A Pre-Austrian Reading List

Economics Economics Questions
1

I have always believed that in order to understand the Austrian Economic tradition, one must be well versed in the theories of the pre-Austrian economists. These men created the first theories of economic law. It is the nature of the science of economics to correct false theories and build upon correct theories. Thus, it is my belief that to fully understand and appreciate the works of the great Austrian economists, the theories of their predecessors must be understood. That is why I have compiled a reading list for my own benefit. I would like to share it here. I have left out Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations because although it is a landmark book, it had more of a influence on Neoclassical econonomists than the Austrians. I instead am of the belief that the French Liberal school was a much greater influence.

For, the pre-modern economic era, I recommend starting with Aristotle and then reading the works of the Late Scholastics. These groups began thinking about economic problems in a very logical way, but they did not show insight into the economy as a complete system. This is a list of the modern pre-austrians, meaning that they showed insight as to how the economy works as a complete system, instead of just attempting to answer economic problems. I put the list in order chronologically, and I recommend reading in the same order.

I recommend starting with who is arguably the first modern economist in his thought.

Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General by Richard Cantillon

Next should come the writings of the Physiocrats, notably Quesnay or Turgot.

Then come the French Liberals, who, in my opinion, had the greatest influence on the Austrian school.

Commerce and Government Considered in Their Mutual Relationshi**p by Condillac

A Treatise on Political Economy by Destutt Tracy

A Treatise on Political Economy by Jean-Baptiste Say (The same name as above, but an entirely different book)

All of the major works of Bastiat are worth reading.

The Law

Economic Sophisms

Economic Harmonies

His other essays like “What is Money” should be read as well. I recommend buying the Bastiat collection from the Mises store.

This is definitely a lot of reading, but I think it will be rewarding to accomplish because it lays the historical foundations for the developments of the Austrian economists. I chose to leave out the english classical economists because it is my opinion that the french liberals were more important to the Austrians, but if one insists on reading those, they can’t hurt. The most important works of the British Classical economists in regards to Austrian thought would propbably be these two books.

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

Principles of Political Economy by John Stuart Mill

Any more suggestions or feedback would be great.

2

Of the classicals, Hume and Ricardo shouldn’t be neglected.

3

True, I almost put them on there, but I wanted a concrete link to Austrians. I don’t know why I took Ricardo off the list. It was probably stupid of me. I didn’t put Hume on the list because his Empiricism goes against many Austrian tenets. I almost did put Hume though, and looking back, it was probably a mistake to leave him off the list too.

4

Ah well I was thinking of economists Reisman recommends. He’s an enthusiast as far as the classicals go, and has attempted to fuse their work with Austrianism.

5

It’s worth putting Hume, he may have been an empiricist but he refuted the quantity theory of money realised the non neutrality on money and was an early advocate of full reserves in banking. Obviously Rothbard’s works on this are extremely important, so they’re worth reading to learn about the history of the Austrian school

Ricardo is almost certainly worth reading, for his exposition of the Ricardo effect and his works on international trade. I don’t know about Mill but as far as I’m aware he’s not really worth reading (could be mistaken there, it’s just a guess).

You mentioned the Scholastics, who are definately important, there’s a book on this website that concerns Juan de Mariana who was definately a forerunner of the Austrian school.

6

I put Mill on the list because from what I’ve read, his book was the definitive economic text before the marginalist revolution. If i’m not mistaken, Menger improved and corrected a bunch of Mill’s ideas. I could be totally wrong on this, but that is the impression I have gotten.

7

What about Locke?

8

Locke was a mercantilist economically, IMO. Also, Locke predated what is considered to be modern economics. Locke pre-dated Cantillon, who is considered to be the first modern economist. It could fall under the category of the pre-modern “economists” which included Aristotle and the Late Scholastics.

9

A tiny and geeky point of fact: Turgot wasn’t a physiocrat (although he was a fellow-traveler of them, and is generally associated with them). The physiocrats were characterized by their self-conscious cadre-style activity and bizarre doctrines: Quesnay’s useless Tableau Economique (which they deemed as important an invention as writing itself) and the notion that wealth is only created by agriculture. Turgot himself proclaimed that he wasn’t a physiocrat (or, as was their name at the time, Economiste) because of their monarchism:

"I am not an Encyclopediste because I believe in God; I am not an economiste [physiocrat] because I would have no king.”

10

So even though he was a student of Quesnay, he wasn’t a Physiocrat himself? Interesting, thank you for pointing that out.