Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:19:31.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IMPLICATIONS OF MACHLUP’S INTERPRETATION OF MISES’S EPISTEMOLOGY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2015

Gabriel J. Zanotti  and
Nicolás Cachanosky
Gabriel J. Zanotti
Affiliation:
Universidad Austral, School of Communication
Nicolás Cachanosky
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Metropolitan State University of Denver.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that Fritz Machlup’s (1995) interpretation of Mises’s epistemology is at least as, if not more, plausible than Murray N. Rothbard’s (1957) interpretation. The implications of Machlup’s interpretation of Mises and of Austrian epistemology affect Austrians and non-Austrians in their academic interaction. Machlup’s interpretation shows that Austrian epistemology is well grounded in post-Popperian epistemology and that most criticisms of Austrian economics based on its aprioristic character are misplaced. Furthermore, Machlup’s interpretation provides us with a setting to rebuild the academic interaction between Austrians and non-Austrians that was characteristic of the early twentieth century.

Type
Minisymposium
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 111 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2015 

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

Artigas, Mariano. 1998. Lógica y Etica en Karl Popper. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Roger. E. 2000. “Austrian Economics and the Mainstream: View from the Boundary.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3 (2): 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary. S. 1962. “Irrational Behavior and Economic Theory.” Journal of Political Economy 70 (1): 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary. S. 1963. “Rational Action and Economic Theory: A Reply to I. Kirzner.” Journal of Political Economy 71 (1): 82–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary. S. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, Gary. S. 1993. “Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior.” Journal of Political Economy 101 (3): 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Alexander. 2008. “The Historical Turn in the Philosophy of Science.” In Psillos, S. and Curd, M., eds., The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge, pp. 79–89.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. [1980] 1992. The Methodology of Economics: Or, How Economists Explain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Walter. E. 1999. “Austrian Theorizing: Recalling the Foundations.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 2 (4): 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Block, Walter. E. 2003. “Realism: Austrian vs. Neoclassical Economics, Reply to Caplan.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6 (3): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, Peter. J. 1997. “Where Did Economics Go Wrong? Modern Economics as a Flight from Reality.” Critical Review 11 (1): 11–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, Peter. J. 1998. “Introduction.” In Boettke, P. J., ed., The Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
Boettke, Peter. J. 2005. “Anarchism as a Progressive Research Program in Political Economy.” In Stringham, E. P., ed., Anarchy, State and Public Choice. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 206–219.Google Scholar
Boettke, Peter. J. 2010. “Is the Only Form of 'Reasonable Regulation' Self Regulation?: Lessons from Lin Ostrom on Regulating the Commons and Cultivating Citizens.” Public Choice 143 (3–4): 283–291. doi:10.1007/s11127-010-9622-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, Peter. J. 2011. “Anarchism and Austrian Economics.” New Perspectives on Political Economy 7 (1): 125–140.Google Scholar
Boettke, Peter. J., and Leeson, Peter. T.. 2006a. “Introduction: The Economist as System Builder: Ludwig von Mises as the Architect of Economic Science and Political Economy.” In Boettke, P. J. and Leeson, P. T., eds., The Legacy of Ludwig von Mises. Volume 1. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. xi–xx.Google Scholar
Boettke, Peter. J., and Leeson, Peter. T.. 2006b. “Introduction: Understanding the Economic World: Applications of Misesian Theory.” In Boettke, P. J. and Leeson, P. T., eds.,The Legacy of Ludwig von Mises. Volume 2. Cheltenham and Northampton: Edward Elgar, pp. ix–xiii.Google Scholar
Boettke, Peter. J., and O’Donnell, Kyle W.. 2013. “The Failed Appropriation of F. A. Hayek by Formalist Economics.” Critical Review 25 (3–4): 305–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, Lawrence A. (1979). “A Critique of Friedman’s Critics.” Journal of Economic Literature XVII (June): 503–522.Google Scholar
