“Is one considered an Austrian based on how much of Mises and Hayek they agree with?”
No. One can still technically be an Austrian economist without actually agreeing with anything said by any austrian economist BEYOND methodological concerns. You will almost never find this, however, almost all casual Austrians are either Misesians or Rothbardians who almost always agree with what Hayek said but disagree with him in many major respects. There are many more, more learned Austrians who are in league with Hayek.
“What are the main viewpoints that would make one an Austrian economist?”
- The belief in methodological individualism
The idea that all societal behavior is the result of individual action and so in order to understand these events we must look to the individual
- The belief in the non-empirical nature of the social sciences
Man acts based upon his own experiences and value judgements. These will never be repeated
- Radical subjectivism
The only values are those which individuals assign to that which they percieve
All of these are essential to being an Austrian Economist
-
Condemnation of non-market socialism on economic grounds (never met an Austrian who didn’t agree with this but it’s concievable)
-
Support of the entrepreneur as the mover and shaker of the capitalist economy (once again exceedingly important)
-
Support of free markets (almost always, finally at a point where there actually are a noteable number of austrian dissenters)
-
Belief in inefficiency of almost all market interventions
-
Belief in the view that credit expansion brings around the business cycle
-
Emphasis on capital in analysis
-
Contempt for the perfect competition model when applied to ‘real life’ and belief that the entire point of the market process is approaching the ideal price
-
Belief in social libertarianism and pacifism (usually)
-
Condemnation of Keynesian spending solutions to recessions as well as most monetarist solutions, instead favoring and adjustive approach
Those are most of the big ones that I can think of
“What things does one have to agree with to be Austrian?”
The first three viewpoints. Probably 90% of Austrians will agree with the first seven
“For example why is Scumpeter not considered part of the school?”
That’s one thing that I’ve never really understood myself. From reading his work I feel that it’s two things, the first and less important is that in his sociological work he was fairly collectivistic (although in his actual economic writings he was, of course, as individualistic as possible), and more importantly he put a lot of emphasis on empirical evidence claiming something along the lines of the fact that one could not discount something which had to do with the past, or so I recall.
“How is new work integrated into the existing body of what is considered Austrian?”
The same way it is almost all other schools, through the formulation of theories in books and the like and then general concensus by peers.
“Since Rothberd what significant changes or improvements have there been?”
Most unfortunately little has really been done to expand the work of the austrians in terms of real economics or anything outside of moral theory, the possibilities for the continuation of a free society, and reinforcement of old theories since Rothbard died. The little work that actually has been performed has been by de Soto and some intruiging sociological work has been done by Hoppe.
Rothbard acted as a great synthesizer. There are places that Austrian theory still needs to go, but not as many as one might think after Rothbard came in and combined the work of a centuries worth of Austrian Economists.