福斯教授奥地利学派发展的三条信念，及其引发的争论

以前我翻译过《奥地利学派经济学作为一项进步研究计划的未来》，其中的讨论涉及对奥地利学派的理解和奥地利学派的发展方向。上周，一些当代奥地利学派的代表人物在我的FB进行了又一次激烈的争论，以下是讨论的全过程：

______

Xiong Yue:

Three convictions from Nicolai Foss:
“... in order for the Austrian critique of mainstream economics to have true bite and relevance, Austrians should be aware of and relate to the latest advances in mainstream economics.” (2000)
"... there are many research traditions in modern economics that Austrians ought to relate to, and perhaps join forces with, ..." (2000)
"... the Austrian tradition is not best preserved and furthered by being hostile to mainstream economics." (2015)

______

Nicolai Foss [in a meme]:

Am I wrong?

Xiong Yue:

Nicolai Foss You are awesome! Thank you for your workings, from “Austrian School and Modern Economics” to “Austrian Economics and Game Theory”.

Nicolai Foss They are my convictions now.

______

Peter Boettke:

Who within research community of Austrian economists do not follow all the most recent advances in theory? Seems strange to raise this as if anyone practicing econ since 2000 doesn’t actually follow and work in relationship to the scientific literature in economics if they are working in economics and publishing in economic journals.

Xiong Yue:

Peter Boettke Well, you and most US Austrians are of course good role modes, but in China and Spain, there are a lot of "Austrians" failed to understand them.

Mario Rizzo:

Peter Boettke Those whose names we dare not speak. 

Peter Boettke:

Xiong Yue i don’t think Foss is directing his criticism in that direction. I am curious though who he thinks isn’t engaging out of those working in research and graduate education jobs.

Xiong Yue:

Peter Boettke Well, my intention is in that direction. Prof. Foss meant Prof. Kirzner and you neglect game theory and continue your criticisms at GE in his 2000 RAE paper.

Peter Boettke:

Yup, but he isn’t correct. See my advanced micro courses syllabus available online, and the fact that I regularly participated in Roy Radnar’s seminar at NYU and Paul Milgrom’s at Stanford. So he is just factually in accurate, and on Kirzner that is a generational issue. JEL had me review Stiglitz Whither Socialism as well, how did that happen? So being critical of various strands of research in one’s discipline — and I teach PhD students in economics, he does NOT — is not the same as being ignorant of those developments. Ask Roger Koppl as well about these technical issues.

Xiong Yue:

Peter Boettke Thank you for the clarification. I believe that, in the academic environment of America, economists are forced to know. I raised those reminders for myself and young Austrians in China, Spain, Korea, Vietnam, where certain misunderstandings exist.

Nicolai Foss:

Peter Boettke I am not sure where you think I am "just factually in accurate". Two of the above quotations are from a paper written almost a quarter of a century ago (which I think you accepted ;-)). The quoted sentences are simply general advice to those who want to work on Austrian themes. However, of course they reflect that at that time various Austrians seemed hostile to mainstream economics in a not very productive way. That seems to have changed.

Peter Boettke:

Nicolai Foss of course I accepted, i believe in discussion and engagement with contrary ideas. On factually incorrect is your assessment that Austrian economists don’t stay up to date with developments in modern economic science, including technical contributions. That is what I was reacting to. Those of the Austrian community who teach PhD students have to stay so engaged. And those students entering into economics profession, especially those teaching Phd themselves have to be engaged as well. And their publications reflect that. But if you say that has changed in your assessment, then ok we just disagree about a slice in time.

______

Roger Koppl:

What Peter Boettke said. There are plenty of other names he might also have mentioned, including my friend and co-author Abigail Devereaux. Lots of cites I could give too. Here are two working papers that engage mainstream economics, use (one of them) game theory, and so on.

1) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3856338
2) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3477461

Xiong Yue:

Roger Koppl Thank you for the supplement. What Foss (2000) referred to was the situation of 90s. While he may be incorrect when criticized Prof. Boettke for ignoring game theory, but he was correct on saying that Austrians should treat game theory and other developments seriously.

______

Nguyễn Việt Hải Triều:

I used to naively think that mainstream people are just a bunch of dogmatists. They aren't. The pace that mainstream journals are moving is just insane to catch up with, and insightful research are everywhere. I think it is indeed some of us who are trapped in conceiving the mainstream as if they are still in the 70s.

Xiong Yue:

Nguyễn Việt Hải Triều Me too. Most Austrian enthusiasts in China simply believe that Mises already has arrived a perfect system but those mainstream bad guys simply didn't listen.

Peter Boettke:

Xiong Yue that misreads Mises own message

Xiong Yue:

Peter Boettke Yes. It was like more than ten years ago, when the Sino-Austrian movement began. I gradually realized that’s not true.

______

Roger Koppl:

As far as I can tell, Xiong, you are right to say that Austrians in many countries outside a relatively few places like US & UK have outdated models of the economics literature. I don’t think Austrians are unique in that regard. It can be hard to keep up when you are far from the center. But Nicolai’s model of American Austrians of the 1990s neglects a lot of people. Stephen Littlechild was co-authoring with the prominent game theorist Guillermo Owen already in the 1970s. They have a game-theoretic model of Kirznerian entrepreneurship that was published in the early 1980s. I was in the Austrian program at NYU in the early 80s and we were all following current developments. We students, Rizzo, Kirzner, everyone. My 1994 article on ideal types engaged game theory directly. Indeed, if my memory is not too far wrong, my argument was not so different from Foss (2000).

Xiong Yue:

Roger Koppl Thanks for the clarification!

Nicolai Foss:

Roger Koppl Littlechild is British, not American. He was not originally an Austrian. He did two "Austrian" articles with Owen that uses simple coop game theory. I think it is fair to say that in his Austrian phase, he was more influenced by Brit economists such as Shackle and Wiseman. So, Littlechild was an outlier. I don't think I "neglect a lot of people." There was almost nothing published in the Austrian littt that uses game until relatively recently (when e.g., Marek Hudik has published a number of impressive papers).

Peter G. Klein:

Just as an aside, Littlechild was not himself a game theorist, but teamed up with Guillermo Owen who is accomplished in that area. Nicolai's point is about the overall level of engagement between the best-known Austrians of that time (and now) and the mainstream literature, not the occasional piece that uses a mathematical model or a more modern econometric technique.

Peter G. Klein:

BTW I don't necessarily agree with Nicolai on the normative point, but I think his description is accurate. 

Marek Hudik:

Nicolai Foss Thanks for your kind words!

Xiong Yue:

Marek Hudik I am reading your 2015 “mathematization” article.

Peter Boettke:

Peter G. Klein but you are also wrong, factually. I have recent PhD students in J of Law and Econ, EJ, European Econ Hist Review, etc., etc. Go back to the generation before them and former students in AER, JPE, Econometrica. Their papers have varying degrees of ‘Austrian’ elements, but none have zero traceable Austrian elements in them. Folks publish in mainstream journals, they hold appointments at R1 universities, and have held visiting positions at some of the most prestigious universities in US, UK and Europe. I have other examples of folks having impact pursuing much more traditional approach to AE with verbal reasoning and narrative empirics, but again finding publication with top field journals, and general interest journals and top academic presses. So how does Nicolai or you know about engagement with profession of folks you don’t know? Look at preface or acknowledgments of say works by Acemoglu or Weingast or Besley, or even Mankiw and you might find names. So your ‘observations’ are yours, but Jeff Sachs just had Chris Coyne on his podcast about Chris’s new book. That’s engagement. Would I like to see even more? Of course. But its not absent from the experience of contemporary Austrian economists.

Peter Boettke:

Nicolai Foss well you rule out Leeson by some strange definition. I guess you would view Buchanan, Tullock and Smith out as well. And I guess by that selection criteria pretty much anyone who presents their work in a certain form and publishes that work in journals that present work in that form don’t count.

Peter Boettke:

Nicolai Foss i was on Marek Hudik’s dissertation committee and sponsored him as visitor at GMU, so I agree, he is doing great work.