Borio, Claudio, and Disyatat, Piti. 2011. “Global Imbalances and the Financial Crisis: Link or No Link?” BIS Working Paper No. 346.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, Martin. 1971. “The 'Structure of Revolutions' in Economic Thought.” History of Political Economy 3 (1): pp. 136–151. doi:10.1215/00182702-3-1-136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, Ricardo J. 2010. “Macroeconomics after the Crisis: Time to Deal with the Pretense-of-Knowledge Syndrome.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24 (4): 85–102. doi:10.1257/jep.24.4.85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cachanosky, Nicolas. 2012. “The Mises-Hayek Business Cycle Theory, Fiat Currencies and Open Economies.” The Review of Austrian Economics 27 (3): 281–299. doi:10.1007/s11138-012-0188-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cachanosky, Nicolas. 2014a. “The Effects of U.S. Monetary Policy on Colombia and Panama (2002–2007).” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 54 (3): 428–436. doi:10.1016/j.qref.2014.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cachanosky, Nicolas. 2014b. Implications of Hayek's Knowledge Problem. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2436649 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2436649.Google Scholar
Cachanosky, N., and Salter, Alexander W.. 2013. “The View from Vienna: An Analysis of the Renewed Interest in the Mises-Hayek Theory of the Business Cycle.” SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2363560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 1980a. “A Critique of Friedman’s Methodological Instrumentalism.” Southern Economic Journal 47 (2): 366–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 1980b. “Positivist Philosophy of Science and the Methodology of Economics.” Journal of Economic Issues XIV (1): 53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 1984a. “Praxeology and Its Critics: An Appraisal.” History of Political Economy 16 (3): 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 1984b. “Some Problems with Falsification in Economics.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 14: 489–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 2004. Hayek’s Challenge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 2009. “A Skirmish in the Popper Wars: Hutchison versus Caldwell on Hayek, Popper, Mises, and Methodology.” Journal of Economic Methodology 16 (3): 315–324. doi:10.1080/13501780903129306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 2013. “Of Positivism and the History of Economic Thought.” Southern Economic Journal 79 (4): 753–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J., and Coats, Alfred W.. 1984. “The Rhetoric of Economists: A Comment on McCloskey.” Journal of Economic Literature 22 (2): 575–578.Google Scholar
Callahan, Gene. 2008. “Economics and Its Modes.” Collingwood and British Idealism Studies 14 (2): 128–157.Google Scholar
Callahan, Gene, and Horwitz, Steven G.. 2010. “The Role of Ideal Types in Austrian Business Cycle Theory.” Advances in Austrian Economics 14: 205–224. doi:10.1108/S1529-2134(2010)0000014013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Guillermo A. 2013. “Puzzling Over the Anatomy of Crises: Liquidity and the Veil of Finance.” IMES Discussion Paper Series (13-E-09).Google Scholar
Caplan, Bryan. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations.” Southern Economic Journal 65 (4): 823–838.Google Scholar
Caplan, Bryan. 2001. “Probability, Common Sense, and Realism: A Reply to Hulsmann and Block.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 4 (2): 69–86.Google Scholar
Caplan, Bryan. 2003. “Probability and the Synthetic A Priori: A Reply to Block.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6 (3): 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrier, Martin. 2012. “Historical Approaches: Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend.” In Robert Brown, James, ed., Philosophy of Science: Key Thinkers. New York and London: Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 132–151.Google Scholar
Champion, Rafe 2011. “Defence of Fallible Apriorism.” Nuova Civilta Delle Machine 1–2: 69–88.Google Scholar
Devlin, Keith. [1988] 2002. El Lenguaje de las Matemáticas. Translated by P. Crespo. Barcelona: Ediciones Reinbook.Google Scholar
Diamond, Douglas W., and Rajan, Raghuram G.. 2012. “Illiquid Banks, Financial Stability, and Interest Rate Policy.” Journal of Political Economy 120 (3): 552–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Iorio, Francesco. 2008. “Apriorism and Fallabilism: Mises and Popper on the Explanation of Action and Social Phenomena.” Nuova Civilta Delle Machine XXVI (4): 5–32.Google Scholar
Doherty, Brian. 2007. Radicals for Capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Egger, John B. 1978. “The Austrian Method.” In Spadaro, L. M., ed., New Directions in Austrian Economics. Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, pp. 19–39.Google Scholar
