Salerno: The Sociology of the Development of Austrian Economics
The recently-published Hoppe festschrift, Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, contains a cornucopia of articles of interesting to Austrians and libertarians. A fascinating one is Chapter 14, Joe Salerno's "The Sociology of the Development of Austrian Economics," which is based on a speech presented at the Ludwig von Mises Institute's First Annual Austrian Scholars Conference, Auburn University, Alabama, January 26-27, 1996, on a panel entitled "The Future of the Austrian School."
From Salerno's introductory note:
Although this paper was presented as a lecture in 1996, I have chosen to publish it in this volume in nearly its original manuscript form.[1] It was never previously published or posted electronically, but the paper achieved a limited circulation in manuscript form via copy and fax machines during the primitive days of the Internet. Despite its relatively restricted exposure, however, it generated a remarkably heated discussion in Austrian economics circles--much of it based on an inaccurate hearsay version of the paper--that lasted for a number of years.[2] So the first reason for publishing the paper now without major revision is to set the record straight regarding the actual claims and supporting arguments contained in it. A second reason for proceeding with belated publication of the manuscript is to acquiesce in and thus put a halt to the numerous importunities to publish that I have been subjected to over the years by colleagues and friends who were broadly aware of the prolonged controversy that swirled around the paper but were neither in the audience at its original presentation nor had the opportunity to read it subsequently. The third, and perhaps the most important, of my reasons for complying with the editors' request to publish the paper is that, despite the fact that the situation in Austrian economics has greatly changed for the better since the paper was originally written and despite my dissatisfaction with its imperfections of style and tone, I think its substantive claims have stood up quite well and bear repeating. In particular, I believe the paper identifies counterproductive attitudes peculiar to proponents of a heterodox intellectual movement. Such attitudes are always liable to recur and must be vigilantly guarded against because they are likely to impede the movement's further progress, if not threaten its very survival.
[1]Footnotes have been added and the title has been changed, but save for the correction of grammatical errors and the insertion of a few clarifying words here and there, the text has remained substantially unaltered.
[2] See, for example, David L. Prychitko, "Thoughts on Austrian Economics, 'Austro-Punkism,' and Libertarianism," in idem, Markets, Planning and Democracy: Essays after the Collapse of Communism (Lyme, N.H.: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2002), p. 186, et pass.
Update: See Pete Boettke's Setting the Record Straight on Austro-Punkism and the Sociology of the Austrian School of Economics; and David Prychitko's My Take On "Austro-Punkism"; and Salerno's Modern Austrian History: A Response to Pete.
Comments (56)
Mark Ennis
Tough on "Austro-punkism" but I've come to expect nothing less from Dr. Salerno. It sheds some light, for me, on his seeming issues with those on this blog he has done battle with. Thanks for posting this.
Published: August 3, 2009 2:49 PM
BART
You've made someone angry. Is their anger justified?
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/setting-the-record-straight-on-austropunkism-and-the-sociology-of-the-austrian-school-of-economics.html#more
Published: August 4, 2009 6:31 AM
Christoph Kohring
Peter Boettke, as usual, is only being true to his rothbardian self here...
Remember, "every calorie says yeah to life!" as MNR used to say. ;o)
Christoph, political commissar at the foot of the Mont-Pèlerin
Published: August 4, 2009 7:45 AM
BART
A second "Austro-punk" weighs in on Dr Salerno
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/my-take-on-austropunkism.html#more
Published: August 4, 2009 8:47 AM
Ashton Kutcher
So since there is no sufficiently rigorous and orthodox graduate training in Austrian economics, then the select few who qualify as Austrians are... who exactly? And how did they qualify, by the approval of the Mises Institute?
Published: August 4, 2009 8:50 AM
Gregory House MD
If Boettke et al are Austro-Punks, the LvMI and Austro-Emos with all their bitching
Published: August 4, 2009 12:11 PM
Gregory House MD
A hit piece published in the festschrift of Hans Hoppe, how appropriate!
Published: August 4, 2009 12:12 PM
Wayne Lee
The poor taste and unfunny jokes about a serious scholar of Dr. Hoppe's knowledge and achievements readily illustrate why the LVMI must continue to preach the Austrian message and also why Dr Salerno is wholly on target with his remarks about Austro-punkism. One would think 'Dr' Boettke has better things to do than encourage GMU students to sneer at Dr Hoppe.
