re: “Hayek built the business cycle theory elucidated by Garrison from Mises’ theory, so I hardly see how that would be the case”
Precisely because Hayek’s business cycle theory in no way exclusively relies on praxeology, and precisely because he fails to give it a praxeological grounding. Strict praxeologists may have an issue with certain treatments of it. Certainly you can acknowledge that it holds the potential for ruffling some Misesian feathers.
DD5:
Just from what I posted he states that it’s basically a Mainstream model with an Austrian touch and that it’s attempting to quantify human action. I cited the journal entry for you to read for yourself and see what about Garrisons work he has a problem with.
It’s like Daniel just said and what I thought of when I first heard about Garrisons model: strict praxeologist would have more of an issue with his modeling compared to Hayekians found in places such as GMU.
Whatever differences there are between Hayek’s and Mises’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge, their theoretical and non-hypothetico-experimental approaches are broadly the same. The minor qualms Misesians have with Hayek’s business cycle theory (like for example the Ricardo Effect) have to do with differing theoretical conclusions, not differing methodology.
That’s not a critique against an “attempt to model”. It’s a critique of a particular model (or an approach).
Do you not see the difference or are you intentionally evading it? Because this difference is huge. It’s like saying someone is against scientific theory, when in fact, he is only criticizing a particular scientific theory
DD5:
I said his work is being critized for its attempts at modeling which is exactly what’s going on in that paper. I did not say he was being critized for simply attempting to model. You either misread what I wrote or you’re looking to start an argument over a non-issue.
You are bringing up an important distinction, and pentahedron would do well to learn from you, but let’s not be so quick to call another forum member’s intellectual honesty into question.
Daniel,
Precisely because Hayek’s business cycle theory in no way exclusively relies on praxeology, and precisely because he fails to give it a praxeological grounding.
I’m not so sure this is true. Hayek is no praxeologist, but his methodology is very close. See his discussion on methodology in Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle.
Ludwig Lachmann called himself an ‘Austro-Keynesian’ and his work has similarities to the Post-Keynesianism of today.
I do need to read more Lachmann, but any of these various post-Keynesian/Austrian affinities that crop up aren’t necessarily going to be sympathetic to the thoroughly neoclassical synthesis Keynesianism I’m thinking about!
Jonathan -
Right, I’m not saying there’s a huge gulf between the two men. But there’s nothing particularly praxeological about his work in Prices and Production. Hayek certainly took many fruitful approaches. I think the capital structure has the best potential for integration with mainstream theory.
That a theory is praxeologically derived doesn’t mean its incompatible with something that isn’t praxeologically derived. The conclusions he derives in Prices and Production, however, are praxeological in the sense that they aren’t based on empirical observation. It’s a work of pure logic.
re: “That a theory is praxeologically derived doesn’t mean its incompatible with something that isn’t praxeologically derived.”
Right.
re: “The conclusions he derives in Prices and Production, however, are praxeological in the sense that they aren’t based on empirical observation. It’s a work of pure logic.”
Hmmm. I’m not so sure about that. It’s a theoretical work, to be sure. But it is not derived from premises about human action seeking satisfaction, so I’d hesitate to call it “praxeological”. As you rightly say, of course, this doesn’t mean that it’s inconsistent with praxeological.
But basis in empirical observation seems to be a low bar for praxeology. If that’s all that’s required then Keynes’s General Theory is praxeology too!
Tagged.
But it is not derived from premises about human action seeking satisfaction, so I’d hesitate to call it “praxeological”.
Maybe Hayek did not put as much emphasis on the axiom of human action as Mises did, but Hayek was a follower of Menger (who do you think influenced Mises?) and did practice “methodological individualism”. So, in that sense, Hayek’s economics very much did revolve around rational, economizing man. In Prices and Production Hayek isn’t writing a treatise on economics, so it wouldn’t make much sense to spend a lot of time on methodology and elucidating the exact deductive path Hayek took to reach his conclusions. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a method involved, and I think there is a lot of evidence in Hayek’s prior writings (namely, Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle) and from looking at his influences (Mises and Menger).
May you cite where he said/wrote that he was an austrokeynesian? I have read alot of Lachmann and I never heard him write such a thing.
I wish, it was in an article I read but can’t remember where I found it. I’ve been trying to find it for a while.
One of my econ professors at UTD, Peter Lewin, was a student of Lachmann and he wrote several bios of Lachmann, and he does not acknowledge this ‘austro-keynesian’ label. (he actually wrote the Lachmann bio for the Mises Institute)
Well I’m sure I didn’t imagine what I read. It had to do with his and Keynes disequilibrium analysis and subjective expectations. I’ll spend some more time looking for it - I’ll PM you if/when I find it.
William posted this last week: Lachmann discussing the commonalities shared by the two schools, but he does not call himself an Austro-Keynesian therein.
Lachmann thought that Keynes took subjectivity to a far greater level than any Austrian. He was deeply influenced by Shackle, and in that sense he had some “Keynesian” qualities. However, he was an Austrian as far as market coordination went.