Today is a historic day in Austrian economics. Today a Ph.D.-level seminar in Austrian economics commences at the University of Missouri. What is so important about this event is that the course is not part of a niche Austrian program dependent on external funding, but is part of the regular curriculum of a mainstream program at a major research university. This is a clear signal that Austrian economics is beginning to be taken seriously by mainstream economists. The course is being taught by Professor Peter Klein, a former student of Nobel Prize winner Oliver Williamson. Klein has emerged as the leading “micro” theorist of the Austrian school since the retirement of Israel Kirzner from NYU. His work on entrepreneurship, price theory, and firm organization has appeared in a broad spectrum of mainstream and Austrian journals. His recently published book on The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizatioin and Markets sets a fresh agenda for future research on Austrian micro theory. It is clear from his work that Klein himself is the quintessence of the “mundane” Austrian economist. He does not give advice or preach about how to do good economics, he simply rolls up his sleeves and does it–and teaches it superbly.
The title of Klein’s course is “The Austrian School of Economics: Theory, Applications, Debate.” The course emphasizes the essence of Austrian economics: its uniquely integrated system of economic theory that derives from Carl Menger. It is not a course that talks about Austrian economics, what it is or what it was; it is a course that introduces the student to technical Austrian economic methods and analysis. The course will illustrate this theory by selective applications to real world issues and by featuring several intellectual controversies that accompanied and promoted the theory’s development. Of course, the course will acquaint the student with the thought and works of the early masters, Menger, Bohm-Bawerk and Wieser as well as those of the twentieth-century giants Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Lachmann and Kirzner. But it is not a history of thought course: it deals in depth with theoretical refinements and cutting edge contributions made by current Austrians like Huelsmann, Herbener, Garrison, Foss, Armentano, Lewin, Salerno, Rizzo, White and Selgin, and Klein himself.
For those who are as excited as I am about the course, you may be interested in browsing through the syllabus, which is here.
{ 32 comments }
Excellent news!!!
Fantastic news. Next step is we need some Austrians to take over, then dismantle the Fed. One step at a time………
Is it me, or is there a lot of ‘history of the austrian school’ in it? (Week 3-7)
If so; why? Doesn’t seem to make that much sense; we usually study economics as a set of ideas. So why the heavy emphasis on the history? Whilst I agree it’s important, it seems to be over emphasized. But maybe I’m missing something?
(I’m really curious. No secret agenda here.)
I wish we could get video recording of the lectures.
I find it astonishing that among the many assigned readings, Klein did not assign a single reading by Mises. How can that possibly be?
“What is so important about this event is that the course is not part of a niche Austrian program dependent on external funding, but is part of the regular curriculum of a mainstream program at a major research university.”
Not true, since it is “dependent on external funding” — tax dollars. Is it always necessary to take cheap shots at GMU, where the “external funding” is private donations?
I agree – there seems to be something out of line with a state-funded school offering a course on Austrian economics. Perhaps a better venue would be a small, private college (like Hillsdale, where no state or federal funding is allowed)? However, this is good news, all in all….
What’s out of line about it? Why not use the public (i.e. socialist) school system to subvert socialism? I think that is beautiful!
I understand what you are saying, but any time state money (i.e., money that was stolen from all of us who are forced to pay taxes) is involved in anything, the possibility of perversion creeps in.
For example:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/09/university-illinois-instructor-fired-catholic-beliefs/
His position was not even paid for by the university, but was held on university property (i.e., my property, I live in Illinois), so they fired him. I heard that he actually got his position back recently after a firestorm of protests, but this event goes to the point I was making. I don’t even know if I would agree with this guy’s views or not – not really the point here. When you do something that the state considers wrong, and they are paying for it in any way, you are screwed.
Salerno’s constant (and not so subtle) potshots at GMU are getting so tiresome.
Go over to Coordination Problem and see the blatant disrespect they pay Professor Salerno and other scholars associated with the Mises Institute. Its not a pot shot if what he is saying about GMU is true. If you don’t like what Salerno says then do not read it.
How many students are enrolled in the class? That is how many will gain a thorough knowledge of Austrian economics. I tuned in to the most recent Mises University and thought that Peter Klein was an exceptional lecturer. Those who take his class will get a great education.