Evans, Anthony J., and Tarko, V.. 2014. “Contemporary Work in Austrian Economics.” Journal of Private Enterprise 29 (Fall): 135–157.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul. [1975] 2010. Against Method. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Gallo, Ezequiel L. 1987. “La Tradición del Orden Social Espontáneo: Adam Ferguson, David Hume y Adam Smith.” Libertas 6 (Mayo): 131–153.Google Scholar
Garrison, Roger W. [2001] 2002.. Time and Money. The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure. Edited by Rizzo, M. J. and White, L. H.. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1933. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle. Translated by N. Kaldor and H. M. Croome. New York: Sentry Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1948] 1958.. Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1931] 1967. Prices and Production. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1966. The Function of General Laws in History. Philosophy of Natural Science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hirsch, Abraham. 1980. “The 'Assumptions' Controversy in Historical Perspesctive.” Journal of Economic Issues XIV (1): 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Andreas. 2010. “An Overinvestment Cycle in Central and Eastern Europe?” Metroeconomica 61 (4): 711–734. doi:10.1111/j.1467-999X.2010.04103.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. [1995] 2007. Economic Science and the Austrian Method. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Steven G. 2001. “From Smith to Menger to Hayek. Liberalism in the Spontaneous-Order Tradition.” The Independent Review 6 (1): 81–97.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Steven G. 2012. “The Empirics of Austrian Economics.” Cato Unbound: A Journal of Debate (September). http://www.cato-unbound.org/2012/09/05/steven-horwitz/empirics-austrian-economics. Accessed 23 November 2014.Google Scholar
Hülsmann, Jörg G. 1999. “Economic Science and Neoclassicism.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 2 (4): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hülsmann, Jörg G. 2003. “Facts and Counterfacts in Economic Law.” The Journal of Libertarian Studies 17 (1): 57–102.Google Scholar
Hume, Michael, and Sentance, Andrew. 2009. “The Global Credit Boom: Challenges for Macroeconomics and Policy.” Journal of International Money and Finance 28 (8): 1426–1461. doi:10.1016/j.jimonfin.2009.08.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchison, Terence W. [1938] 1965. Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory. New York: Augustus M. Kelley.Google Scholar
Kirzner, Israel M. 1962. “Rational Action and Economic Theory.” The Journal of Political Economy 70 (4): 380–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirzner, Israel M. 1963. “Rational Action and Economic Theory: Rejoinder.” The Journal of Political Economy 71 (1): 84–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirzner, Israel M. 1976. “On the Method of Austrian Economics.” In Dolan, E., ed., The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, Inc., pp. 40–51.Google Scholar
Kohn, Meir. 2004. “Value and Exchange.” Cato Journal 24 (3): 303–339.Google Scholar
Koppl, Roger G. 2002. Big Players and the Economic Theory of Expectations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. [1962] 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lachmann, Ludwig M. 1943. “The Rôle of Expectations in Economics as a Social Science.” Economica 10 (37): 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. [1978] 1999.. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Edited by Worral, J. and Currie, G.. Volume I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langlois, Richard N., and Koppl, R. G.. 1991. “Fritz Machlup and Marginalism: A Reevaluation.” Methodus 3 (2): 86–102.Google Scholar
Lavoie, Don C. 1986. “Euclideanism versus Hermeneutics: A Re-integration of Misesian Apriorism.” In Kirzner, I., ed., Subjectivism, Intelligibility and Economic Understanding. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoie, Don C. 2011. “The Interpretive Dimension of Economics: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxeology.” The Review of Austrian Economics 24 (2): 91–128. doi:10.1007/s11138-010-0137-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2006. “Efficient Anarchy.” Public Choice 130 (1–2): 41–53. doi:10.1007/s11127-006-9071-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2007a. “An-arrgh-chy: The Law and Economics of Pirate Organization.” Journal of Political Economy 115 (6): 1049–1094. doi:10.1086/526403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2007b. “Better off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse.” Journal of Comparative Economics 35 (4): 689–710. doi:10.1016/j.jce.2007.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2008. “How Important Is State Enforcement for Trade?” American Law and Economics Review 10 (1): 61–89. doi:10.1093/aler/ahn003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2009a. “The Calculus of Piratical Consent: The Myth of the Myth of Social Contract.” Public Choice 139 (3–4): 443–459. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9403-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2009b. “The Laws of Lawlessness.” The Journal of Legal Studies 38 (2): 471–503. doi:10.1086/592003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T. 2012. “An Austrian Approach to Law and Economics, with Special Reference to Superstition.” The Review of Austrian Economics 25 (3): 185–198. doi:10.1007/s11138-012-0179-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, Peter T., and Boettke, P. J.. 2006. “Was Mises Right?” Review of Social Economy 64 (2): 247–265. doi:10.1080/00346760600721163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leijonhufvud, Axel. 2009. “Out of the Corridor: Keynes and the Crisis.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 33 (4): 741–757. doi:10.1093/cje/bep022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, Peter. 1997. “Hayekian Equilibrium and Change.” Journal of Economic Methodology 4 (2): 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machlup, Fritz. 1955. “The Problem of Verification in Economics.” Southern Economic Journal 22 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maclean, Gillis. 1980. “Fritz Machlup’s Quasi-Subjectivism: An Uneasy Marriage Between Austrian Economics and Logical Empirism.” History of Economics Review 14 (1): 83–93.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1983. “The Rhetoric of Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 21 (2): 481–517.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. [1848] 1965. The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Volume III, The Principles of Political Economy with Some of Their Applications to Social Philosophy (Books III–V and Appendices). Edited by Robson, J. M.. Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press and Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. 1943. “'Elastic Expectations' and the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle.” Economica 10 (39): 251–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. 1962. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. [1912] 1981. The Theory of Money and Credit. Translated by H. E. Batson. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. [1949] 1996. Human Action. Irvington-on-Hudson: The Foundation for Economic Education.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. [1933] 2003. Epistemological Problems of Economics. Auburn: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Musgrave, Alan. 1981. “'Unreal Assumptions' in Economic Theory: The F-Twist Untwisted.” Kyklos 34 (3): 377–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Ernest. 1963. “Assumptions in Economic Theory.” The American Economic Review 53 (2): 211–219.Google Scholar
Nola, Robert, and Sankey, Howard. 2000. After Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend: Recent Issues in Theories of Scientific Method. Norwell, MA: Klewer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1977. “On Austrian Methodology.” Synthese 36 (3): 353–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. R. 1974. “Reply to My Critics.” In Schilpp, P. A., ed., The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Volume XIV. La Salle: Open Court, pp. 961–1197.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. R. 1983. Realism and the Aim of Science. Edited by Bartley, W. W. III. Volume 1, Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery III. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Mises, , , Ludwig von. [1935] 2002a. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mises, , , Ludwig von. [1957] 2002b. The Poverty of Historicism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mises, , , Ludwig von. [1963] 2002c. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Powell, Benjamin W., and Coyne, Christopher J.. 2003. “Do Pessimistic Assumptions about Human Behavior Justify Government?” The Journal of Libertarian Studies 17 (4): 17–37.Google Scholar
Powell, Benjamin W., Ford, Ryan, and Nowrasteh, Alex. 2008. “Somalia after State Collapse: Chaos or Improvement?” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 67 (3–4): 657–670. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2008.04.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Benjamin W., and Stringham, Edward P.. 2009. “Public Choice and the Economic Analysis of Anarchy: A Survey.” Public Choice 140: 503–538. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9407-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Benjamin W. 2012. “Radical Scholarship Taking on the Mainstream: Murray Rothbard’s Contribution.” The Review of Austrian Economics 25 (4): 315–327. doi:10.1007/s11138-011-0167-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzo, Mario J. 1978. “Praxeology and Econometrics: A Critique of Positivist Economics.” In Spadaro, L. M., ed., New Directions in Austrian Economics. Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, pp. 40–56.Google Scholar