Published: August 4, 2009 12:36 PM
Wayne
Are Dr Hoppe's comments on the late Don Lavoie's work (I like his calculation book very much) available online? I could not find them.
Published: August 4, 2009 12:55 PM
NotFromGMU
Wayne it's here: http://www.hanshoppe.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/hoppe_lavoie.pdf
But I can put it into fewer words: Lavoie is on drugs, I'm so rational, he is a priori wrong. LAVOIE IS ON DRUGS, I'M SO RATIONAL, HE IS A PRIORI WRONG!
Oh well, at the end of the day it's Don Lavoie 1, Hans Hermann Flop 0
Published: August 4, 2009 1:03 PM
MyNameIsGladiator
GMU and LvMI had a race, it was all going well for Auburn, until they found out that their last runner, Hans-Hermann, could only Hoppe.
Published: August 4, 2009 1:08 PM
RealCertifiedGenuineActualAustrian
"The poor taste and unfunny jokes about a serious scholar"
You're insufficiently subjectivist, if you read less Hoppe and more real economists you wouldn't make such mistakes.
Published: August 4, 2009 1:10 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Salerno's piece cites: Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “In Defense of Extreme Rationalism: Thoughts on Donald McCloskey’s The Rhetoric of Economics,” Review of Austrian Economics 3 no. 1
(1989): 179–214; idem, “Comment on Don Lavoie,” Mont Pèlerin Society, General Meeting (1994); and “On Certainty and Uncertainty, Or: How Rational Can Our Expectations Be?”, Review of Austrian Economics10, no. 1 (1997): 49–78.
Published: August 4, 2009 1:32 PM
Berndt
I have read the piece by Prof. Salerno in the Hoppe book. I apologize if I am incorrect but are the disaparaging remarms about Austrians who do game theory intended to apply to Professor Leeson?
If so, I should like to ask how the CV's of everyone associated with the Mises Institute when added all together stack up when compared to Prof Leeson's CV on its own?
Seriously.
Published: August 4, 2009 1:34 PM
Berndt
Has the Mises Institute ever had throughout its entire existence (30 plus years?) as much influence and importance within the economics profession as Peter Leeson has garnered for himself over the past two years or so?
Published: August 4, 2009 1:44 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
"Has the Mises Institute ever had throughout its entire existence (30 plus years?) as much influence and importance within the economics profession as Peter Leeson has garnered for himself over the past two years or so? "
That says more about the economics profession than it does about the Mises Institute.
Published: August 4, 2009 1:50 PM
Gladiator
Berndt, not everyone can be a star like Leeson.
Published: August 4, 2009 2:45 PM
Christoph Kohring
Peter Boettke, as usual, is only being true to his rothbardian self here...
Remember, "every calorie says yeah to life!" as MNR used to say. ;o)
Christoph, political commissar at the foot of the Mont-Pèlerin
Published: August 4, 2009 4:36 PM
Berndt
Buzungulus (great name BTW),
Why so negative on Leeson? Is influence among the economics profession not the goal of Austrians?
Published: August 4, 2009 4:53 PM
Berndt
Buzungulus (great name BTW),
Why so negative on Leeson? Is influence among the economics profession not the goal of Austrians?
Published: August 4, 2009 4:56 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
Berndt,
I simply don't find Leeson's work to be that interesting or important
(nor did many posters on the GMU blog, to Boettke's great astonishment).
That the economics profession does (and is that really a fact?) while
they ignore the scholarship that has come from LvMI-affiliated scholars
(e.g., Huelsmann) consequently doesn't impress me. Given their prescience in light of the current crisis, I'm actually suprised that anyone finds much use for the economics profession as a whole.
Published: August 4, 2009 5:29 PM
Berndt
Thanks for the reply Buzungulus
Boettke points out that Leeson is one of the leading 200 young economists in the world according to one ranking. One of the top 100 by other crititeria.
Also, he is by far the most cited Austrian (or young Austrian) according to a paper by Josh Hall and Scott Beualier.
A few people think he might well have a shot at winning a Bates-Clark medal too
Published: August 4, 2009 5:46 PM
Steven Horwitz
The problem is not that the economics profession ignores authors associated with the Mises Institute, but that said authors ignore the profession. Getting attention paid to your work means actually participating the profession's activities - professional associations, journal submissions, etc.. Perhaps if Institute authors did so, and their work was good enough to get accepted/published, they might well get some attention paid to them, if that's what they really want.