DD5, I just read though the list and I find no qualms about it. Do you find an Austrian perspective not represented in this reading list?
I wonder how SaLERNO’S cv stacks up alongside that of the recently minted Gmuers?
I want to clarify my statement that “the course is not part of a niche Austrian program dependent on external funding.” This was not intended as a potshot at GMU. In fact, external funding of Austrian courses on technical economic theory is all to the good. The point that I was making is that an Austrian theory seminar offered as part of the regular curriculum of a mainstream Ph.D program portends an important and historic shift in the profession’s attitude toward Austrian economics. This is quite clear if the statement is read in its full context. To wit: “What is so important about this event is that the course is not part of a niche Austrian program dependent on external funding, but is part of the regular curriculum of a mainstream program at a major research university. This is a clear signal that Austrian economics is beginning to be taken seriously by mainstream economists.”
Thanks for the clarificationl. I certainly took it as a potshot of GMU. We need to be friendly with all our fellow Austrians
The difference between “a niche Austrian program dependent on external funding” and a “part of the regular curriculum of a mainstream program at a major research university” really doesn’t matter much in the big picture. Any time Austrian economics makes headway at the the universities, I find cause for rejoicing.
Very good news indeed! Either this crisis is the death of traditional Keynesianism, or its the end of us!
Ha, well, seriously this truly is hopeful news.
This is fantastic!
The Austrian School is gaining momentum.. I feel big changes coming..
Very good news.thanks.
This is a little lazy of me, but where would folks place Oliver Williamson, into which school/line of economics? I read a little bit of his stuff at uni, and have Economic Institutions of Capitalism on my bookshelf. I’d be interested in anyone’s views.
Jon,
Perhaps this article might be a ‘start’ to answering your question?
http://mises.org/daily/3784
Thanks Richard, that looks perfect, and you’ve proved both my laziness, and the depth of resources on this website. I should’ve no doubt spared the question and just searched for “williamson”. What a remarkable website this is.
I am in complete agreement with Ben Ranson’s post. When Auburn University had a Ph.D. program in economics in the 1980s and 1990s, the Mises Institute externally funded fellowships for students, many of whom received their doctorates and went on to pursue productive careers in academia. This was a cause for great rejoicing. And, personally, I would welcome and accept external funding in the blink of an eye to teach an Austrian course or set up a niche Austrian program at my university. The point I was making however is that an Austrian course offered as part of the regular curriculum especially in a Ph.D. program is significant because it indicates changing attitudes on the part of academic economists who, since World War 2, have been particularly dismissive of AE.
Mr./Prof. Salerno, although I agree that it is good that mainstream economics is now seriously studying Austrian theory, I am worried that with this new turn the school might become too popular and fall into decline as the French Liberal School. Do you expect such a future trend?
Perhaps I never understood the source of the funding, but NYU had a very active Austrian program in the early 90′s. I know because I was privileged to take some 18 credit hours from Israel Kirzner and Mario Rizzo, as well as attend the Austrian doctoral colloquium as an undergraduate.
Maybe I misunderstood what was happening at time, but I saw a major university with a broad acceptance of process-oriented economics 20 years ago, extending all the way down to freshmen.
Make no mistake, I rejoice in the creation of this program at the University of Missouri, and hold tremendous respect for Prof. Klein. I simply don’t understand how this is unprecedented. It would seem that NYU offered this same degree of respect two decades ago.
Yes, Nathan, the same NYU that has not given a raise nor any recognition to the brilliant Dr. Rizzo in that many years.
It is really good school for many economist especially from African countries like Tanzania. I got a book about an introduction of Austrian Economics from Professor Debroah Walker from Fort Lewis College
Nathan,
We should applaud Professor Klein’s class, and I have at Coordination Problem. But you are right. At NYU in the 1980s and 1990s, Austrian economics was taught within the standard curriculum of a top 10 department of economics. I know this because I taught there from 1990-1998 and none of my salary was secured through outside funds, but paid out of the general operating funds of the university budget. And this is also true for Professor Kirzner and Professor Rizzo. And was true before me for Professor O’Driscoll and for Professor White. We did use external funds to pay for research support (including summer support), and to support visiting fellows (including Professor Salerno), student support at the graduate level, and of course the weekly colloquium under Professor Rizzo’s direction.
