Austrian Economics and the Market Test Reexamined

  • Daniel Sutter


Quarterly Journal Market Failure Network Effect Austrian Economic Neoclassical Economic 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aeppel, Timothy. 2005. “Economists Gain Star Power.” Wall Street Journal (22 February): A2.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, William L. 2000. “Austrian Economics and the ‘Market Test’: A Comment on Laband and Tollison.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3 (3): 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur, W. Brian. 1989. “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events.” Economic Journal 99: 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, Walter. 2000. “Austrian Journals: A Critique of Rosen, Yeager, Laband and Tollison, and Vedder and Gallaway.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3 (2): 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boettke, Peter J., ed. 1994. The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics. Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Boettke, Peter J., and David L. Prychitko. 1994. “The Future of Austrian Economics.” In The Market Process: Essays in Contemporary Austrian Economics. Boettke and Prychitko, eds. Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar. Pp. 287–93.Google Scholar
  7. Caplan, Bryan. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations.” Southern Economic Journal 65 (4): 823–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cowen, Tyler, and Richard Fink. 1985. “Inconsistent Equilibrium Constructs: The Evenly Rotating Economy of Mises and Rothbard.” American Economic Review 75 (4): 866–69.Google Scholar
  9. David, Paul A. 1985. “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY.” American Economic Review 75: 332–37.Google Scholar
  10. Hayek, Friedrich A. 1944. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Huber, Peter W. 1991. Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Laband, David N., and Robert D. Tollison. 2000. “On Secondhandism and Scientific Appraisal.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3 (1): 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liebowitz, Stan J., and Stephen E. Margolis. 1999. Winners, Losers & Microsoft: Competition and Antitrust in High Technology. Oakland, Calif.: The Independent Institute.Google Scholar
  14. ___. 1990. “The Fable of the Keys.” Journal of Law and Economics 33: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosen, Sherwin. 1997. “Austrian and Neoclassical Economics: Any Gains From Trade?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (4): 139–52.Google Scholar
  16. Stigler, George J., and Gary S. Becker. 1977. “De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.” American Economic Review 67 (2): 76–90.Google Scholar
  17. Sykes, Charles J. 1988. Profscam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Press.Google Scholar
  18. Vedder, Richard, and Lowell Gallaway. 2000. “The Austrian Market Share in the Marketplace for Ideas, 1871–2025.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3 (1): 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yeager, Leland B. 2000. “The Tactics of Secondhandism.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3 (3): 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. ___. 1997. “Austrian Economics, Neoclassicism, and the Market Test.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (4): 153–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science & Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel Sutter
    • 1
  1. 1.University of TexasEdinburgUSA

Personalised recommendations