Would Mises and Hayek Get Tenure Today?

It has been asserted by one of our readers that the belief that good work gets rewarded in the economics profession is simply absurd for an Austrian economist to believe.  It is then argued that Mises and Hayek were never tenured and would not  be tenured today at a top flight university.

I want to challenge that claim.  First, lets remember what awards were received by these individuals during their life-time.  Nobel Prize, Distingusihed Fellow of the AEA, etc.  How about the publishers of their works -- Yale University Press for Mises; University of Chicago Press for Hayek.  How about their teaching appointments: Vienna, Geneva, and NYU for Mises; LSE, Chicago, and Freiburg for Hayek, as well as others.  We know Mises spurned offers from the New School, UCLA, and even Johns Hopkins.  We know Hayek turned down at one point an opportunity at Princeton to stay at LSE.  How about wide recognition in their lifetime?  When Human Action was published it was reviewed in the NYT --- how many theoretical works in economics get reviewed in the NYT?  The Road to Serfdom was internationally known and hotly debated --- what more do you want to achieve as a public intellectual?

Second, on the tenure issue today.  Well, it is true that Mises and Hayek wrote books and the economics profession rewards articles, not books.  But both wrote articles which transformed our discipline and published them in leading outlets.  Mises's 1920 article on socialist calculation was published in the leading German social science journal and it led to rigorous debate in German language journals, and later in the English language journals.  The problem Mises posed influenced at least two generations of economic thinkers.  How about Hayek's Use of Knowledge in Society?  The essay was published in the AER, and is still on reading lists in PhD core classes.  And these were not their only articles in top flight journals and the citation pattern (stronger for Hayek, but not insignificant for Mises) demonstrates their influence as economists.

Finally, if Mises and Hayek were so influential then why did they have particular problems in their careers.  First, it is the rare individual who has no bumps in the road throughout their career.  Even Milton Friedman had to leave U of Wisc.  Buchanan and his group were treated poorly at UVa.  Especially when you put forth controversial ideas, the smooth ride is an unrealistic expectation.  Second, in both cases there were additional circumstances that produced the bumpy ride.  As for Mises we are told by multiple sources that he was a strident liberal, he was Jewish, and he was personally (at times) aggressive (bordering on obnoxious).  The argument goes that you could survive and perhaps thrive academically in Vienna with 2, but not will all 3 characteristics.  There is also the matter of age.  Had Mises never left Geneva, he would have lived out his career a chaired professor.  Mises was 60 when he came to the US -- retirement was 65 at most universities.  NYU hired him as a Visiting Professor.  The private money to support his professorship came in later, not for the first 5 years.  Hayek, for personal reasons, left a chaired professorship at the LSE.  Had those personal reasons not been a factor, he would have stayed at the LSE throughout his career most likely.

So while I agree that Mises and Hayek are the role models for young scholars within Austrian economics, one must learn the right lesson.  Do good work; do bold, creative, and original work; and in this profession of economics you will be rewarded.  If you do work that reaches the level that Mises and Hayek did, you will be rewarded richly.  Very few people can ever achieve that level of scientific contribution in this discipline.  They did.  Did they face serious obstacles in their careers?  Of course they did. But they fought on, and were recognized for their efforts.  They were courageous intellectuals, but they were also amazingly successful intellectuals --- so successful in fact that they have made our path (those who choose to follow in their scientific path) so much smoother than their own.  They were critical in changing the zeitgeist in economics and political economy --- methodologically, analytically, and policy wise.

Martydom is not their lasting legacy, brilliant work in economics and political economy is.  Austrian economics is a growth industry when done right (and following the example of Mises and Hayek), and only a declining industry when practiced poorly (following examples of those who want to insulate and isolate).  Science is like boxing, if you stick your chin out, expect to get hit. But if you have good training (in this case based on the methods of Mises and Hayek), then you can withstand the punch and you have a number of counter-punches that prove to be knock out blows against positivism, formalism, excessive aggregation, interventionism, and statism.

