Skip to main content

Who wins in the game of the market?

The Review of Austrian Economics (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Building on the Austrian understanding of the market as a sort of game, in this article, we explore what types of players (i.e. what kind of entrepreneurs) are likely to win in the game of the market. We conclude that the Austrian understanding of the market process suggests that markets systematically favor players who do certain kinds of things, have certain kinds of characteristics, and engage in certain kinds of activities. Specifically, successful market actors are likely to those entrepreneurs who (a) give their customers what they want, (b) have backgrounds, experiences and knowledge that prepare them to recognize profit opportunities, (c) are culturally attuned and embedded, and (d) are genuinely moral.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. We would like to thank Rosemarie Fike, Rob Garnett, Chad Van Schoelandt, and Brianne Wolf for their thoughtful contributions to this symposium.

  2. Perhaps more controversial than our conclusion that markets are morally beneficial was our conclusion that the material, social and moral benefits of markets accrue to more than just the wealthy in market societies. In DMCOM?, we found that markets societies were more equal and had greater social mobility than nonmarket societies. In many ways, concerns about inequality and social mobility are concerns about who wins in the game of the market. In this article, we are tackling this problem of who wins in the market more directly.

  3. See, for instance, Martin and Storr (2008) for a discussion of how perverse emergent orders like racist social orders can emerge and persist.

References

  • Ang, S. H., & Wright, A.-M. (2009). Building intangible resources: The stickiness of reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arentz, J., Sautet, F., & Storr, V. H. (2013). Prior-knowledge and opportunity identification. Small Business Economics, 41, 461–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. ([350 BC] 1984, 2013). Politics. Translated by Canes Lord. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press

  • Barney, J. B., & Hansen, M. H. (1994). Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 175–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, G.G. (1986). “The economic analysis of labor market discrimination: A survey.” In O.C. Ashenfelter and R. Layard. Handbook of Labor Economics: Volume 1. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, 693–785.

  • Choi, G. S. & Storr, V. H. (2021). The market as a process for the discovery of whom not to trust. Journal of Institutional Economics, 1–16.

  • Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance. Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H. (1996). Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specialization as sources of competitive advantage. Organization Science, 7(6), 649–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea. Organization Science, 14(1), 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haeffele, S., & Storr, V. H. (2019). Is social justice a mirage? The Independent Review, 24(1), 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. (1945). The Use of Knowledge in Society. American Economic Review, 35(4), 519–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F.A. (1976). Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice. University of Chicago Press.

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and Entrepreneurship. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1979). Perception, Opportunity, and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1985). The primacy of entrepreneurial discovery. The Prime Mover of Progress: The Entrepreneur in Capitalism, and Socialism-Papers on the Role of the Entrepreneur (pp. 3–28). Institute of Economic Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (1999). Creativity and/or Alertness: A Reconsideration of the Schumpeterian Entrepreneur. The Review of Austrian Economics, 11, 5–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. M. (2000). The Driving Force of the Market: Essays in Austrian Economics. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kotha, S., Rajgopal, S., & Rindova, V. (2001). Reputation building and performance: An empirical analysis of the Top-50 pure internet firms. European Management Journal, 19(6), 571–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie, D. (1991). The discovery and interpretation of profit opportunities: Culture and the kirznerian entrepreneur. In B. Berger (Ed.), The culture of entrepreneurship. ICS Press.

  • Martin, N. P., & Storr, V. H. (2008). On perverse emergent orders. Studies in Emergent Orders, 1, 73–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K. and Engels, F., ([1844, 1848] 2009). The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the Communist Manifesto. Prometheus Books

  • Mises, L. ([1949] 1998). Human Action: A Treatise in Economics. Ludwig von Mises Institute

  • Montesquieu ([1748] 1989). Montesquieu: The spirit of the laws. Cambridge University Press.

  • Neumark, D. (2018). Experimental research on labor market discrimination. Journal of Economic Literature, 56(3), 799–866.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J.J. ([1754] 1984). A Discourse on Inequality. Translated by M. Cranston. Penguin Random House.

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organiziational Science, 11(4), 448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & DeTienne, D. R. (2005). Prior knowledge, potential financial reward, and opportunity identification. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. ([1776] 1981). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Liberty Fund.

  • Smith, A. ([1759] 1982). The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Liberty Fund.

  • Storr, V. H., & Choi, G. S. (2019). Do Markets Corrupt Our Morals? Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Storr, V. H., & John, A. (2018). Kirznerian and Schumpeterian Entrepreneurship in Trinidad and Tobago. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 12(5), 582–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, Mercatus Center at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Ginny Seung Choi

  2. Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Virgil Henry Storr

Authors
  1. Ginny Seung Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Virgil Henry Storr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ginny Seung Choi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, G.S., Storr, V.H. Who wins in the game of the market?. Rev Austrian Econ (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-022-00574-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11138-022-00574-z

Keywords

  • Markets
  • Catallaxy
  • Morality
  • Games
  • Winners and Losers