Published: August 4, 2009 9:56 PM
Gavin Lester
More on this post:
http://ewot.typepad.com/the_economic_way_of_think/2009/08/the-gloves-have-finally-been-dropped.html
Published: August 5, 2009 6:25 AM
Greg
I am appalled that Steven Horwitz has the nerve to sneer at a serious scholar like Hans Hoppe.
If academic jobs were awarded for merit then it is Hoppe who would call the shots in the economics department at Harvard and not Galbraith and Samuelson (and the rest of the statist establishment Keynesians).
Also, why does Horwitz think that teaching at rinky-dink college is equivalent to engaging the economics profession?
And as has been pointed out many many times, GMU was until a few years back little more than a glorified community college.
The true home of the Misesian legacy is the LVMI. Long may that continue.
Published: August 5, 2009 6:43 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
Ah yes, another in-character post by Steve. I wonder if Pete Boettke being used as a human mop by Bryan Caplan qualifies as engaging the profession? Speaking of not paying attention to Institute scholars, I'm still waiting for Steve to respond to Huelsmann's 1996 paper on Knowledge and Property, a devastating critique of the whole Kirznerian program. His latest (2004) paper on the dehomogenization debate, apart from playing word games on his previous themes, does not so much as mention Huelsmann's work (while chastising Misesians for ignoring Esteban Thompsens' work). And, as has also been pointed out here, maybe the GMU gang can take a look at Huelsmann's biography of Mises sometime.
Published: August 5, 2009 6:51 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
BTW, Huelsmann does refer to Thompsen's work, something Steve might know had he acquainted himself with that 1996 paper.
Published: August 5, 2009 7:00 AM
GilesStratton
"BTW, Huelsmann does refer to Thompsen's work, something Steve might know had he acquainted himself with that 1996 paper."
Was that Huelsmann's paper that was published in AER or QJE? Oh, wait...
Published: August 5, 2009 8:21 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
GilesStratton, the paper in question can be found here:
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE10_1_2.pdf
I trust you'll read the paper and evaluate the actual content within, as opposed to judging its merits based on the journal in which it was published. Or, maybe you're just a shit-for-brains, I don't know.
Published: August 5, 2009 8:31 AM
Danny B.
I think Joe Salernon would be doing the advance of Misesian economics much service by updating his paper and explicitly evaluating the Boettke worldview.
Published: August 5, 2009 6:38 PM
Ball
Could Huelsmann's paper be published elsewhere? It concerns Austrians vis a vi Austrians.
Arguments are what ought to be debated, not dick size or mainstream acceptance.
Published: August 5, 2009 7:57 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
"Arguments are what ought to be debated, not dick size or mainstream acceptance."
Not sure where he stands on the former, but Steve clearly adheres to the latter (despite his obfuscations):
"Peer review is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish something as good scholarship. It is, however, a strong indicator thereof. And people whose work has consistently not passed the peer review test bear a large burden of proof for demonstrating why it should be taken seriously."
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/setting-the-record-straight-on-austropunkism-and-the-sociology-of-the-austrian-school-of-economics.html#comments
Not sure if he supports Pete's fantasy that Mises and Hayek would garner mainstream acceptance today.
Published: August 5, 2009 9:15 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
For a guy who crows about the GMU mafiya's interaction with the mainstream and snidely comments about the lack of publishing prestige by LvMI-affiliated scholars, Steve himself is not that widely published outside of comparatively marginal classical liberal journals:
http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/Papers/pubs.htm
Outside of three or four papers in History of Political Economy, his resume doesn't look too different from many other Austrian economists. (The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is truly cutting edge, LMAO.)
Published: August 6, 2009 6:54 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
Just to clarify, The Independent Review, e.g., is a great journal, no doubt, but it can't be characterized as a prestigious, mainstream journal in any sense (that just says more about the mainstream than the Review). And at any rate, where Steve publishes is irrelevant to the content of his work, something he needs to be reminded of before he casts those aspersions elsewhere.
Published: August 6, 2009 7:08 AM
Jerome
I note that Mr Horwitz is no longer participating in this debate. I assume Lord B's views are too close to the truth for him to object.
Published: August 6, 2009 7:33 AM
Ed
How does Buzungulus' publication list stack up against Steve's I wonder?
Published: August 6, 2009 9:23 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
Ed,
Who cares? He's not talking about me, he's talking about LvMI-associated scholars. If you think it's so relevant, show us your publication list.
Published: August 6, 2009 9:30 AM
Cheese
Steve H. responds to Buzunglus in the comments
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/setting-the-record-straight-on-austropunkism-and-the-sociology-of-the-austrian-school-of-economics.html#comments
Published: August 6, 2009 9:58 AM
Ed
And what do you make of Dr Boettke's outstanding publication list I wonder?
Those guys are too busy publishing to throw stones and waste their time on blog comments.
Published: August 6, 2009 10:57 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
"And what do you make of Dr Boettke's outstanding publication list I wonder?"
A classic case of quantity over quality. (And metaphor is no substitute for argument.)
Published: August 6, 2009 11:00 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
BTW Ed, still waiting to see your publication list; by your criteria, no one should take you seriously until we see your CV, so let's have it.
Published: August 6, 2009 11:07 AM
Ed
Lord B,
Like you I have published nothing (zero, zilch, nada). Unlike your apparent view, however, I think that fact totally disqualifies me from being able to be rude and insulting about leading Austrians like Prof Boettke and other GMU-types.
Published: August 6, 2009 11:18 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
Ah, but publishing does allow Austrians like Steve to be rude and insulting to other Austrians, who have also published, just not in journals Steve regards as unworthy? Is that what you're saying?
Published: August 6, 2009 11:24 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
That should read,
"just not in journals Steve regards as _worthy_?"
Published: August 6, 2009 11:25 AM
Ed
I think you'll find that Dr Horwitz was complaining that they don't publish in genuine refereed journals. I don't think his comments were directed at any prominent economist associated with the Mises Institute (e.g, Salerno, Block, Garrison, Selgin)
Published: August 6, 2009 11:29 AM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
You're saying the QJAE or JLS aren't "genuine refereed journals"? That's hogwash, to put it mildly.
Published: August 6, 2009 11:34 AM
Ed
Who publishes those journals? Are they prestigious in the same way that the Economic Journal or JPE are?
Published: August 6, 2009 12:14 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
To answer the question to which you already know the answer, they're published through the Mises Institute. So what? Is that supposed to reflect on their intellectual content?
Published: August 6, 2009 12:25 PM
Ed
Bunzunguls = Ludwig = publishes in JLS and QJAE.
Right Steve?
Published: August 6, 2009 12:44 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
Ed,
No idea what you're talking about there. I'm not the Ludwig (van den Haugh) that causes so much joy for Steve on the GMU blog, if that's what you're intimating.
Published: August 6, 2009 12:58 PM
Travis
Salerno's paper was ridiculous; a religious tome against heretics reminiscent of pre-modern Catholicism.
Why would anyone be proud of being such so petulant?
I just don't understand the LVMI.
Published: August 6, 2009 1:16 PM
Ed
Apologies to both Buzunglus and to Ludwig.
I'm out of this 'debate' and off to the Boettke blog for good.
Published: August 6, 2009 1:40 PM
GilesStratton
I wonder what will have more impact on the economics profession, "The Invisible Hook" (or "After War") or "The Privatization of Roads and Highways" (or "The Ethics of Money Production".
Published: August 6, 2009 1:46 PM
Wayne
How truly typical of the cowardly GMU 'Austrians' to send a bunch of rude undergraduates here to fight on their behalf.
Published: August 6, 2009 4:07 PM
Wayne
If Peter Boettke (the Susan Boyle of Austrian economics) had any decency he'd defend himself from Dr Salerno's charges rather than hiding behind the skirts of anonymous trolls.
Published: August 6, 2009 4:09 PM
Lord Buzungulus, Bringer of the Purple Light
Some sense over at the GMU blog:
"With all due respect Prof. Horwitz, choose a side. If peer review is unnecessary and insufficient it isn't a valid measure of the quality of one's work. At the least, it's unreliable. If you, Prof. Boettke, and others wish to believe that "staying in the conversation" equals "real" scholarship that's your business. However, duplicitous (and frankly, cowardly) statements like the above do little to advance your position. The top of the fence is not the intellectual high ground."
http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2009/08/setting-the-record-straight-on-austropunkism-and-the-sociology-of-the-austrian-school-of-economics.html#comments
Published: August 7, 2009 2:50 PM