Comments

[Steve Horwitz]

"Martyrdom is not their lasting legacy, brilliant work in economics and political economy is. "

Best sentence I'll read today. This sentences should be burned into the brains of all young scholars aspiring to contribute to Austrian economics.

[Arare Litus]

One key difference is the huge growth in academic institutions and funding - there is simply much more money to support all types of academics, and numerous good institutions to work at. In physics at least, in the "Mises" era, one had to know a very famous scientist and have his backing to get a position (Einstein was basically out of luck until he wrote 3 papers - each that could have won the Nobel prize - in one year; Einstein who almost defines physics now). Currently in hard sciences there are so many jobs (relatively) that you can achieve essentially on your CV alone. I believe this is mirrored across academia.

Before funding was quite scarce, and you needed luck, connections, and skill. Now funding is amble (relatively) and thus the cutoff is more favorable for a given individual.

[Daniel J. D'Amico]

Apply this same question to publishers. Ignoring the book v. article debate for just a moment. It is one thing to say that Cambridge, Harvard U.P., Chicago U.P., Stanford U.P.etc. today would not publish books by Hayek or Mises as they were written. Maybe that's true, but I'm skeptical. It's a-whole-nother thing to claim that Mises or Hayek would have been so-satisfied with their work if it had been rejected by these outlets, as to independently publish it.

In other words, I think given the intellectual biographies of these thinkers it is fair to say that they would have fought tooth and nail to be a part of the discussion as it was established by the profession yesterday, today and tomorrow. If that meant working in journal article form rather than book form, so be it. If it meant ramping up the rigor of their arguments and citations, so be it. If it meant engaging methodologically plural audiences, so be it.

The same would seem to hold for job-placements at top Universities. It's one thing to admit that the system is biased and flawed it's another to operationalize that perspective and rationalize one's own academic career. If one fully embraces that there is a bias against him, and he uses that insight to complain about the functionality of the established order, and lastly he refuses to fit his research within the digestible frameworks and conversations of the established elite, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that his work will be unrecognized - how depressing.

[king mises]

Of course they would. Their ideas are timeless!

[Bob Murphy]

I think part of the problem, Pete, is that sometimes you make it sound as if there is no bias. Like saying, "Do good work and you will get a great tenure track job."

On the other hand, Walter Block's typical statement of "the deck is stacked against us so let's not play the mainstream game" is also problematic.

Could we all get along with the following compromise?

"Yes, Austrians have to work harder to get the same type of job as a mainstream economist. But as with any unpopular minority, that just means we Austrians have to work harder. Throwing pity parties doesn't help anybody and does us a disservice in the long run."

[Bob Murphy]

Oh by the way, I want to go on record by saying that I do NOT think I was screwed over by The (mainstream) Man. So please don't interpret my above post as saying that I was denied a tenure track job at MIT because I'm Austrian.

(I attribute it instead to their jealousy of my shocking good looks. This threatens many hiring committees, I've found.)

[Per Bylund]

I'm not sure I agree completely. Yes, Hayek got The Use of Knowledge in Society published in the AER, but the question is not if he did or not but whether such a work would get published today - at all. The question to ask is: What are the odds that one can get a "thought piece" with "Hayekian" potential to revolutionize economics published in one of the major mainstream journals? Without equations, formulas, and matrices?

Furthermore, is it, generally speaking, possible to get tenure at a good institution on publishing only non-technical, non-math abstract and deductive thought pieces? Is it possible to, with this kind of work, get a tenure track job at such institutions in the first place?

The way I see it there are certainly a few natural geniuses out there, but most of us probably aren't. Rather, we may have the potential to become geniuses if we get to do what we are good at doing. So what we need to do is prove (somehow) that we have the potential of becoming new Hayeks or Miseses, while, at the same time, we cannot show that we have been able to produce high-quality work (in the mainstream sense of the word: technical math papers). I see the basis of a very possible conflict here, but the question is: how much of this conflict is/becomes real.