Xiong Yue:

Roger Koppl I read your 1994 article in the Elgar Companion, which admitted that "Austrian economists generally make relatively little use of the mathematical theory of games, and yet this theory was addressed initially to precisely the most characteristically 'Austrian' problems in economic theory." Its position is indeed the same as Foss (2000).

Peter Boettke:

Xiong Yue but the next question is why? Its not out of ignorance. Again, there are substantive issues that should be discussed. Not just sociology of science issues. Methodological and analytical issues. But unawareness and inability are not the reasons.

Roger Koppl:

Xiong Yue "Admitted"? As Pete says, you must ask why. In that article I went on to explain that classical noncooperative game theory uses high anonymity ideal types in a low-anonymity context. I was not criticizing Austrian economists; I was criticizing -- but *engaging* -- classical game theory. That's the context for my 2002 result with Rosser. Barkley and I did a kind of internal critique. We chose to neglect the whole "understanding" tradition in which Dilthey, Weber, Mises, and Schutz (and Robbins BTW) participated. We chose to stick with "formal" methods. And we showed that you *still* have a problem, namely, computability. And that issue, computability, sends you right back to Morgenstern's original (pre-Neumann) analysis of the Holmes-Moriarty problem. Classical game theory did not solve the problem Morgenstern had addressed back in Vienna.
Now, game theory classical or otherwise, is a tool, so fine and dandy if you can make good use of it. Sure! And since that article we have all learned to do evolutionary game theory. Recently, Abigail Devereaux has been developing multiple game analysis. So, you know, the landscape is always changing and no one is prohibiting others from using game theory. But it makes sense for an Austrian to say point out that this Schutzian issue of anonymity is a constaint of the utility of game theory.
IMHO, complexity theory is a more natural tool for "Austrian" economics. But perhaps that's a different conversation.

Xiong Yue:

Roger Koppl Got you!

Xiong Yue:

Roger Koppl Younger generation is working on complexity. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecaf.12509 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11138-021-00565-6

Xiong Yue:

Roger Koppl Again, thank you so much for those detailed reply.

Marek Hudik:

This is Hayek's footnote from Economics and Knowledge on this topic (he later deleted this footnote): "It has long been a subject of wonder to me why there should, to my know no systematic attempts in sociology to analyse social relations in terms of correspondence and non-correspondence, or compatibility and non-compatibility, of individual aims and desires. It seems that the mathematical technique of analysis situs (topology) and particularly such concepts developed by it as that of homeomorphism might prove very useful in this connection although it may appear doubtful whether even this technique, at any rate in the present state of its development, is adequate to the complexity of the structures with which we have to deal. A first attempt made recently in this direction by an eminent mathematician (Karl Menger, Moral, Wille und Weltgestaltung, Vienna, 1934) has so far not yet led to very illuminating results. But we may look forward with interest to the treatise on exact sociological theory which Professor Menger has promised for the near future. (Cf.," Einige neuere Fortschritte in der exakten Behandlung sozialwissenschaftlicher Probleme," in Neuere Fortschritte in den exakten Wissenscbaften, Vienna, I936, p.132.)"

Peter Boettke:

Marek Hudik yup. But I do also wonder in science what we might say of dead ends and unfulfilled promise. Look around us in econ. Theory has declined, empirical techniques have proliferated … yet, theory rears its head in benchmark ways or as if ways. The sort of conundrums in theory raised by Arrow, Dixit and Fisher and pointed to by Kirzner don’t fascinate the minds of younger economists YET the theory is employeed as if those conundrums didn’t exist.

Roger Koppl:

Xiong Yue Yes! I am happy to see the young Austrian complexoids out there. (I think Abby is responsible for the jocular term "Austrian complexoid," which I have merrily adopted.) I have not yet met Vicente Moreno Casas, but hope to soon. We should also mention Abby Devereaux, Cameron Harwick, Jim Caton, Mikayla Novak, and others. Among the not-as-young we should include Richard Wagner who has been an important influence on so many of us. It's been great to see the recent growth in the ranks of the Austrian complexoids.

