Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:34:19.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ludwig von Mises's approach to capital as a bridge between Austrian and institutional economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2016

EDUARD BRAUN Open the ORCID record for EDUARD BRAUN [Opens in a new window] ,
PETER LEWIN  and
NICOLÁS CACHANOSKY
EDUARD BRAUN*
Affiliation:
Institute of Management and Economics, Clausthal University of Technology, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany
PETER LEWIN*
Affiliation:
Naveen Jindal School of Management, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson (TX), USA
NICOLÁS CACHANOSKY*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Denver (CO), USA
*
*Email: [email protected]
**Email: [email protected]
***Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ludwig von Mises seems to be something of an outlier within the Austrian school when it comes to capital – though his position is clearly foreshadowed in a neglected article by Carl Menger (1888). In this paper, we examine Mises's view on capital and suggest that it constitutes a bridge between Austrian and institutional economics. As an outflow of Mises's approach, an incipient financial approach may be discerned, an approach to capital that integrates concepts from financial theory into a broader view of capital that contains both institutional and Austrian elements.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 12 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 847 - 866
Copyright
Copyright © Millennium Economics Ltd 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Böhm-Bawerk, E. V. [1889](1930), The Positive Theory of Capital, trans. Smart, W., New York: G. E. Stechert & Co.Google Scholar
Braun, E. (2015a), ‘Carl Menger's Contribution to Capital Theory’, History of Economic Ideas, 23 (1): 77–99.Google Scholar
Braun, E. (2015b), ‘The Theory of Capital as a Theory of Capitalism – Hidden Austrian Contributions to a Historically Specific Approach to Capital’, TUC Working Papers in Economics, paper 15, available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/tuc/tucewp/0015.html (last accessed May 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Cachanosky, N. and Lewin, P. (2014), ‘Roundaboutness is not a Mysterious Concept: A Financial Application to Capital Theory’, Review of Political Economy, 26 (4): 648–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cachanosky, N. and Lewin, P. (2016), ‘Financial Foundations of Austrian Business Cycle Theory’, Advances in Austrian Economics, 20: 15–44.Google Scholar
Diehl, K. (1926), ‘Die zweite Auflage von Carl Mengers, Grundsätzen der Volkswirtschaftslehre’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 80 (3): 433–446.Google Scholar
Endres, A. M. and Harper, D. A. (2011), ‘Carl Menger and His Followers in the Austrian Tradition on the Nature of Capital and Its Structure’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 33 (3): 357–384.Google Scholar
Fetter, F. (2008), ‘Capital’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 4 (1): 132–137.Google Scholar
Garrison, R. W. (2001), Time and Money. The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure, London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1935), Prices and Production, 2nd edn., New York: Augustus M. Kelly.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1941), The Pure Theory of Capital, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hennings, K. H. (1990), ‘Capital as a Factor of Production’, in Eatwell, J., Milgate, M. and Newman, P. (eds.), The New Palgrave. Capital Theory, New York and London: W. W. Norton, pp. 108–122.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. [1939](1947), Value and Capital, 2nd edn., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2008), ‘Frank A. Fetter (1863–1949): Capital (1930)’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 4 (1): 127–132.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2014), ‘What is Capital? Economists and Sociologists Have Changed its Meaning: Should it be Changed Back?’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38 (5): 1063–1086.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2015), Conceptualizing Capitalism. Institutions, Evolution, Future, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hülsmann, G. (2007), Mises. The Last Knight of Liberalism, Auburn, Al: Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Kirzner, I. M. [1976](2010), ‘Ludwig von Mises and the Theory of Capital and Interest’, in Boettke, P. J. and Sautet, F. (eds.), The Collected Works of Israel M. Kirzner: Essays on Capital and Interest, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 134–146.Google Scholar
Kirzner, I. M. [1966](2010), ‘An Essay on Capital’, in Boettke, P. J. and Sautet, F. (eds.), The Collected Works of Israel M. Kirzner: Essays on Capital and Interest, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, pp. 14–133.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. (1978), Capital and its Structure, 2nd edn., Kansas City, MO: Sheed Andrews and McNeel.Google Scholar
Lewin, P. (1998), ‘The Firm, Money and Economic Calculation’, American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 57 (4): 499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, P. (2011), Capital in Disequilibrium, 2nd edn., Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Lewin, P. and Cachanosky, N. (2014), The Average Period of Production: The History and Rehabilitation of an Idea, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2479408 (last accessed May 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Lewin, P. and Cachanosky, N. (2016), What is Capital? (Again): Contributions from Finance and Economics, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2613469 (last accessed May 30, 2016).Google Scholar
Macaulay, F. R. (1938), The Movements of Interest Rates. Bond Yields and Stock Prices in the United States Since 1856, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
McCulloch, J. H. (2014), ‘Misesian Insights for Modern Macroeconomics’, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 17 (1): 3–18.Google Scholar
Menger, C. (1888), ‘Zur Theorie des Kapitals’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, 17: 1–49.Google Scholar
Menger, C. [1871](2007), Principles of Economics, trans. Dingwall, J. and Hoselitz, B. F., Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Mises, L. V. (1949), Human Action – A Treatise on Economics, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mises, L. V. [1922](1951), Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, transl. Kahane, J., New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mises, L. V. [1912](1953), The Theory of Money and Credit, trans. Batson, H. E., New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mises, L. V. [1931](2003): ‘Inconvertible Capital’, in Mises, L. V., Epistemological Problems of Economics, 3rd edn, transl. Reisman, G. C., Auburn, AL: Mises Institute, pp. 231–246, available at https://mises.org/library/epistemological-problems-economics . Google Scholar
Mises, L. V. [1920](2012), Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, trans. Adler, S., Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Murphy, R. (2015), Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise and Human Action, Oakland: The Independent Institute.Google Scholar
Osborne, M. (2014), Multiple Interest Rate Analysis: Theory and Applications, Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbard, M. N. [1962](2009), Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles, 2nd edn., Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Samuels, W. J. (1989), ‘Austrian and Institutional Economics: Some Common Elements’, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 6: 53–71.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. A. (1966), ‘A Summing Up’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 80 (4): 568–583.Google Scholar
Skousen, M. (2007), The Structure of Production, New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Strigl, R. V. [1934](2000), Capital and Production, transl. Hoppe, M. R. and Hoppe, H.-H., Auburn, AL: Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. (1908), Professor Clark's Economics, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 22 (2): 147–195.Google Scholar
Wynarczyk, P. (1992), ‘Comparing Alleged Incommensurables: Institutional and Austrian Economics as Rivals and Possible Complements?’, Review of Political Economy, 4 (1): 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanotti, G. J. and Cachanosky, N. (2015), ‘Implications of Machlup's Interpretation of Mises's Epistemology’, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 37 (1): 111–138.Google Scholar