I'm not complaining and saying "no one ever gave me a good chance to prove myself"; I am, after all, not even on the job market yet. But I think there may be serious problems connected with doing only/mainly Austrian work and trying to get a good job at a mainstream institution. I'm not sure the economics profession would be very hospitable (if you can call it that) to a new Hayek or Mises today relative to how Hayek and Mises were "welcomed."

It is just a feeling I have, but isn't science today much more narrow-minded (and restrictive) than it used to be?

[Roger Koppl]

Per,

The thing is that Hayek would not write Use of Knowledge. He would write a different paper that addresses today's audience, not the audience of 1945. If that means some math symbols, so be it. I don't think it's true, however, that math symbols are required for A hits. Pete Leeson's JPE article is but one salient example showing good work is generally publishable independent of method.

[Walter Block]

Bob Murphy attributes this statement to me: "On the other hand, Walter Block's typical statement of 'the deck is stacked against us so let's not play the mainstream game' is also problematic."

I fully support the first statement. My experience at Holy Cross is a case in point. I had better student evaluations than many of my colleagues, and WAY more pubs than they (many in the same outlets as them), and still didn't get tenure. Why not? My political views.

On the other hand, I don't recognize the second statement as mine. Indeed, my career reflects the very opposite. I have indeed played the mainstream game. I've got LOTS of pubs in refereed journals, and I'm still plugging away at this.

[Steve Horwitz]

Bob Murphy writes:

"Yes, Austrians have to work harder to get the same type of job as a mainstream economist. But as with any unpopular minority, that just means we Austrians have to work harder. Throwing pity parties doesn't help anybody and does us a disservice in the long run."

I can more than live with this statement of the situation. I think it's about right.

[Mario Rizzo]

This is a BIG QUESTION. Pete Boettke loves them. And that's a good thing.

An important difference between my own attitude and Pete's stems in part from our personalities. I am more likely to see the downside and Pete the upside. If you could combine us you might have the perfectly balanced but boring person.

Another very important difference is that Pete doesn't get daily emails from the NYU Department of Economics announcing the various seminars and workshops. If this is typical of what the top of the profession values then the discipline is moving in a direction in which the main Austrian concerns are just not on the agenda for discussion. I would add even the traditional concerns of Friedman, Stigler, and (yes) Becker. Now maybe NYU is a particularly barren field of would-be mathematicians. I rarely hear as discussion about economics outside of the Austrian or Easterly "camps." It is all about mathematical techniques, problems, modeling. I certainly live in a different world.

[Walter Block]

I strongly disagree with Pete on this. If he were right, some of us would be tenured at top universities. This applies, only, I think, to Nozick, and he was more of a dilletante than a steadfast libertarian.

Look at the disgraceful way that Murray Rothbard was treated.

Pete says of Mises: "strident liberal, he was Jewish, and he was personally (at times) aggressive (bordering on obnoxious)." Let's stipulate that this was true. But there are plenty of people that this would also apply to, who did very well in terms of tenure at prestigious places: Demsetz, Friedman, Becker, Posner come readily to mind. The difference between them and Mises, Rothbard? The latter two are Austro libertarians, the former four are mainstream economically, and politically conservative. I think it obnoxious to disparage Austrianism as a "cult." Yet, this is the view of virtually the entire professoriate at the prestige schools Pete things are unbiased, certainly including those four. I have heard Buchanan say this as if he were discussing 2+2=4; it was that obvious that Austrianism is a cult that no one could possibly dispute this.

[Greg Ransom]

Once again, I don't want to be misunderstood.

I agree with almost everything Pete says to young economists.

Were Pete andI disagree is over the facts and theory of the science of science when one looks at the profession of economics.