Peter G. Klein:

Peter Boettke your students have an impressive list of accomplishments, as you so often remind us. But this has little to do with the issue at hand, which is whether contemporary Austrian economics has proceeded primarily in dialogue with mainstream work at the theoretical and methodological frontier (which in 2023 is not game theory but the empirical turn in applied microeconomics, DSGE models, field experiments, etc.). While of course Austrian writers have always engaged the mainstream literature of the time, from Menger's day to the present, it has often been with a lag, particularly since the Austrian revival of the 1970s. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this but it seems silly to pretend otherwise.

Roger Koppl:

Peter G. Klein I dunno, Peter, I'm not seeing it. I am most surprised, perhaps, that you put DSGE on the list. For heaven's sake, you've got Larry White, William Luther, Nicolas Cachanosky, and others getting good journal hits that are most decidedly "in dialogue" with mainstream macro. I like to think my Hobart Paper counts too (https://www.iea.org.uk/.../files/Koppl-Interactive-PDF.pdf). All of the names just listed are engaging the mainstream and not just, you know, preaching to the choir or railing against the Keynesian Cross or something. I would also like to see you count complexity economics as part of the mainstream. The folks listed in my last comment have been engaging that literature. Our mutual friend Per Bylund just had a nice hit in the Southern. And. So. On. I guess it depends on who you're thinking of when you say "Austrian economics," but I just see plenty of successful "Austrian" scholars engaging the profession at large. 

Marek Hudik:

Peter Boettke The decline in interest in theory is frustrating. I believe part of the reason is that the academic environment pushes people in a certain direction, and if people want to get published and land decent jobs, they have to play by the rules. When I go to big conferences, it strikes me how similar all the presentations (and people) are (as also pointed out by Branko Milanovic http://glineq.blogspot.com/2019/06/non-exemplary-lives.html). However, it's difficult to succeed by being "different." I'm glad that some people (including your students) "dared to be different" and succeeded.

Roger Koppl:

Marek Hudik Figure out how to make that an opportunity. Be a one-eyed theorist in the land of the theory-blind.

Peter Boettke:

Peter G. Klein i am not humble bragging, i am instead trying to provide counter examples. And what Roger Koppl says about the publications. And yes, theory is less where it is at and instead empirical strategies. Look at Ben using synthetic control to address immigration debate.

Peter G. Klein:

Pete, as usual, you define Austrian economics to mean "stuff my students and others in my circles do." Ben's paper is great but not an example of what most people would consider Austrian economics. (See Nicolai's concept from his 2017 review of the "Boettke melange.")

Xiong Yue:

Peter G. Klein that's 2016 and I just read it a couple of days ago.

Peter G. Klein:

Right, 2016! https://mises.org/.../review-living-economics-yesterday...

______

Roger Koppl:

Nicolai: Heh. Yes, Littlechild is British. But when I met him in the 1980s, he was part of the “Austrian revival” group as was Wiseman. I don’t know whether to say Shackle was “in,” but certainly Lachmann touted him and a lot of us were reading him seriously. I guess I should have put “American” in scare quotes or something. The OP was not specific to the 1990s and it was about stuff like “relat[ing]” to the mainstream. Xiong pointed out that your article of 2000 that he cited addressed the 1990s, and he rightly lumped game theory in with “other developments.” You have ruled Littlechild out of court as an “outlier.” And now the goals posts are fixed at *checks notes* whether there is much of anything “published in the Austrian littt that uses game until relatively recently.” I’d like to play along, here, but I don’t know what counts as “using” game theory. In 2002, the late Barkley Rosser and I published a paper in Metroeconomica proving that in certain zero-sum games best-reply strategies are not computable. Is that “using” game theory? In my 2002 book on Big Players I use a couple of very simple reduced form games to show that we can have coordination even without “shared mental models.” Is that “using” game theory? And I think lots of Austrians, including Pete have been using simple game theory for decades. But maybe the game theory at issue was too mathematically light to count for you? And perhaps my Goedelian proof with Barkley is not “using” but “criticizing” game theory? Okay, sure, whatever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOaMolRN1qA

Peter Boettke:

What is the substantive claim now? That AE should be exclusively absorbed into mainstream methodology? That certain Austrians who were critical shouldn’t be because modern advances have rendered criticisms obsolete? That Austrian economists should be more involved professionally with elite institutions? Btw, I published this paper last year… https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270489

Peter Boettke:

Is that Austrian? Is that engagement? Does that not count?

