Advertisement

The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 231–241 | Cite as

Austrian economics at the cutting edge

  • R. Koppl
Article

Abstract

Austrian economists today have a valuable opportunity to rejoin the mainstream of the economics profession. As Colander, Holt, and Rosser have argued, neoclassical orthodoxy is no long mainstream. What I call the “heterodox mainstream” is an emerging new orthodoxy. The five leading characteristics of the emerging new orthodoxy are bounded rationality, rule following, institutions, cognition, and evolution. When listed in this order, they suggest the acronym BRICE. The Austrian school is also an example of BRICE economics. The shared themes of BRICE economics create an opportunity for intellectual exchange between Austrians and other elements of the heterodox mainstream. Although Austrians should engage the heterodox mainstream energetically, they should also defend the essential elements of an early version of neoclassical economics, elements at risk of becoming half-forgotten themes of an earlier era. These elements are supply and demand, marginalist logic, opportunity-cost reasoning, and the elementary theory of markets.

Keywords

Austrian school BRICE Heterodox mainstream Neoclassical economics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baird, C. W. (2000). Alchian and menger on money. Review of Austrian Economics, 13(2), 115–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boettke, P. (1989). Evolution and econoimcs: austrians as institutionalists. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 6, 73–89.Google Scholar
  3. Boettke, P., & Susan, A. (2004). The development set: the character of the journal of development economics 2002. Economic Journal Watch, 1(2), 306–318.Google Scholar
  4. Butos, W. N. (2003). Knowledge questions: hayek, keynes, and beyond. Review of Austrian Economics, 16 (4), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butos, W., & Roger, K. (1993). Hayekian expectations: theory and empirical applications. Constitutional Political Economy, 4(3), 303–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butos, W., & McQuade, T. Forthcoming. The sensory order and other adaptive classifying systems. Journal of Bioeconomics.Google Scholar
  7. Chamlee-Wright, E. (1997). The cultural foundations of economic development. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Colander, D., Richard, P. F. H., & Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2004). The changing face of mainstream economics. Review of Political Economy, 16(4), 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colander, D., Richard, Holt, P. F., & Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2005). The changing face of economics: conversations with cutting edge economists. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fraser, L. M. (1932). How do we want economists to behave? The Economic Journal, 42, 555–570.Google Scholar
  11. Garrison, R. (1985). The costs of a gold standard. In H. Llewellyn, Rockwell, Jr. (ed.), The gold standard: an austrian perspective (pp. 61–79). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Co.Google Scholar
  12. Gilad, B. (1982). On encouraging entrepreneurship: an interdisciplinary approach. Journal of Behavioral Economics, 11(1), 132–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harper, D. (1996). Enterpreneurship and the market process: an inquiry into the growth of knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Harper, D. (1998). Institutional conditions for entrepreneurship. Advances in Austrian Economics, 5, 241–275.Google Scholar
  15. Hayek, F. A. (1952). The sensory order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hayek, F. A. (1967a). The theory of complex phenomena. In his studies in philosophy, politics, and economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hayek, F. A. (1967b). The corporation in a democratic society. in whose interest ought It to and will it be run? In his Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hayek, F. A. (1973). Law, legislation and liberty, volume i: rules and order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Holland, J. H. (1992). Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Horwitz, S. (2000). Microfoundations and macroeconomics: an austrian perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: self-organization and selection in evolution. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Koppl, R. (2000). Teaching complexity: an austrian approach. In D. Colander (ed.), The complexity vision and the teaching of economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  23. Koppl, R. (2002a). Big players and the economic theory of expectations. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Koppl, R. (2002b). Custom and rules: comments on ekkehart schlicht’s on custom in the economy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 61(2), 531–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Koppl, R. (2005). Epistemic systems. Episteme: Journal of Social Epistemology, 2(2), 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koppl, R., & Rosser, J. B. Jr. (2002). All that i have to say has already crossed your mind. Metroeconomica, 53(4), 339–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Law, J. 1705 (1966). Money and trade considered, with a proposal for supplying the nation with money. New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Lewin, P. (2000). The development of austrian economics: revisiting the neoclassical divide. Review of Austrian Economics, 14(4), 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Markose, S. M. (2005). Computability and evolutionary complexity: markets as complex adaptive systems (CAS). The Economic Journal, 115, F159–F192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCabe, K. (2005). Reciprocity and social order: what do experiments tell us about the failure of economic growth?” Review of Austrian Economics, 18(3–4), 241–280.Google Scholar
  31. McCabe, K. (2003). Neuroeconomics, Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, Lynn Nadel (ed-in chief), New York: Nature Publishing Group, Macmillan Publishing, (pp. 294–298).Google Scholar
  32. McCabe, K., Daniel, H., Lee, R., Vernon, S., & Theodore, T. (2001). A functional imaging study of cooperation in two-person reciprocal exchange. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98, 11832–11835.Google Scholar
  33. Mulligan, R. F. (2004). Fractal analysis of highly volatile markets: an application to technology equities. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 44(1), 155–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mulligan, R. F., & Lombardo, G. A. (2004). Maritime businesses: volatile stock prices and market valuation inefficiencies. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 44(2), 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. O’Driscoll, G., & Mario, R. (1985). The economics of time and ignorance. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. Parsons, T. (1934). Some reflections on ‘The nature and significance of economics.’ Quarterly Journals of Economics, 48, 511–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Souter, R. W. (1933). The nature and significance of economic science’ in recent discussion. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 47, 377–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, V. (2003). Constructivist and ecological rationalithy in economics. American Economic Review, 93(3), 465–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vaughn, K. I. (1994). Austrian economics in america: the migration of a tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Vaughn, K. I. (1999). Hayek’s theory of the market order as an instance of the theory of complex, adaptive systems. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 9, 2–3.Google Scholar
  41. Vanberg, V. (1994). Rules and choice in economics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Velupillai, V. (2005). Computability, Complexity and Constructivity in Economic Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Wohlgemuth, M. (2002). Evolutionary approaches to politics. Kyklos, 55(2), 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Silberman College of BusinessFairleigh Dickinson UniversityMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations