Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:08:09.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CARL MENGER AND HIS FOLLOWERS IN THE AUSTRIAN TRADITION ON THE NATURE OF CAPITAL AND ITS STRUCTURE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2011

ANTHONY M. ENDRES  and
DAVID A. HARPER
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine various, sometimes divergent, conceptions of capital and its structure in the Austrian tradition from Menger (1871) to Lachmann (1956). We outline Menger’s methodological and philosophical position that recommends investigating the morphology of capital—its shape, form, and structure; it also recommends maintaining some “realisticness” in the treatment of capital in economics. Prominent Austrian contributions are examined and compared along various dimensions: the existence or otherwise of “original” factors of production; time conceptions; analytical domain assumptions; real and money capital doctrines; the causal role of the entrepreneur in creating capital; and the fundamental question of capital aggregation into a stock or fund. We consider the extent to which Menger’s avowed followers and successors diverged from his original vision of capital, subsequent consequences for the development of Austrian capital theory, and implications of Mengerian structural analysis for the study of capital more generally.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 33 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 357 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2011

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

REFERENCES

Blaug, M. 1975. The Cambridge Revolution: Success or Failure? A Critical Analysis of Cambridge Theories of Value and Distribution. Revised edition. London: IEA.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. von. [1889] 1923. Positive Theory of Capital. First edition, New York: G.E. Stechert & Co.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. von. 1895. “The Positive Theory of Capital and Its Critics.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 9 (1): 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. von. 1906. “Capital and Interest Once More: I Capital vs Capital Goods.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 21 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. von. 1907. “Capital and Interest Once More: II A Relapse to the Productivity Theory.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 21 (2): 247–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, E. von. [1921] 1959. Capital and Interest II: Positive Theory of Capital. Fourth edition. South Holland Illinios: Libertarian Press.Google Scholar
Clark, J. B. 1888. Capital and Its Earnings. Publications of The American Economic Association. Baltimore: AEA.Google Scholar
Clark, J. B. 1893. “The Genesis of Capital.” Yale Review 2: 302–315.Google Scholar
Clark, J. B. 1899. The Distribution of Wealth. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. J. 2003. “The Hayek/Knight Controversy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time?” History of Political Economy 35: 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. J. 2008. “The Mythology of Capital or of Static Equilibrium? The Böhm-Bawerk/Clark Controversy.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 30 (2): 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A., and Harcourt, G.. 2003. “What Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (1): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A. 2005. “Introduction on Capital Theory Controversies, Scarcity, Production, Equilibrium and Time.” In Bliss, C. J., Cohen, A. J., and Harcourt, G. C., eds. Capital Theory. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar, pp. xxvii–lx.Google Scholar
Cowan, R., and Rizzo, M.. 1996. “The Genetic-Causal Tradition and Modern Economic Theory.” Kyklos 49 (3): 273–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endres, A. M. 1987. “The Origins of Böhm-Bawerk’s ‘Greatest Error’: Theoretical Points of Separation from Menger.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics 143 (2): 291–309.Google Scholar
Endres, A. M. 1991. “Austrian Capital and Interest Theory: Wieser’s Theory and the Menger Tradition.” Review of Austrian Economics 5 (1): 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endres, A. M. 1997. Neoclassical Microeconomic Theory: The Founding Austrian Version. London & New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetter, F. A. 1900. “ Recent Discussion of the Concept of Capital.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 15 (1): 1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetter, F. A. 1907. “The Nature of Capital and Income.” Journal of Political Economy 15 (3): 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, I. 1906. The Nature of Capital and Income. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, R. W. 1990. “Austrian Capital Theory: The Early Controversies.” In Caldwell, B., ed., Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 133–154.Google Scholar
Harper, D., and Endres, A.. 2010. “Capital as a ‘Layer Cake’: A Systems Approach to Capital and its Multi-Level Structure”. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 74 (1-2): 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1934. “On the Relationship Between Investment and Output.” Economic Journal 44: 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1935. “The Maintenance of Capital,” Economica 7 (2): 241–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1936) “The Mythology of Capital.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 50 (1): 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1941. The Pure Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1994. Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue, ed. Kresge, S. and Wener, L.. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennings, K. H. 1987. “Capital as a Factor of Production.” In Eatwell, J. et al. ., eds., The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. Volume I. Reprinted in Bliss, C., Cohen, A., and Harcourt, G., eds., Capital Theory. Cheltenham: E. Elgar, 2005, pp. 108–122.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1974. “Capital Controversies: Ancient and Modern.” American Economic Review 64 (2): 307–316.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1976. “Some Questions of Time in Economics.” In Tang, A. M., ed., Evolution, Welfare, and Time in Economics. Lexington: D.C.Heath & Co, pp. 135–151.Google Scholar
Kaldor, N. 1938. “On the Theory of Capital: A Rejoinder to Professor Knight.” Econometrica 6 (2):163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirzner, I. M. 1976. “The Theory of Capital.” In Dolan, E., ed., The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. Kansas City: Sheed Ward, pp. 133–143.Google Scholar