Rizzo, Mario J. 1983. “Mises and Lakatos: A Reformulation of Austrian Methodology.” In Kirzner, I. M., ed., Method, Process, and Austrian Economics. Essays in Honor of Ludwig von Mises. Lexington: Lexington Books, pp. 53–74.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. [1932] 1945. An Essay on the Nature & Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited.Google Scholar
Robbins, Lionel. [1934] 1971. The Great Depression. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press.Google Scholar
Rognlie, Matthew, Shleifer, Andrei, and Simsek, Alp. “Investment Hangover and the Great Recession.” Working paper. http://scholar.harvard.edu/shleifer/publications/investment-hangover-and-great-recession. Accessed 23 November 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Sherwin. 1997. “Austrian and Neoclassical Economics: Any Gains From Trade?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (4): 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbard, Murray N. 1951. “Praxeology: Reply to Mr. Schuller.” The American Economic Review 41 (5): 943–946. doi:10.1126/science.151.3712.867-a.Google Scholar
Rothbard, Murray N. 1957. “In Defense of 'Extreme Apriorism.'” Southern Economic Journal 23 (3): 314–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothbard, Murray N. 1976. “Praxeology: The Method of Austrian Economics.” In Dolan, E. G., ed., The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, Inc., pp. 19–39.Google Scholar
Sarjanovic, Ivo A. 2008. “Popper y los Austriacos: Atando Cabos.” Revista de Instituciones, Ideas Y Mercados 48 (Mayo): 17–32.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred. 1953. “Common-Sense and Scientific Interpretation of Human Action.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research XIV (1): 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütz, Alfred. 1967. The Phenomenology of the Social World. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Schütz, Alfred, and Wagner, Helmuth R.. 1970. On Phenomenology and Social Relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sechrest, Larry J. 1997. “Austrian and Monetarist Business Cycle Theories: Substitutes or Complements?” Advances in Austrian Economics 4: 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selgin, George. A. 1990. Praxeology and Understanding. Auburn: The Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Senior, Nassau W. [1850] 1854. Political Economy. London and Glasgow: Richard Griffin and Co.Google Scholar
Shah, Parth J. 1997. “The Theory of Business Fluctuations: New Keynesians, Old Monetarists, and Austrians.” Advances in Austrian Economics 4: 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skarbek, D. B. 2014. The Social Order of the Underworld. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Barry 1990. “On the Austriannes of Austrian Economics.” Critical Review 4 (1–2): 212–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringham, Edward P. 2002. “The Emergence of the London Stock Exchange as a Self-Policing Club.” Journal of Private Enterprise 17 (2): 1–19.Google Scholar
Stringham, Edward P. 2003. “The Extralegal Development of Securities Trading in Seventeenth-century Amsterdam.” The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 43 (2): 321–344. doi:10.1016/S1062-9769(02)00153-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stringham, Edward P., and Gonzales, R.. 2009. “The Role of Empirical Assumptions in Economic Analysis: On Facts and Counterfactuals in Economic Law.” Journal Des Economistes et Des Etudes Humaines 15 (1): 1–11. doi:10.2202/1145-6396.1218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, William R. 2009. “Modern Macroeconomics Is on the Wrong Track.” Finance & Development (December): 15–18.Google Scholar
Yeager, Leland B. 1997. “Austrian Economics, Neoclassicism, and the Market Test.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (4): 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Andrew T. Forthcoming. “Austrian Business Cycle Theory: A Modern Appraisal.” In Boettke, P. J. and Coyne, C. J., eds., Oxford Handbook of Austrian Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zanotti, Gabriel J. 2006. “Feyerabend en Serio.” In Dolfi, M., ed., Homenaje a Alberto Moreno. Volume V. Buenos Aires: Eudeba, pp. 85–198.Google Scholar
Zanotti, Gabriel J. 2007. “Intersubjectivity, Subjectivism, Social Sciences, and the Austrian School of Economics.” Journal of Markets & Morality 10 (1): 115–141.Google Scholar
Zanotti, Gabriel J. 2009. “Thomas Kuhn: el paso de la racionalidad algorítmica a la racionalidad hermenéutica.” Revista de Análisis Institucional 3: 1–56.Google Scholar
Zanotti, Gabriel J. 2011. Conocimiento versus Información. Madrid: Union Editorial.Google Scholar
Zanotti, Gabriel J. 2014. “Modelos y Escuela Austriaca: Una Fusión entre Friedman y La Escuela Austriaca Pasando por Mäki.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar