M. (November 1947). “Review: Knight, F.H.Freedom and Reform.”Economica, 314–317.Google Scholar
  35. Lachmann, L.M. (November 1951). “The Science of Human Action.”Economica, 412–427. Reprinted in Walter Grinder, ed.Capital, Expectation and the Market Process. Menlo Park, CA: Institute for Humane Studies (1977), 94–111.Google Scholar
  36. — (1970).The Legacy of Max Weber. London: Heineman.Google Scholar
  37. — (1994). Don Lavoie, ed.Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Langlois, Richard N. (1986). “Coherence and Flexibility: Social Institutions in a World of Radical Uncertainty.” I.M. Kirzner, ed.Subjectivism, Intelligibility and Economic Understanding. New York: New York University Press, 171–191.Google Scholar
  39. — and Metin M. Cosgel (July 1993). “Frank Knight on Risk, Uncertainty, and the Firm: A New Interpretation.”Economic Inquiry; XXXI: 456–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lavoie, Don. (1994). “The Interpretive turn.” Peter J. Boettke, ed.The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 54–62.Google Scholar
  41. Madison, G.B. (1988). “Hermeneutical Integrity: A Guide for the Perplexed.”Market Process. Fairfax: VA: George Mason University, 6, 1: 2–8.Google Scholar
  42. — (1994). “Phenomenology and Economics.” Peter J. Boettke, ed.The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 38–47.Google Scholar
  43. McKenzie, Richard B. (July 1980). “The Neoclassicalists vs. the Austrians: A Partial Reconciliation of Competing World Views.”Southern Economic Journal, 47, 1: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McKinney, J. (1977). “Frank H. Knight on Uncertainty and Rational Action.”Southern Economic Journal, 43: 1438–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mises, L.V. (1949/1966).Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 3rd edition.Google Scholar
  46. — (1962). “Profit and Loss.”Planning for Freedom. South Holland, Ill: Libertarian Press, 112–150.Google Scholar
  47. O'Driscoll, G.P. Jr. and M.J. Rizzo. (1985).The Economics of Time and Ignorance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Pagué, K. H. (1985). “How far is Vienna from Chicago? An Essay on the Methodology of Two Schools of Dogmatic Liberalism.”Kyklos, 38: 412–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Prychitko, David. (1994). “Ludwig Lachmann and the Interpretative Turn in Economics.” Peter Boettke, Israel M. Kirzner and Mario J. Rizzo eds.Advances in Austrian Economics. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 1, 303–319.Google Scholar
  50. Rothbard, Murray N. (1962/1993).Man, Economy and State. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
  51. — (1976). “Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics.” Edwin G. Dolan, ed.The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, Inc, 19–39.Google Scholar
  52. Savage, L. J. (1954/1972).The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  53. Schweitzer, Arthur (1975): “Frank Knight's Social Economics.”History of Political Economy, 7, 3: 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schutz, A. (1970).On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Weber, Max. (1947/1964).The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wieser, Friedrich von. (1914/1967).Social Economics. New York: A.M. Kelly.Google Scholar
  57. Yu, Tony Fu-Lai. (June 1999). “Toward a Praxeological Theory of the Firm.”Review of Austrian Economics, 12, 1: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Social Economics 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tony Fu-Lai Yu
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New South Wales (ADFA)Australia

Personalised recommendations