My micro text book defines Austrian Economics as the following:
Austrian economics: the school of economics that emphasizes the development of markets over time, information, and entrepreneurship, along with marginal thinking, markets, and prices.
Agree, disagree? What would be a more accurate definition.
I shudder to think what the other schools of economics are about.
Frankly, I’m surprised your microtextbook mentions Austrian economics at all.
The most watered down, vague description I’ve seen yet. And actually seeing one in a microtext book is note worthy.
Mine essentially states that the Austrians are a bunch of right wing nuts. It also tries to present Mises’ calculation argument, destroying it in the process.
I am surprised they mentioned Austrian Economics too! We must be making some headway if Austrians get a little blurb. If you are curious, below are the other definitions of the various schools of economics from the book. It’s interesting that the book does not mention Chicago School or Keynesian Economics directly. IMHO, it would seem that many of the schools are a subset of the Keynesian line. Also, I would think that uncertainty would be part of the definition of Austrian Economics rather than Post-Keynesian.
Neoclassical Economics: the school of economics that takes the traditional model as its starting point, emphasizing competitive markets and equilibrium
New Institutionalist Economics: the school of economics that shares many assumptions with neoclassical economics but looks at how economic institutions may develop to address problems such as those arising from transaction costs and imperfect information.
Institutionalist Economics: the school of economics that emphasizes complex and evolving nature of organizations and the strong influence of habit on individual behavior.
Social Economics: the school of economics that emphasizes the requirements for humane community life, focusing on ethical dimensions.
Marxist (or radical) Economics: the school of economics that emphasizes the power that comes with the ownership and control of capital.
Post-Keynesian Economics: the school of economics that emphasizes the dynamic nature of the macro-economy and the importance of uncertainty in explaining economic behavior.
Austrian economics: the school of economics that emphasizes the development of markets over time, information, and entrepreneurship, along with marginal thinking, markets, and prices.
Ecological Economics: economics that emphasizes the dependene of economies on the natural world and long-term environmental effects of economic activity.
Feminist Economics: economics that emphasizes nonsexist approaches to policies, topics, and methods.
Source: Microeconomics in Context. Goodwin, Nelson, Ackerman, Weisskopf. 2005: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Italics mine, proving these are bunch of nonsense.
It would seem that each of those focuses on the polar opposite of which it posits per the given definition.
Boettke’s Austrian School article might be helpful here. He lists the ten main propositions of AE.
How would the italics prove anything? Doesn’t there come some power with “ownership and control of capital.”?
Mises was so sexist! He’s always talking about “men” in Human Action!