Kirzner, I. M. 1996. Essays on Capital and Interest: An Austrian Perspective. Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1916. “Neglected Factors in the Problem of Normal Interest.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 30: 279–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, F. H. 1933 “Capitalistic Production, Time and the Rate of Return.” In Essays in Honour of Gustav Cassel. London: Allen & Unwin, pp. 327–342.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. 1947. “Complementarity and Substitution in the Theory of Capital.” Economica 14 (54): 108–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. 1956. Capital and Its Structure. London: G. Bell & Sons.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. 1978. Capital and Its Structure. Second edition. Menlo Park: Institute for Humane Studies.Google Scholar
Lewin, P. 1994. “Capital Theory.” In Boettke, P. J., ed., The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 209–215.Google Scholar
Lewin, P. 1997. “Capital in Disequilibrium: A Re-examination of the Capital Theory of Ludwig M. Lachmann.” History of Political Economy 29 (3): 523–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, P. 1999. Capital in Disequilibrium: The Role of Capital in a Changing World. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Machlup, F. 1963. Essays on Economic Semantics. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Mäki, U. 1990a. “Scientific Realism and Austrian Explanation.” Review of Political Economy 2 (3): 310–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 1990b. “Mengerian Economics in Realist Perspective.” In Caldwell, B., ed., Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 289–312.Google Scholar
Mäki, U. 1997. “Universals and the Methodenstreit: A Re-examination of Carl Menger’s Conception of Economic Science.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 28 (3): 475–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 2001. “Economic Ontology: What? Why? How?” In Mäki, U., ed., The Economic World View: Studies in the Ontology of Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 2002. “Some Reasons for Nonrealism About Economics.” In Mäki, U., ed., Fact and Fiction in Economics: Models, Realism and Social Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mäki, U. 2008. “Scientific Realism and Ontology.” In Durlauf, S. and Blume, L., eds., The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online. London: Palgrave Macmillan. <http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_R00024>Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1871. Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre. Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller.Google Scholar
Menger, C. [1876] 1994. Carl Menger’s Lectures to Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria, ed. Streissler, E., trans. Streissler, M.. Aldershot: E. Elgar.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1883) Untersuchungen über die Methode der Socialwissenschaften und der Politischen Öekonomie insbesondere. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Menger, C. [1888] 1935. “Zur Theorie des Kapitals.” Reprinted in Hayek, F. A., ed., The Collected Works of Carl Menger. Volume III. London: LSE Reprints of Scarce Tracts, pp. 133–183.Google Scholar
Menger, C. [1889] 1994. “Toward a Systematic Classification of the Economic Sciences.” In Kirzner, I., ed., Classics in Austrian Economics. Volume I. London: William Pickering, pp. 3–36.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1889. “Grundzüge einer Klassifikation der Wirtschaftswissenschaften.” Reprinted in Hayek, F. A., ed., The Collected Works of Carl Menger. Volume III. London: London School of Economics Reprints of Scarce Tracts, pp. 185–218.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1950. Principles of Economics, trans. Dingwall, J. and Hoselitz, B. F.. Glencoe, Illinios: Free Press.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1985. Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to Economics, ed. White, L., trans. Nock, F. J.. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Mises, L. [1931] 1981. Epistemological Problems of Economics. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Mises, L. 1949. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. London: Hodge.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1912. Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1939. Business Cycles. Volumes I and II. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. 1954. History of Economic Analysis. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Smith, B. 1990. “Aristotle, Menger, Mises: An Essay in the Metaphysics of Economics.” In Caldwell, B., ed., Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 263–288.Google Scholar
Streissler, E. 1969. “Structural Economic Thought: On the Significance of the Austrian School Today.” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 3–4: 237–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strigl, R. 1934. Kapital und Produktion. Wien. Reprinted Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strigl, R. 2000. Capital and Production. Auburn: L. von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Veblen, T. 1908a. “On the Nature of Capital.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 22 (4): 517–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veblen, T. 1908b. “On the Nature of Capital: Investment, Intangible Assets and the Pecuniary Magnate.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 23 (1): 104–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, L. 2008. “Editor’s Introduction.” In The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek. Volume XII, The Pure Theory of Capital. London & New YorkRoutledge, pp. xii–xxxvi.Google Scholar
Wieser, F. A. 1889. Der natürliche Werth, trans. Malloch, C.. London: Macmillan, 1930.Google Scholar
Wieser, F. A. 1914. Theorie der gesellschaftlichen Wirtschaft, trans. Hinrichs, A. F.. New York: Adelphi, 1927.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 1997. “Aggregativity: Reductive Heuristics for Finding Emergence.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Supplement): S372–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. 2006. “Aggregate, Composed, and Evolved Systems: Reductionistic Heuristics as Means to More Holistic Theories.” Biology and Philosophy 21: 667–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zúñiga, G. L. 1999. “An Ontology of Economic Objects: An Application of Carl Menger’s Ideas.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 58 (2): 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar