10 Austrian Vices and How to Avoid Them

Tonight I discussed with some young Austrian students what I believe are the greatest "Austrian vices." These vices are "bad habits" I have noticed many Austrians--myself included--tend toward. To avoid these vices, I offer the following modest suggestions for young Austrians:

1. Stop block quoting Mises and Hayek.

This is not useful, except in very rare cases, such as a history of thought paper (see # 3 below). Anyone who wants to read Mises and Hayek can do so him or herself. Your reader does not need you to recount the "masters'" words to him/her.

2. No more attempts at rewriting "capital theory."

Most economists will have no idea what you're talking about if you tell them you're working on "capital theory." "Capital theory" is not a field (at least not one that has existed in the last 50 years). Furthermore, you are not going to do this. Do not pretend otherwise. In fact, "grand theory" or "treatises" of all kinds should be avoided until you're a full professor or 65, which ever comes first. Nearly all Austrians at one point have these delusions of grandeur, but they are just that--delusions. The sooner you recognize this and start working on specific, applied topics the better off you will be.

3. Work on topics other than history of thought.

History of thought is, in my opinion, a very important field in economics, and one that does not get the credit (or attention) it deserves in the wider profession. Having said this, you will feel compelled at many junctures in your career to write history of thought pieces. As an Austrian, you never need to worry that you will neglect history of thought. Instead, you are very likely to work too much on this and too little on advancing our knowledge by working on new topics. Be cognizant of this and research accordingly. Set a limit for yourself--say, 1 history of thought paper for every 5 non-history of thought papers.

4. No more discussions about the calculation debate.

The calculation debate is very important but has been essentially dead now for a very long time. There is no reason for you to recount this debate, rehash its components, etc. We all get the point. You will feel drawn to rehash the calculation debate nevertheless. Resist this urge.

5. Get over the "subjectivism stuff."

I think it's safe to say that very few economists today adhere to the labor theory of value. Everyone now recognizes that value is subjective (even if to operationalize many ideas in economics we have to "pretend" for the analysis that costs, for example, are "objective"). Let it go and move on.

6. Do not confuse "correctness" for "goodness" in economics and vice versa.

Many Austrians have a tendency to think that economists they agree more with are "better" economists than those they disagree more with. This is not true. Just because I share more in common with (insert unknown Austrian economist here) on most issues does not mean he is a "better" economist than (insert famous non-Austrian economist here).

7. You are not going to write a treatise that revolutionizes economics.

Really, you're not. But if you work on specific, applied topics, you may contribute something interesting that others find useful nevertheless. See # 2 above.

8. Do not engage (i.e., make the focus of your research) work that is more than 25 years old.

Work that is a quarter of a century old is probably a liberal outer bound. There are exceptions to this, such as history of thought, a citation to a seminal paper published in the past central the topic you are writing on, etc. However, many Austrians have a tendency to "live in the past." We don't need any more critiques of Keynesian economics circa 1970. We really don't need any more discussions about why Gustav Schmoller was wrong, or how Samuelson was mistaken. Economics has moved on. So should you.

9. Don't tell us what Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc. "really meant."

First, we can read them ourselves (see #1). Second, we don't care; Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard are interesting and important regardless of our ability to divine what they "really meant" in the second paragraph of p. 224 of (insert work here).

10. Stick a fork in the "philosophy talk."

You are not a philosopher. Your reader can tell this. You tend to find philosophical subjects, such as the philosophy of science, especially interesting. This is fine. But you are not going to make a major breakthrough on the epistemological status of economics like you think you are. The sooner you recognize this and devote your time to working on areas where you might have an impact the better.

Comments

[Leviathan]

I like to think that most of Auborn just burst into flames.

[Josh]

Amen!

Leeson: At the Austrian Scholars Conference last week, one of the grad students emphasized that Austrians should focus on economic history. I whole-heartedly agree. What do you think about that?

[Peter T Leeson]

Josh,

The grad student is right on. This is the kind of applied, empirical work I think Austrians are ideally suited to do. Their interdisciplinary approach, and innate interest and ability to work on historical subjects makes economic history the number one research area I think Austrians should engage. Plus, I expect the stature of economic history in the wider profession to continue growing over the next years. This is a chance for Austrians to have a renewed relevance and impact.

[Pearl]

7. You are not going to write a treatise that revolutionizes economics.

Really, you're not. But if you work on specific, applied topics, you may contribute something interesting that others find useful nevertheless.

You can tell. I'm still desperately waiting for an interesting paper by Boettke or Leeson. I read the last ten papers and, honestly, I've already abandoned hope that this will change.

[Not an Austrian]

What utter rot by pearl.

I think the papers are interesting.

[Pearl]

What utter rot by pearl.

I think the papers are interesting.

Good for you. So, you can tell me the great insights, can't you? To my knowledge, there was nothing worth quoting it. (I'm talking about the last ten papers by Boettke, in particular). But I guess that's a problem of the "quantity" race in Academia. Too many papers without any interest instead of focusing on something more relevant. At least, you can show off with the great quantity of papers, yahoo.

[xyz]

and what the hell has pearl ever published (interesting or otherwise?)

[Pearl]

and what the hell has pearl ever published (interesting or otherwise?)

I can't remember that I wrote a blog entry in which I pretend that "by any means" you won't publish anything revolutionary in Economics (big motivation for students and on-going economists). But I agree that the author's theory applies in his own case; he has published nothing that revolutionized economic theory or whatsoever. Instead of denouncing Austrians for living in the past and doing worthless stuff in many fields of study (except for history of economic thought, whooo), it would be more appropriate to watch his own evolution. I can't detect an ounce of originality or creativity.

[xyz]

I can't work out if Pearl has problem with boettke or leeson

peter l is right anyone who thinks they'll revolutionize economics is a nut

is pearl a professor any how?

[xyz]

Dr Leeson is easily the most creative & talented young austrian around.

Other rising young austrian stars to watch out for include Dan Damico and Professor Douglas Mackenzie (a young economic historian)

[Pearl]

I can't work out if Pearl has problem with boettke or leeson

peter l is right anyone who thinks they'll revolutionize economics is a nut

is pearl a professor any how?

I don't have any problems with Boettke or Leeson, but I can't stand this know-it-all attitude telling how Austrian Economics need to be. Actually, nothing of their work qualifies them to give us a lesson about "how to put Austrian Economics into a more mainstream perspective". By flirting with this kind of strategy, you won't succeed in the long run either (cf. post by Boettke about the neglect of his articles in top-tier journals).

You really got brainwashed by the GMU spirit given the names that you cite. Actually, I liked MacKenzie's article about calculation debate, oh yes, we should not write about this, I'm sorry.

[xyz]

rof. Leeson & Prof. Boettke are stars in the profession & very well known. They both regularly get in top journals. That speaks for itself on their knowing 'how' austrianism should best proceed.

I am not sure what Pearls annoyance is (envy?)

[xyz]

My final word: I don't see any self-styled austrians rebutting Dr Leesons advice. All of what he says is very sensible (what kind of kook says they work on capital theory anyhow?)

[libertyfirst]

More or less I agree, but on one point I completely disagree:

"2. No more attempts at rewriting "capital theory."

Most economists will have no idea what you're talking about if you tell them you're working on "capital theory." "Capital theory" is not a field (at least not one that has existed in the last 50 years). Furthermore, you are not going to do this. Do not pretend otherwise. In fact, "grand theory" or "treatises" of all kinds should be avoided until you're a full professor or 65, which ever comes first. Nearly all Austrians at one point have these delusions of grandeur, but they are just that--delusions. The sooner you recognize this and start working on specific, applied topics the better off you will be."

The problem is that, in my opinion, capital theory is the core of the Austrian approach, and it is what makes AE different from the mainstream. Without it, there would be no AE at all, only some sparse insights added to a mainstream model. The fact that it is an out-of-fashion topic is equivalent to saying that AE is out of fashion.

[libertyfirst]

Anyway, I would also add "11. Stop confusing AE with libertarianism! Science and ideology should be separated".

[Rafe Champion]

Pearl is wide of the mark in his critical comments on the Boettke Boys. They are reviving the integrated program of economic and social thought that got lost in the 20th century. Mises (especially) and Hayek kept the flame alive but they were rendered practically invisible for several decades. I am not a betting man but I have got $1A (that is US 80.08c) that says Pearl can't come up with a cogent critique of the line that Boettke el al are taking on development theory.

[Chris Coyne]

It is important to carefully reread Pete’s original post. I do not read his post as saying that one should “never” work in the areas of history of thought, methodology or capital theory. Instead, I read Pete as emphasizing that it is difficult for a school of thought to advance if all its practitioners do is history of thought, etc. This is why Pete provides the rule of “1 history of thought paper for every 5 non-history of thought papers.”

It is also important to keep in mind Pete’s audience. At the outset of his post Pete mentions that these points emerged from a discussion with “young Austrian students.” Within this context, Pete is trying to emphasize to young economists what is needed to advance Austrian economics. Some of the comments being made are taking what Pete is saying out of context and twisting it around to make him out to be an Austrian-hater. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.

[Daniel J. D'Amico]

Pearl,

You seem disgruntled against the "GMU" applied approach. Which is a fine position. I recognize that it is not for everyone. As for your accusation that Leeson and Boettke's work is uninteresting and unimportant, that's you opinion and your entitled to it. However I think your alternative position has one major flaw. Where are all the students? Boettke has produced literally handfuls of productive scholars working in the Austrian tradition.

The first generation Austrians (Menger, Bohm Bawerk, etc) gave rise to the second (Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Kirzner) which in trun gave birth to the third (Block, Salerno, Boettke, etc). While I have the utmost respect for every member of that third generation of Austrian scholars, I am puzzled by the infertility that their ideas have had on growing a forth generation. Look at the people you consider "Austrians" proper, or even the bodies of research that match up to your topics and ask yourself, where are the students and dissertations coming out of that research project?

I agree with Coyne's view of Pete's post that these are not meant to discourage you from doing any subjectivism, coordination, or calculation theory, but merely pointing out that you cannot be a professional economist only doing these sorts of things. Now being a professional economist is not for everyone, but the fact of the matter is we can't expect to get far if our scholars work at Starbucks by day and write Austrian economics by night. Building a workable and fruitful research agenda includes a major role for applied theory and current relevant engagement.

Economic history is where the party is at so to speak. Austrians armed with causal realism and and the subjectivist framework have a comparative advantage at making sense out of the complicated and incomplete visions of our past. If you don't find this interesting fine, but that does not mean it is not valuable. On the contrary I would argue that it is of infinite value. When Austrians are the people who get turned to when someone asks a question about the depression, the cold war, the colonial era, or even as far back as the ancient world. We will have shown the profession that the role of social science is to explain the real world rather than model the ideal.

[ChrisB]

Weird coincidence that Peter Leeson issued his no-capital-theory injunction a day before Chicago released its new edition of The Pure Theory of Capital (a few weeks earlier than advertised, unless Amazon has made a mistake).

[NotanAustrian@yahoo.com]

The Pure Theory of Capital is a largely unreadable book & was the first of 2 projected volumes. There is a very good reason Hayek abandoned work on capital theory. Pete Leeson is spot on target with his injunction about capital.

[Pearl]

rof. Leeson & Prof. Boettke are stars in the profession & very well known. They both regularly get in top journals. That speaks for itself on their knowing 'how' austrianism should best proceed.

Top journals? I'm talking about top journals according to all sorts of citation indexes, etc. You must be kidding me, but I don't care as long as they stick to their theories. However, they force themselves to adapt their theories in order to make "mainstreamable" and, still, no article published in a top journal. Life is unjust, isn't it :)

[Pearl]

Pearl is wide of the mark in his critical comments on the Boettke Boys. They are reviving the integrated program of economic and social thought that got lost in the 20th century. Mises (especially) and Hayek kept the flame alive but they were rendered practically invisible for several decades. I am not a betting man but I have got $1A (that is US 80.08c) that says Pearl can't come up with a cogent critique of the line that Boettke el al are taking on development theory.

Again, I'm glad for you. I really envy those people who find some interesting stuff in their writings and even think that they revive whatsoever.

[xyz]

Pearl - take a look at Dr Leeson's CV & his working papers.
Also, please name a top journal

[xyz]

Pearl - Prof Tyler Cowen knows his stuff:

Cowen on Leeson:

Where are the economic historians?
Tyler Cowen
Read Eric Rauchway's excellent post. Excerpt:

Economic history might have moved out of history departments for market reasons as well. If, to pursue economic history, you had to master technical skills that would make you eligible for an appointment in an economics department, you would probably prefer that to an appointment in a history department: economists get paid more because they're eligible for employment in government and business as well as universities.

Some of the economic historians are coming to George Mason; this year we hired John Nye, Werner Troesken, and Gary Richardson. New hire Peter Leeson does some economic history as well. We've gone from a minor player in the field to a top department for economic history.

But will they be fun at lunch?

[Pearl]

Daniel D'Amico wrote:

"for your accusation that Leeson and Boettke's work is uninteresting and unimportant, that's you opinion and your entitled to it."

I'm seriously asking (no provocation indeed) in which way they contributed to the development of Austrian Economics. Every foreword of Hülsmann revealed more insights.

Where are all the students?

There is an another continent. I can't remember, but I think Europe was its name. You GMU guys really think that there is only GMU and that's it.

Economic history is where the party is at so to speak. Austrians armed with causal realism and and the subjectivist framework have a comparative advantage at making sense out of the complicated and incomplete visions of our past. If you don't find this interesting fine, but that does not mean it is not valuable.

I never said that History of Thought was not valuable. I only criticized Leeson's opinion according to which we should concentrate on it and don't touch certain fields of study (capital theory, etc.)

But you know, in order to do some research in Economic History, it is necessary to speak some foreign languages.