[Greg Ransom]

My long comment went up in smoke. :-(

My point was that there are arbitrary elements and systematic elements shaping the power structure of economics. And these elements have produced an economics that jumps from one fad to another and to another -- each discarded like yesterday's newspaper. And all the while many of the best economists dissented from core assumptions of the fad of the moment. This doesn't give us a picture of the progress of economics as on of cummulative progress.

The upshot is that these arbitrary and systematic elements shaping the power structure of academic economics do not guarantee that good economics and good economists will find a place in that power structure.

[Greg Ransom]

Here is a systematic element shaping the power structure of economics -- the use of math constructs and "testing" as arbiters of economic understanding. This criterion for economic understanding has had the backing of the U.S. military and the U.S. "science" funding bureaucracy. There has also been private money behind this criterion for sound economic understanding -- Colwes money and the Cowles commission, Harvard and MIT, the AEA and its journals, the Fed. etc.

An arbitrary element in the power structure of economics can be symbolized by the fact that Hayek was plucked out of obscurity and put into a place of institutional power by Robbins. Without Robbins, no Hayek at the L.S.E.

(Damn I wish that long post hadn't "disappeared".)

[Bogdan Enache]

I think a better - or more "utopian", if you want - question would have been : What would Mises and Hayek have to contribute to the "cutting edge" debates in economics today? The rest is just talk.

[jeffrey]

Fortunately, there is no need to make stuff up or speculate about Mises's situation. It is only necessary to actually pick up a book, or, lacking the initiative to that, you can even read it online.

http://mises.org/books/lastknight.pdf

page 748, 798, 846

[Walter Block]

Dear Pete:

The material Jeff points to:

http://mises.org/books/lastknight.pdf

page 748, 798, 846

contradicts your account in several important ways. Is Hulsmann incorrect in his book? where do you think he errs?

best regards,

Walter

[Peter Boettke]

Walter,

What is the contradiction? Please spell it out. Also, one should look at the Hayek-Machlup conversation at Hoover, where they discuss their efforts to land Mises a job. But my main contention is that Mises could have stayed in Geneva.

You point to Hulsmann's pages --- 748, I agree with his account; 798, he has the line about the New School not making an offer; I read in Mises's letters to Hayek at Hoover that he could teach at the New School, but took a job doing research rather than teaching --- perhaps Mises was talking in general (or in anticipation) or my memory is a little too loose, but you can find this at the Hoover Institution Hayek archives; 846, I would need to double check but I have seen alternative sources that say that he was on NYU salary for a few years when the Volker Fund came in to keep his salary, but perhaps I am wrong --- but note that on this page it is pointed out that Mises turned down jobs at schools such as University of Rochester (clearly not a second-rate institution).

Anyway, let assume I have some inaccuracies, how does it impact my point --- Mises could have stayed in Geneva; Mises could have taught at Rochester, etc. Do you deny that Mises (a) wrote one of the most widely recognized arguments in economics in the 20th century with his paper on socialist calculation, (b) was considered throughout the intellectual world as the leading proponent of Austrian economics and classical liberalism, (c) had his works published in top journals and with top university presses, (d) had his books reviewed in major outlets, (e) was so important that even the leading thinkers in economics from Keynes to Samuelson had to critically cite his ideas, etc.

Walter --- do you understand the point I am trying to make? Mises was discriminated against, but he also fought through it and was a world-famous economist. Nobody he knew anything about economics in his day didn't know who Mises was and what he stood for. We should all aspire to such a fate with our scientific work. Most of us are so inconsequential that the major thinkers in economics do not even know what we work on.

But good work, really good work, will be recognized --- even if others disagree with it. We all need to be doing really good work --- really good.