I don’t know details about the operation at NYU since I left in 1998 as well as I did from 1990-1998, but I know that Professor Rizzo still teaches his Ethics and Economics course, and in fact that it is so popular that they had to hold a section section of it where my former student (and now researcher at NYU’s Development Research Institute with Bill Easterly) Adam Martin taught a section of the course. And Professor David Harper, who runs the MA program at NYU, has employed in the curriculum various scholars who have Austrian leanings.
Let me reiterate, Professor Klein’s course is to be celebrated and Professor Salerno is right to do so. It is a great day. And I would hope that many other examples of similar courses crop up all over the place in PhD programs (like Dan Sutter’s course at U of Oaklahoma a few years ago). I am expecting similar courses to be offered at Suffolk University in the not so distant future — they already have a group of really good Austrian students coming through their program (contact Ben Powell for information), and I think Troy State in Alabama might be a school to watch over the next decade as well for these sort of educational developments. I should also point out that Bruce Caldwell teaches a course in the Honors College at Duke, on Hayek and the Austrian School. It is an undergraduate course, but I spoke in it last year and those students were very good.
On GMU, I will just say that we are very grateful for the multiplicity of private donors (individuals and foundations) who have helped our research and educational mission — it has enabled a relatively new state university to develop a PhD program (ranked #42 in PhD programs by the JEL, and #1 PhD program in the South by another study published in Applied Econ), boast of 2 Nobel Prize winners on its faculty, develop close working relationships with 2 other Nobel Prize winners, have among its faculty over the years a Distinguished Fellow of the American Economic Association and a John Bates Clark Medal Winner and to this day have a young economists on the faculty who is ranked in the top 100 most influential economists in the world as ranked by RePC. And GMU as a university was named by US News and World Report a few year ago as the #1 university to watch, and it now consistently ranks in the top research universities in the US and is either the largest or second largest university in Virginia with over 30,000 students and now-a-days has an on-campus population over 5,000 I believe (so is no longer the commuter college it once was). GMU in 2010, is not the GMU of 1980 — a lot has happened in-between. Time to update on the information about the school. And it is also true that Austrian economics has been part of the undergraduate and graduate curriculum throughout those years, and the graduates of that educational program who have either gone into policy work, foundation work, and/or academia are the greatest testimony to the program.
And don’t forget our first-class basketball program!!!!, we not only went to the final four, but Coach L graduates his players.
Oh for goodness sake, I have already twice clarifiied my position on external private funding of Austrian economics courses and programs in very plain language. I find myself in the position of having to reiterate my positon yet again. So allow me to approach this from another angle. In May 2003 I wrote a letter to Professor Israel Kirzner in which I commented on the private funding of the NYU Austrian program of which I was a very grateful beneficiary. I wrote:
“[My point] was the Mengerian one that all human endeavors, including the pursuit of scientific truth, require for their realization a rational structure of complementary material resources, that is ‘property.’ Not only is the (voluntary, non-political) ‘gushing forth’ of material resources from sympathetic patrons not inherently corrupting, it is, and was, positively indispensable to the development of all branches of contemporary Austrian economics. As one, who like yourself, takes Menger’s teachings seriously, I love the gushing forth of resources from privates sources and fervently hope, for the sake of my own research and that of other Austrians, that it intensifies in the future.”
I cannot speak any more plainly than that. That was my position in 2003 and remains my position today. Once again: the point of my original post was NOT that subsidized Austrian courses and programs were in some way tainted or inferior. I called Peter Klein’s course a “historic” step forward for the Austrian movement because as an unsubsidized part of a regular graduate mainstream curiculum it reveals the beginning of a more accepting attitude of mainstream economists toward Austrian economics. I hope this movement continues and I welcome and eagerly await the introduction of more graduate courses in Austrian economics at mainstream institutions like Suffolk University and others.
Will they be offering a course on Creationism in the biology department as well? Or perhaps a course on the Humors to a health program?
Might be of interest..
Deficiencies of Austrian Economic thought:
http://conversationwithcrombette.blogspot.com/2010/09/deficiences-of-austrian-economic.html
Comments on this entry are closed.