Friedrich von Wieser

[Torsten]

Hello, I would be interested into learning more about Friedrich von Wieser.

I have found the following descriptive entry on Friedrich von Wieser:

Friedrich von Wieser, 1851-1926.

Born in Vienna in 1851, after an early training in sociology, he became a prominent and leading member of Carl Menger’s early Austrian School - together with Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, his colleague, childhood friend and, brother-in-law.

Wieser and Bohm-Bawerk groomed the next generation of Austrians (which included L.von Mises, F.A. Hayek and J.A. Schumpeter) at Vienna during the late 1890s and early 1900s. Wieser held posts at the universities of Vienna and Prague until being called to succeed Menger in Vienna in 1903. Although famous for his detached Olympian demeanor throughout his life, Wieser eventually entered the Austrian political arena in 1917.

Wieser’s two main contributions are the theory of “imputation”, establishing that factor prices are determine by output prices (rather than the other way around, as the Classicals had it) and the theory of "alternative cost" or “opportunity cost” as the foundation of value theory – fundamental “subjectivist” pillars in Neoclassical theory which were being effectively ignored by Marshall and the “real cost” British theorists. In developing these ideas, Wieser can be credited with turning Neoclassical economics firmly towards the study of scarcity and resource allocation - a fixed quantity of resources and unlimited wants - all based on the principle of marginal utility. Menger had initially set this up, but never really extended it to production and factors properly. Wieser’s imputation theory allowed that single principle to be applied everywhere. Wieser’s theory of alternative cost and Marshall’s “real cost” theory came into confrontation quickly - Wicksteed and Edgeworth duelled on a version of this, as later did Robbins, Knight and Viner - but today they can be said to be reconciled (for the most part). This was largely achieved by the insights provided by modern linear programming and general equilibrium theory.

Wieser is renowned for two main works, Natural Value (1889), which carefully details the alternative cost doctrine and the theory of imputation, and his Social Economics (1914), which is an ambitious attempt to apply it to the real world.

Major Works of Friedrich von Wieser

• Über den Ursprung und die Hauptgesetze des Wirthschaftlichen Werthes, 1884.
• “The Austrian School and the Theory of Value”, 1891, EJ
• “The Theory of Value”, 1892, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
• “Resumption of specie payments in Austria-Hungry”, 1893, JPE.
• Natural Value, 1889.
• “The Austrian School of Economics”, 1894, in Palgrave, editor, Dictionary of political economy
• “Böhm-Bawerk”, 1894, in Palgrave, editor, Dictionary of political economy
• “Das wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie”, 1911, Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung VDR
• Social Economics, 1914.
• Das Gesetz der Macht, 1926.
• “Geld”, 1927, in Handworterbutch der Staats Wissenschaften
• Gesammelte adhanlungen, 1929.

Resources on Friedrich von Wieser

• HET Pages: the Opportunity Cost Doctrine
• Bibliography of Wieser
• “Austrian Capital and Interest Theory: Wieser’s Contribution and the Menger Tradition” by E.M. Enders, 1991, Rev Austrian Econ
• F. von Wieser at Britannica.com
• Wieser Page at McMaster
• Wieser Page at Akamac
• Wieser page at Bartleby
• Wieser entry at x-refer

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/wieser.htm

On Mises.com there are only a few texts about him and only one from him http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=Wieser Is there any particular reason for the absense of Friedrich von Wieser?

[Jon_Irenicus]

I really don’t know. He’s an important economist, and particularly significant amongst the Austrians, who make use of his theory of imputation and notion of opportunity costs (Callahan notes this in Economics for Real People, albeit attributes it to Menger.) Usually the economist I find elusive is Schumpeter, who is listed by some as an Austrian (as in member of the Austrian School, e.g. in Skousen’s Vienna & Chicago), but of whom little is said on the Mises website and very little to that effect is written on wikipedia.

-Jon

[Physiocrat]

I think Hulsmann’s Mises: the Last Knight of Liberalism deals with Wieser in detail since he was the figure head of the Austrian movement for a time- he is contrasted with Schumpeter and Bohm-Bawerk.

[Niccolo]

@Jon Irenicus

I really don’t know. He’s an important economist, and particularly significant amongst the Austrians, who make use of his theory of imputation and notion of opportunity costs (Callahan notes this in Economics for Real People, albeit attributes it to Menger.) Usually the economist I find elusive is Schumpeter, who is listed by some as an Austrian (as in member of the Austrian School, e.g. in Skousen’s Vienna & Chicago), but of whom little is said on the Mises website and very little to that effect is written on wikipedia.

-Jon

Ah, Schumpeter. If not my second favorite economist, definitely my third.

[Torsten]

@Jon Irenicus

I really don’t know. He’s an important economist, and particularly significant amongst the Austrians, who make use of his theory of imputation and notion of opportunity costs (Callahan notes this in Economics for Real People, albeit attributes it to Menger.) Usually the economist I find elusive is Schumpeter, who is listed by some as an Austrian (as in member of the Austrian School, e.g. in Skousen’s Vienna & Chicago), but of whom little is said on the Mises website and very little to that effect is written on wikipedia.

Well, wikipedia is a privately run resource, which anyone can add to:

Wieser is renowned for two main works, Natural Value (1889), which carefully details the alternative-cost doctrine and the theory of imputation, and his Social Economics (1914), which is an ambitious attempt to apply it to the real world.

The economic calculation debate started with his notion of the paramount importance of accurate calculation to economic efficiency. Prices to him represented, above all, information about market conditions, and are thus necessary for any sort of economic activity. A socialist economy, therefore, would require a price system in order to operate.

He also stressed the importance of the entrepreneur to economic change, which he saw as being brought about by “the heroic intervention of individual men who appear as leaders toward new economic shores”. This idea of leadership was later taken up by Joseph Schumpeter in his treatment of economic innovation.

Unlike almost all Austrian School economists he rejected classical liberalism, writing that “freedom has to be superseded by a system of order”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Wieser

Him not subscribing to classical liberalism, but emphasizing leadership and order could be the reaon for the lack of interest into him on the Mises.com web site. Subscription to liberal or anarchic theories is however not a prerequisite for being an Austrian economist.

Schumpeter is an ethnic Austrian German, but isn’t counted as an Austrian economist by some, while others do.

I agree that there should be more literature from them on Mises.org.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I don’t think they’d disqualify him just because of that. Boehm-Bawerk was not a classical liberal either, and neither was Lachmann.

-Jom

[Torsten]

@Jon Irenicus

I don’t think they’d disqualify him just because of that. Boehm-Bawerk was not a classical liberal either, and neither was Lachmann.

So how would one classify Friedrich von Wieser and the others you mentioned then in political terms? My reasoning was actually the following: Most of the people active at the Mises Institute are libertarians/classical liberals/market-anarchists, but Friedrich von Wieser wasn’t. And that’s why he is a bit neglected in terms of his publications and being cited by people and scholars here.

[Physiocrat]

@Torsten

So how would one classify Friedrich von Wieser and the others you mentioned then in political terms? My reasoning was actually the following: Most of the people active at the Mises Institute are libertarians/classical liberals/market-anarchists, but Friedrich von Wieser wasn’t. And that’s why he is a bit neglected in terms of his publications and being cited by people and scholars here.

I’m note sure on his politcal persuasions but Mises classified Wieser as a member of the Lausanne school (wiki entry)

The School of Lausanne is a neoclassical school of thought in economics founded at the University of Lausanne by two of its Professors: Léon Walras and Vilfredo Pareto. It is associated with the development of general equilibrium theory as well as the marginalist revolution (see marginalism).

Now if it wasn’t for Hayek’s work with Mises or his Nobel Prize the Mises institute would not discuss much about Hayek; he was a disciple of Wieser rather than Mises as Hulsmann points. The Mises institue focuses on the rationalist economic writers and libertarian theorists hence the absence of Wieser; Hayek is only discussed, IMO, due to his fame and his influence on some of the Modern “Austrians” such as White and Selgin.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Not sure, but I’ve seen it mentioned before that neither of them were classical liberals, much less libertarian. Wieser was not as influential as Boehm-Bawerk, but surely more so than Lachmann, which makes it curious that he’s not mentioned much on the Mises website. Perhaps Jeff knows why.

-Jon

[Torsten]

@Jon Irenicus

Not sure, but I’ve seen it mentioned before that neither of them were classical liberals, much less libertarian. Wieser was not as influential as Boehm-Bawerk, but surely more so than Lachmann, which makes it curious that he’s not mentioned much on the Mises website.

So how would we classify Friedrich Wieser in terms of political philosophy?

[Jon_Irenicus]

That’d depend on what positions he took. The wiki article says little other than he favoured a system of order. Sounds conservative though.

-Jon

[Torsten]

@Jon Irenicus

That’d depend on what positions he took. The wiki article says little other than he favoured a system of order. Sounds conservative though.

From what I see he adds elements of power, leadership, authority, order to the basic system of Austrian economics. Could be someone that subscribes to political realism a la Hobbes and Machiavelli. That’s somewhere between an authoritarian and institutionalist.