Pete

P.S.: On Hulsmann's book --- I have said that I think it is book well worth reading. I don't think the book has settled all issues on Mises's career forever and ever. Because there are interpretative issues related to Mises and economics. There are factual issues which Guido lays out, and I will need to double check some things because I might be wrong. But I have some conflicting references, including Mises's letter to Hayek, and the Machlup/Hayek correspondence. But again, I don't have that material in front of me right now -- it is in the Hoover archives, and (1) I might have taken Mises's account as true when what it was, was an anticipation of an offer from the New School, and (2) Machlup and Hayek could be skipping over details in their mutual frustration of trying to help their mentor land an acceptable post in the US. Finally, I may in fact be in error on some specifics, but I'd like to know how that impacts my broader point about Mises, the economics profession, and his status within it.

[Sinclair Davidson]

I have just read those pages in Hulsmunn. Generally a fine book. They do describe how Mises stuggled to get work - but as already indicated he was an old man, with some disagreeable characteristics, applying for employment in a buyers market. He was also a job-snob. He choose to not be employed because the jobs on offer were below his dignity.

[Dan Phillips]

Pete - may I call you Pete? - I am neither a scholar nor an intellectual, just a lowly small businessman in little old Oklahoma City who happens to enjoy this blog very much. I greatly admire you people and the work you do, even though I don't understand half of what you say! Perhaps I am misunderstanding Walter's remarks, but I thought his argument was that neither Mises nor Hayek would be so highly recognized if they were publishing in today's world. From an outsiders viewpoint I think that is an accurate statement.

What are considered to be the prestigious schools of economics today? How many Austrians are employed in them? How are they received by their peers at their schools? Mises and Hayek are the giants of the Austrian school, are they not. They are the exceptions, the geniuses that even lowly little businessmen know about and admire. Who are the Mises and Hayeks of today? How many of you expect to receive a call from the Nobel Committee anytime soon? Once your articles appear in distinguished periodicals how many calls do you receive from around the country (or the world) from economists of a different persuasion congratulating you on your fine work, "never thought of that way," etc.

Please understand these are authentic questions from someone who does not know the answers, and would be most interested to know. I apologize in advance if I am making a fool of myself on your otherwise learned website.

[jeffrey]

So great that you find the book worth reading. maybe you will get to it at some point.

[Peter Boettke]

Dan,

I deny that Mises and Hayek wouldn't be considered leading economists in our profession today. As Koppl said in his comment on this thread, they would no doubt write differently, but they were extremely talented intellectuals and they would be in my opinion at the top of the profession today.

I am not half the talent of these guys (heck not 1/10th), but I have held appointments at NYU, Stanford, Stockholm School of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, LSE, as well as GMU, and I have given papers at faculty seminars at Stanford, NYU, Columbia, LSE, UVA, etc.

I honestly do not feel that I am unfairly discriminated against. I blame myself for whatever failings I have professionally. I could do much better, and I could work that much harder and smarter to be a better economist.

Do I think that Austrians have a tough road because of their unconventional perspective? Of course, but the profession of economics is actually tough going for all but very few. My working hypothesis is that you just have to do outstanding work to land the best jobs, and that few within the Austrian ranks have done outstanding works. Those who have, have been rewarded. Why does it seem more difficult for the Austrians? Because any out of sync economist (any) will have to bear the burden of proof. Bearing that burden is not easy, but that is what we must do. Since it is not easy, many fall short of what would be needed to actually get a hearing by professional economists.

Our failure to meet the argumentative burden required because of our circumstances is nobody's fault except our own. We just have to look in the mirror, provide ruthless self-criticism, and try harder. Not much else we can do.

Pete

[Walter Block]

Dear Pete:

I think that the detailed issues of whether Mises was or was not offered this or that job, and under what conditions, should be taken up by you and Guido. I was just struck by the disparities between your and his views on this, as mentioned by Jeff, above.

I think you are right to stress the forest, not the trees. That is, not focus, only, on Mises' specific career, but, to discuss your general claim that the profession is unbaissed, and that the reason Austrians do not have more prominent positions at top research universities is because we do not do "good work."

