Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T09:30:22.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Menger and Hayek on Institutions: Continuity and Discontinuity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

Pierre Garrouste
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent scholarship has noted differences and even discrepancies among the members of the so-called Austrian school. It has been possible to identify discontinuities between generations (Hayek 1968), along methodological lines (Caldwell 1988, Hutchison 1981), among the various threads of the “Austrian revival” (Vaughn 1990), and between heterogeneous intellectual systems (Dufourt and Garrouste 1993). Brian Loasby (1989) has remarked that Friedrich Hayek was one of the few scholars to develop one of Carl Menger's outstanding contributions to economics, his theory of social institutions (Langlois 1989). The purpose of this paper is to appraise the continuities and discontinuities between the two authors' conceptions of institutions. In what follows, I shall present successively Menger's and Hayek's conceptions of institutions, and then I shall compare them.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , Fall 1994 , pp. 270 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Boettke, P. J. 1990. “Interpretative Reasoning and the Study of Social Life,” Methodus, 2, 06, 35–45.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. 1989–1990. “Hayek et les forces de l'histoire,” Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 1, Winter, 181–83.Google Scholar
Caldwell, B. 1988. “Hayek's Transformation,” History of Political Economy, 20, Winter, 13–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, B. 1989. “La méthodologie de Hayek: Description, évaluation et interrogations,” in Dostaler, G. and Ethier, D., eds., Friedrich Hayek, philosophie, économie et politique, Economica, Paris.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. and Rizzo, M.. 1994. “The Genetic-Causal Tradition and Economic Theory,” working paper.Google Scholar
Dupuy, J. P. 1992. Le sacrifice et l'envie, le libéralisme aux prises avec la justice, Calmann-Lévy, Paris.Google Scholar
Dufourt, D. and Garrouste, P. 1993. “Criteria of Scientificity and Methodology of the Social Sciences: Menger, Mises and Hayek,” in Hébert, R. F., ed., Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought, 9, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Ege, R. 1991. “Emergence du marché concurrentiel et évolutionnisme chez Hayek,” Working Paper no. 9102, BETA, Strabourg, 03.Google Scholar
Garrouste, P. 1994. “L'origine et l'évolution des institutions, pour un dialogue entre Carl Menger et Thorstein Veblen,” in Baslé, M., Dufourt, D., Héraud, J., and Perrin, J., eds., Changement institutionnel et changement technologique; évaluation, droits de propriété intellectuelle, système national d'innovation, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1968. “Economic Thought VI: the Austrian School,” in Stills, D. L., ed., International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Macmillan and Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1978. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1980. Individualism and Economic Order, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1990. The Fatal Conceit, the Errors of Socialism, edited by Bartley, W. W. III, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. 1991. “Hayek's Theory of Cultural Evolution: an Evaluation in the Light of Vanberg's Critique,” Economics and Philosophy, 7, 03, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, T. W. 1981. The Politics and Philosophy of Economics; Marxians, Keynesians and Austrians, New York University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Jaffé, W. 1976. “Menger, Jevons, Walras De-Homogenised,” Economic Inquiry, 14, 12, 11–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauder, E. 1957. “Intellectual and Political Roots of the Older Austrian School” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, 17, 411–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, P. G. 1992. “Introduction” to Klein, P. G., ed., The Fortunes of Liberalism, Essays on Austrian Economics and the Ideal of Freedom; The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, 4, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Langlois, R. N. 1989. “What is Wrong with the Old Institutional Economics (and What Is Still Wrong with the New),” Review of Political Economy, 1, 271–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leathers, C. G. 1990. “Veblen and Hayek on Instincts and Evolution,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 12, Fall, 162–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loasby, B. 1989. The Mind and Method of the Economist, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Machlup, F. 1978. Methodology of Economics and Other Social Sciences, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1883. Untersuchungen über die Methode der Socialwissenschaften und der Politischen Oekonomie insbesondere, Liepzig.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1889. “Grundzüge einer Klassification der Wirtschaftswissenschaften,” Jahrbücher für National Oekonomie und Statistik, 19, 465–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menger, C. 1963. Problems of Economics and Sociology, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Menger, C. 1976. Principles of Economics, New York University Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
O'Driscoll, G. P. 1977. Economics as a Coordination Problem: The Contributions of Friedrich A. Hayek, Sheed Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City.Google Scholar
O'Driscoll, G. P. 1986. “Money: Menger's Evolutionary Theory,” History of Political Economy, 18, Winter, 601–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, S. 1990. “The Philosophical Roots of Modern Austrian Economics: Past Problems and Future Prospects,” History of Political Economy, 22, Summer, 295–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pask, G. 1990. “Introduction, Different Kinds of Cybernetics,” Communication and Cognition, 23, 125–40.Google Scholar
Rizzo, M. J. 1982. “Mises and Lakatos: a Reformulation of Austrian Methodology,” in Kirzner, I. M., ed., Method, Process and Austrian Economics, D. C. Heath, Lexington, Mass. and TorontoGoogle Scholar
Samuels, W. J. 1989. “Austrian and Institutional Economics: Some Common Elements,” in Samuels, W. J., ed., Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 6, JAI Press, Greenwich and London.Google Scholar
Streissler, E. 1972. “To What Extent Was the Austrian School Marginalist?” History of Political Economy, 4, 426–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanberg, V. 1989. “Carl Menger's Evolutionary and John R. Commons's Collective Action Approach to Institutions: A Comparison,” Review of Political Economy, 1, 334–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, K. I. 1990. “The Mengerian Roots of the Austrian Revival,” in Caldwell, B., ed., Carl Menger's Legacy in Economics, Annual Supplement to History of Political Economy, 22.Google Scholar
Witt, U. 1989–1990. “L'évolution de l'ordre et le rôle de l'individu,” in Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 1, Winter, 186–89.Google Scholar
Zeleny, M., ed., 1980. Autopoesis, Dissipative Structures, and Spontaneous Social Orders, Westview Press, Colorado.Google Scholar