When most people think of the so-called Austrian School of Economics, they think of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. But who are the 5 most well-known, productive and intelligent economists in the Austrian tradition at the moment?
By well-known I’m also including the general public, not just within Austrian or libertarian circles.
Tough call. Unfortunately I think the GMU crowd are far more productive and insightful than the LvMI crowd and I’m probably going to get shouted down for this. Peter Leeson is definately up there, especially considering his age, same goes for Chris Coyne, Ben Powell, Scott Beaulier, Bryan Caplan, Ed Stringham, Virgil Storr. Peter Boettke is almost certainly one of the most productive economics out there, and I’d argue Steven Horwitz is a very good economist. There’s also Lawrence White and George Selgin who are doing great work in monetary theory. Others I can think of include Rizzo and Koppl, whose work I’ve not really read, but definately seem insightful.
Tullock, Buchanan and Yeager are all very competent economists and somewhat well know. But they’re not really Austrians, just fellow travelers.
Over at the LvMI there’s Stringham (already mentioned), Salerno, Klein, Higgs, Garrison and perhaps one or two others I’m missing.
Over all, I’m not sure, but it’d go something like this (in no real order):
But I’m not really sure, I’ll give it another thought and see what I’d change (fellow travelers aren’t included, by the way).
I don’t think I have anywhere near the expertise to argue with you about modern dayt LvMI vs GMU economists (from what I have read, both tend to be good and profitable reads as a rule of thumb), wouldn’t you concede that as least as far as the potential to market and reach the broadest number of people the LvMI is superior? That in and of itself is a valuable form of productivity in its own right. So this begs the question of the OP, more productive in what way? The question has to be more specific I think as to what type of productivity you are looking for.
No mention of Jesus Huerta de Soto?
@Giles
Assuming he is talking about more academic productivity, I was under the hunch that Salerno was one of the more brilliant of the present batch of Austrians (once again in a far from expert look at things) and that Bob Higgs was more of a “populist” (for lack of a better word) styled writer.
Have just come away from Mises U, I saw 18 amazing faculty members teach an incredibly relentless program to 200 plus students, and every single one of these faculty members was incredible. I conducted extended interviews with many students, top students in great universities, and heard their reactions to the lectures. They were completely blown away. Some were attached to Murphy, others to Hoppe, others to Salerno, and others to precise and deeply knowledgeable people like Herbener or Garrison. It all depends on what you are looking for and what your area of specialization is.
No question that this is the most productive program in the world for the Austrian School, has been for many years, and will continue to be. Let’s also remember that there are 250 people on the adjunct faculty of the mises institute, and about that many attending the ASC annually, and they all work hard in the profession, teaching, publishing, researching.
It’s an interesting thing that we have this heritage of giants like Mises and Menger and Rothbard. But as the school has grown and matured, there is also growing specialization and diversification. That’s a good thing. I do think that we ask the wrong question when we ask who is top or who are godlike or whatever.Times have changed.
Yeah, I think any list of the most influential and productive Austrians has to include Bob Higgs. He hasn’t written much directly on monetary economics, but he’s a gun when it comes to the military-industrial complex/warfare state.
“I do think that we ask the wrong question when we ask who is top or who are godlike or whatever”.
But there’s always someone who’s the “smartest”, most “influential” and “productive” when it comes to academics. There are Austrians who are populists (Murphy, Woods) and then there are the in-depth analysts and scholars whose works will live on forever (Higgs, Kirzner, etc.). The question is, do we have anyone approaching the legacy of a Hayek or a Mises and if not why not? Do really gifted people come along only once or twice a century? Because we could really use someone like that right about now.
Indeed it is. Austrian ideas can only flourish when there is diversity and competition.
Caplan is not an Austrian.
Out of living ones (I am thus excluding many), I’d say Reisman, Salerno, Huelsmann, Garrison and the Block/Barnett II duo (yes, I snuck one in…) I’d like to include Huerta, Kirzner, Murphy, Boettke and Klein as well. There’s many more who could be named.
Dondolee, that’s an important point you raise. Certainly, if we’re using the word “productive” in the sense of reaching the broadest number of people and getting the layman interested in economics, the LvMI would probably come out “in front”. On the other hand, if we’re using the word “productive” in terms of scholarly output, influence on the mainstream, economists produced etc. I think it’s clear that GMU “wins”.
Look at it this way, Beaulier, Leeson, Coyne, Stringham, Powell and Storr are just a few examples of students that are coming out of GMU (specifically students of Peter Boettke). Leeson is ranked as one of the top 50 young economics, Stringhamis teaching at San Jose State University, Coyne is teaching at WVU, Powell is teaching at Suffolk. Coyne and Leeson have been published by Stanford and Princeton respectively, and these young economists are publishing in mainstream journals.
And this is just the younger generation. This is forgetting the productivity of Peter Boettke himself in terms of books and papers on such diverse subjects as methodology and political economy. The pioneering workdone on free banking by Lawrence White and George Selgin. Steven Horwitz’ top rate work in Austrian macroeconomics also deserves a mention. Once again, there is doubtless work that I’m forgetting (such a Rizzo), but I think I’m making my point.
In light of this, I’d probably change my top 5 a bit:
With the last two being difficult to fill, but there are a number of economists who I can think of that might be able to fill them. As for Huerta de Soto, yes, I forgot him and he’d definately be considered for the list. In response to your other questions Dondolee, no, I wouldn’t consider Bob Higgs to be a public intellectual. He’s done some really great work in both the Austrian and Public Choice traditions, so perhaps this might make him more accessible than others who do more technical work in Austrian economics (or Public Choice) but he’s been very insightful in many different ways. Finally, yes, I also think Salerno possesses a really great mind, but his output just isn’t enough to be compared to the economists above (especially given the last screed he publihsed)
I don’t think this is anything to lament, it’s just that each of the two organizations represents a different niche.
Not in name, no, but as has been argued by numerous people, there are a lot of affinities between his work and that of Austrian economists. This said, perhaps he would have been more appropriate in the fellow traveler sections.
Giles, I think you’ve bought into a pile of machine-generated propaganda but I’m not going to argue with you. Too much actual work to do.
I had the pleasure to hear his lectures and speak with him during Cato University, and he absolutely showed his brilliance during the lectures he gave.
Haha, that’s certainly possible Mr. Tucker. But keep in mind it’s difficult to come up with a list of only 5 economists working within a tradition who fit a very vague set of criteria, I recognize the importance of Huelsmann’s biography of Mises (although, unfortunately, I’ve not got around to reading it). I definately appreciate Garrison’s work on Austrian macroeconomics (he would probably be in any top 10), Peter Klein and Joseph Salerno’s lecture series is wonderful (and I definately await their textbook). I’m definately missing some (such as Thornton, whose work I like) So it’s not as if I’m downplaying the importance of the LvMI or the scholars associated with it, I just think that it might be correct to generalize and say that whereas LvMI is more aimed at the layman, GMU and their scholars are focusing more on reaching academia. What’s more, there are any number of quotations from scholars associated with this institute that would confirm such suspicions.
In any case, I praised (justifiably) the work of Ed Stringham, Bob Higgs and Isreal Kirzner all of whom I believe are associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute to one extent or another. Whilst I wouldn’t want to distract you from the great work you’re doing at the Institute, I’m curious have you read The Invisible Hook and if so what are your thoughts on it?
I like Caplan a lot actually, his critiques of the Austrian school are well thought out and well informed. I’ve been reading some of his other papers recently, and I’m definately looking forward to reading his work The Myth of the Rational Voter.
(Access to the Mises University, Cato University. FEE seminars etc. are reasons I’m envious of those of you who reside in America!)
I’m a fan of Caplan, and I originally loved The Myth of the Rational Voter, but looking back now, much of the book was littered with economic fallacies and his critiques seem to be more about terminological issues than anything really substantsive (from what I’ve read so far anyways). Perhaps, I’m just drifting further and further away from my neo-classical starting point though.
Care to give some examples of these economic fallacies? His critique, at least a major one, is of the efficiency of democracy and the rationality of voters. Are you claiming this is merely a terminological debate about the definition of rationality?
[^o)]
I’d say that LvMI incorporates the disciplines of history and philosophy with economics, while the institutions and individuals you prefer are less radical and more specifically oriented around economics.
I’m not particularly well-informed about the Austrian school, compared to the other people on this forum, so does anyone know why Hayek was able to publish in mainstream journals? Why did he become more prominent among the mainstream than Mises or Rothbard?