It is interesting to remember the situation when Murray wanted to start up RAE. He did so because he, Israel and others just were not able to publish in mainstream journals. Murray attributed this to the interventionist and mathematical bias of the "top" journals. I agreed with him then, and I agree with him now. Israel, in contrast, took the position, pretty much exactly the one you are now defending, that the reason he, Israel, and Murray, and other top Austrians couldn't get into the "top" journals was because they weren't doing "good work." Murray used to roll on the floor laughing at this veiwpoint, that he regarded as preposterous, as do I.

Evidence for this abounds. To say that Murray and Israel did not do "good work" in utter nonesense. QED!

I'm reminded, here, of the story of the publication of Israel's Competition and Entrepreneurship at the U of Chicago press. One of the referees (Ben Klein, as it happens my undergraduate college roommate) wanted to reject this book for publication on the ground that it "shows no acquaintance with any of the tools of modern economic analysis." Happily his advice was not taken. But, this is symptomatic of what the "top" journals want, and of what the most prestigious research universities use as the criterion for employment. I think that Mario is exactly on point here. His description of what goes on at NYU applies very, very widely.

What about Murray's career? How do you reconcile this with your claim that all we need do is "good work" to succeed in the econ field. Pete, I think you and I occupy very different universes.

[Daniel J. D'Amico]

In response to Pete's comments above, Walter Block has asked me to post the following:

Dear Pete:

I think that the detailed issues of whether Mises was or was not offered this or that job, and under what conditions, should be taken up by you and Guido. I was just struck by the disparities between your and his views on this, as mentioned by Jeff, above.

I think you are right to stress the forest, not the trees. That is, not focus, only, on Mises' specific career, but, to discuss your general claim that the profession is unbaissed, and that the reason Austrians do not have more prominent positions at top research universities is because we do not do "good work."

It is interesting to remember the situation when Murray wanted to start up RAE. He did so because he, Israel and others just were not able to publish in mainstream journals. Murray attributed this to the interventionist and mathematical bias of the "top" journals. I agreed with him then, and I agree with him now. Israel, in contrast, took the position, pretty much exactly the one you are now defending, that the reason he, Israel, and Murray, and other top Austrians couldn't get into the "top" journals was because they weren't doing "good work." Murray used to roll on the floor laughing at this veiwpoint, that he regarded as preposterous, as do I.

Evidence for this abounds. To say that Murray and Israel did not do "good work" in utter nonesense. QED!

I'm reminded, here, of the story of the publication of Israel's Competition and Entrepreneurship at the U of Chicago press. One of the referees (Ben Klein, as it happens my undergraduate college roommate) wanted to reject this book for publication on the ground that it "shows no acquaintance with any of the tools of modern economic analysis." Happily his advice was not taken. But, this is symptomatic of what the "top" journals want, and of what the most prestigious research universities use as the criterion for employment. I think that Mario is exactly on point here. His description of what goes on at NYU applies very, very widely.

What about Murray's career? How do you reconcile this with your claim that all we need do is "good work" to succeed in the econ field. Pete, I think you and I occupy very different universes.

Best regards,

Walter

[Eric H]

Might I offer some layman advice? No matter who is right about the extent of bias in the profession and how it impacted our intellectual heroes, the prescription for rectification of the situation is still to do good work, engage the field, and try to win support for your arguments and methods, right? So my recommendation is to just do that. (or should I say, to most other participants here, keep doing that?)

[Craig]

A simple question for Pete - what is good work?
Isn't the problem here that what Austrians and the mainstream consider good varies considerably.
In my field - history - you could write a superb book on military strategy or a so-so book on gender in early modern Europe - and only one of them will get you anywhere near a top school or a top journal. No prizes for guessing which one.

[David Andersson]

Why is the reputation of someone within the discipline of economics more important that the reputation within science/academia in general? The reputation of economics within science seems less impressive than any of the natural sciences, for example. Why is not the best response to start a new discipline with new academic standards? For example: "market process theory."