Advertisement

The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 31, Issue 1, pp 1–26 | Cite as

Value and capital: Austrian capital theory, retrospect and Prospect

  • Peter LewinEmail author
  • Nicolás Cachanosky
Article

Abstract

The time is right for a reexamination of Austrian capital-theory. We attempt to capture the essence of Carl Menger’s approach to capital, highlighting the important distinction between goods and the valuable services they yield (implying that goods are valuable only because they yield valuable services) and highlighting also the importance of money in facilitating exchange and production and in providing the means to value them. We look at the capital-theory of Böhm-Bawerk and suggest that, in many respects, this was a wrong turn, although it did set in motion valuable efforts to clarify the importance of the heterogeneity of productive-resources and their growing complexity over time. We examine the production-function, micro and macro, and show that it is logically untenable and useless as an instrument for empirical investigation, and that this has been known for decades. Of the Austrians after Menger, only Mises followed Irving Fisher in focusing on valuation. He did so in the context of explaining the importance of calculation. Mises’s approach to capital has been insufficiently understood and appreciated. By way of conclusion we draw from our considerations to provide a research agenda in Austrian capital theory.

Keywords

Capital-theory Production-function Heterogeneity Duration ABCT Calculation Accounting Finance 

References

  1. Böhm-Bawerk, E. V. (1890). Capital and Interest: A Critical History of Economical Theory. (W. Smart, Trans.) London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Bornier, J. M. (2016). Comparing Menger and Böhm-Bawerk on Capital Theory. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from http://junon.univ-cezanne.fr/bornier/lastp.html
  3. Braun, E. (2015). Carl Menger’s contribution to capital theory. History of Economic Ideas, 23(1), 77–99.Google Scholar
  4. Braun, E., Lewin, P., & Cachanosky, N. (2016). Ludwig Von Mises’s Approach to Capital as a Bridge between Austrian and Institutional Economics. Journal of Institutional Economics, doi: 10.1017/S1744137416000102
  5. Buchannan, J. M., & Thirlby, G. F. (1973). LSE Essays on Cost. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cachanosky, N. (forthcoming). Austrian Economics, Market Process, and the EVA® Framework. Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis.Google Scholar
  7. Cachanosky, N., & Lewin, P. (2014). Roundaboutness is not a mysterious concept: a financial application to capital theory. Review of Political Economy, 26(4), 648–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cachanosky, N., & Lewin, P. (2016a). Financial foundations of Austrian business cycle theory. Advances in Austrian Economics, 20, 15–44. doi: 10.1108/S1529-213420160000020002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cachanosky, N., & Lewin, P. (2016b). An empirical application of the EVA® framework to business cycles. Review of Financial Economics, 30, 60–67. doi: 10.1016/j.rfe.2016.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coase, R. (1938). Business Organization and the Accountant. Accountant, reprinted as chapter 5 in Buchanan and Thirlby, 1973.Google Scholar
  11. Coase, R. H. (1990). Accounting and the theory of the firm. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 12(1), 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, A. (2010). Capital controversy from Bhohm-Bawerk to bliss: badly posed or very deep questions? Or what “We” can learn from capital controversy even if you Don’t care who won. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 32(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Endres, A. M., & Harper, D. A. (2011). Carl Menger and his followers in the Austrian tradition on the nature of capital and its structure. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 33(3), 357–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Felipe, J., & Fisher, F. M. (2003). Aggregation in production functions: what applied economists should know. Metroeconomica, 54(2), 208–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felipe, J., & McCombie, J. S. (2014). The aggregate production function: ‘not even wrong’. Review of Political Economy, 26(1), 60–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, I. (1906). The nature of capital and income. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  17. Fisher, F. M. (1993). Aggregation. Aggregate production functions and related topics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fisher, F. M. (2005). Aggregate production functions - a pervasive but unpersuasive fairy tale. Eastern Economic Journal, 3, 489–491.Google Scholar
  19. Garrison, R. (2001). Time and money. The macroeconomics of capital structure. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Hayek, F. A. (1941). The pure theory of capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35(4).Google Scholar
  22. Hicks, J. (1939). Value and capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hicks, J. (1973). Capital and time. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kirzner, I. M. (1996). Ludwig von Mises and the theory of capital and interest. In I. M. Kirzner (Ed.), Essays on capital and interest (pp. 123–133). Brookfield: Eward Elgar.Google Scholar
  25. Koller, T., Goedhart, M., & Wessels, D. (1990). Valuation: measuring and managing the value of companies. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  26. Lachmann, L. M. (1978 2nd ed. [1956]). Capital and Its Structure. Mission, KS: Sheed, Andrews and McMeel.Google Scholar
  27. Lester, R. B., & Wolff, J. S. (2013). The empirical relevance of the Mises-Hayek theory of the trade cycle. The Review of Austrian Economics, 26(4), 433–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewin, P. (1997). Capital in Disequilibrium: a reexamination of the Capital-Theory of Ludwig M. Lachmann. History of Political Economy, 29(3), 523–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lewin, P. ([1999] 2011). Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute (first edition, London: Rouledge).Google Scholar
  30. Lewin, P. (2013). Hayek and Lachmann and the complexity of capital. In R. Garrison (Ed.), The Elgar companion to Hayek. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  31. Lewin, P. (forthcoming). Capital Valuation, What is it and Why Does it Matter? Insights from Austrian Capital Theory. Journal of Business Valuatin and Economic Loss Analysis.Google Scholar
  32. Lewin, P., & Baetjer, H. (2011). The capital based view of the firm. Review of Austrian Economics, 24(4), 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luther, W. J., & Cohen, M. (2014). An empirical analysis of the Austrian business cycle theory. Atlantic Economic Journal, 153–169. doi: 10.1007/s11293-014-9415-5.
  34. Macaulay, F. R. (1938). The Movements of Interest Rates. Bond Yields and Stock Prices in the United States since 1856. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  35. Menger, C. (1892). On the origin of money. The Economic Journal, 2(6), 239–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Menger, C. (1871 (translated 1976)). Principles of Economics. (J. D. Hoselitz, Trans.) Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute (2007).Google Scholar
  37. Mises, L. v. (1949 4th edition [1996]). Human Action. Irvington on Hudson: Foundation for Economic Education.Google Scholar
  38. Mises, L. v. (1980). Profit and loss. In L. v. Mises (Ed.), In planning for freedom. Martinsburg: Spring Mills.Google Scholar
  39. Mulligan, R. F. (2002). A Hayekian analysis of the structure of production. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 5(2), 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Murphy, R. P. (2015). Choice, cooperation, Enterprise and human action. Oakland: Independent Institute.Google Scholar
  41. Osborne, M. (2014). Multiple Interest Rate Analysis: Theory and Applications. Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  42. Parker, R. H. (1969). Management accounting and historical perspective. London: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  43. Powell, B. (2002). Explaining Japan’s recession. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 5(2), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schumpeter, J. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  45. Schumpeter, J. (1954). History of economics analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Young, A. T. (2005). Reallocating labor to initiate changes in capital structures: Hayek revisited. Economics Letters, 89(3), 275–282. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2005.05.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Naveen Jindal School of ManagementUniversity of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsMetropolitan State University of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations