Modern Money and Pubic Purpose
Modern Monetary Theory (Warren Mosler) Vs. The Austrian School (Robert Murphy) Macroeconomic Debates Among The Heterodoxy
Part of the 2012-2013 Modern Money and Public Purpose Series on Contemporary Issues in Law and Political Economics, organized by the Workers' Rights Student Coalition
When: 6.15pm June 3rd, 2013
Where: Room 103, Jerome Greene Hall, Columbia Law School
Moderated by John Carney, Senior Editor, CNBC.com
The debate will be livestreamed.
6 comments:
I don't mean to be controversial with this question, but in what sense can one say that Austrian economics is heterodox?
I'll be there!!
I don't mean to be controversial with this question, but in what sense can one say that Austrian economics is heterodox?
Mises-Rothbard school as representative.
The early Austrians, Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and Hayek are considered pretty much a neoclassical branch.
Austrian economics became heterodox with the Mises-Rothbard school, which diverged radically from neoclassicism in its radical subjectivism and rejection of econometrics, which came to dominate neoclassical methodology.
I would say that most heterodox schools are characterized by their divergence from neoclassical methodology, which is why Krugman, for instance, is so insistent on "having a model."
"Austrian economics became heterodox with the Mises-Rothbard school, which diverged radically from neoclassicism in its radical subjectivism and rejection of econometrics, which came to dominate neoclassical methodology."
This is an extremely weak criterion.
Jevons, for instance, who did work mathematically, was every bit as radical subjectivist as any ultra-Austrian: he, for instance, believed that production costs played no role whatsoever in determining goods' prices.
Oskar Morgenstern, co-author with John von Neumann of the seminal work in game theory, is often included among the Austrians.
Lots of microeconomic theorists, working within the neoclassical school, never did a single econometric work.
Hi Magpie,
In this context, i was using heterodox to describe alternatives to mainstream thinking, i.e.
http://www.economist.com/node/21542174
I think you could (and do) make a reasonable (if not necessarily persuasive) case in a history of economic thought class that it was an incorrect use, but in the context of a public debate, i think it's appropriate.
Magpie, I think it boils down to what the neoclassicals accepted from AE what it rejected. The early Austrians contributed to the development of neoclassical economics along with the Anglo's and then the Americans.
I would say that the basic criterion for distinguishing between neoclassical economics and neoclassical synthesis is acceptance or rejection of equilibrium and econometric modeling based on the assumption of equilibrium. What I hear from people like Wren-Lewis is that the basic question of what economics is has been solved and professional economists are all working within that methodological paradigm excepting the heterodox, who haven't yet caught up, so that are not considered serious players.
Post a Comment