______

讨论逐渐冷却，但从以上讨论可以看出，争论集中在奥派经济学家有没有做到Foss的三条原则，而不是在这三条原则本身是否成立。

国际价格理论史纲

尽管身上并没有明确的奥地利学派标签——20世纪30、40年代基本上没几个人有这个标签——师从罗宾斯的伍启元（Chi-yuen Wu）的《国际价格理论史纲》（An Outline of International Price Theories, 1939）得到了现代奥地利学派，比如罗斯巴德和萨勒诺的认可。然而，与他两年之后在国内出版的《物价统制论》（1941）相比，前者的质量高得有些离谱了。我一直怀疑罗宾斯在其中扮演了过于重要的角色，比如，列出了基本提纲和参考文献，由伍启元负责“搬砖”。当然，我不可能有确切的证据。

不论如何，这本书是对经济学的一次精彩贡献。

关于时间

尽管很多奥派爱好者会把时间描述为区别奥地利学派与其他学派的一大特征，并常常批评其他经济学中没有时间，但这种说法实际上来自几十年前的著作并因此早已过时。Mario Rizzo（奥派经济学家中处理时间最多的人之一，《时间与无知的经济学》作者）在《经济学中的时间》一文中给出了更准确的描述：

在笔者看来，时间的动态概念（即对时间的流逝的主观感知）在今天是奥地利学派独特的时间观。二十世纪上半叶，奥地利学派经济学家们是为数不多的在自己的理论工作中严肃对待（在计划周期的意义上的）时间的经济学家。在今天可能仍然成立的是，奥地利学派更一致、更彻底地在经济理论的各部分中（如在成本理论中）应用了计划周期这个想法。然而，这与其他经济学家所做的已经没有足够的区别，因此在这个意义上，时间不能成为奥地利学派经济学的显著特征。（Rizzo 1994, 111，强调为后加)

距离上述描述又过了快30年了。

中国古代对价格管制的正确看法

读到一条微博，总结了中国古代对价格管制的正确看法，分享一下：

中国古代的聪明人虽然没学过右翼经济学，说不出“高涨的价格是短缺的信号，要缓解短缺只能通过自由市场”这种话，但是他们能通过经验和常识作出正确的判断。

及在宣州，江淮大旱，米价日长，或说节其价以救人，坦曰：「宣州地狭，谷不足，皆他州来。若制其价，则商不来矣，价虽贱，如无谷何？」後米斗及二百，商人舟米以来者相望。坦乃借兵食，多出於市，以平其直，人赖以生。当涂县有渚田久废，坦以为岁旱，苟贫人得食取佣，可易为功，於是渚田尽辟，藉佣以活者数千人，又以羡钱四十万代税户之贫者，故旱虽甚，而人忘灾。————李皋《故东川节度使卢公传》

范文正治杭州，二浙阻饥，谷价方涌，斗钱百二十。公遂增至斗百八十，众不知所为。公仍命多出榜沿江，具述杭饥及米价所增之数。于是商贾闻之，晨夜争进，唯恐后，且虞后者继来。米既辐凑，遂减价，还至百二十。包孝肃公守庐州，岁饥，亦不限米价，而商贾载至者遂多，不日米贱。予按，此策本唐卢坦为宣歙土狭谷少，所仰四方之来者。若价贱，则商船不复来，益困矣。既而米斗价一百，商旅辐辏，民赖以生。————吴曾《能改斋漫录》

赵阅道拚熙宁中，以资政殿大学士知越州。两浙旱蝗，米价踊贵，饿死者十五六。诸州皆榜衢路立，赏禁人増米价。阅道独榜衢路令：“有米者任増价粜之。”于是，诸州米商辐辏，米价更贱，民无饿死者。閲道治民，所至有声，在成都杭越尤著。————司马光《涑水记闻》

岁丰谷熟而减其价，则者麇集，谷日外出，而无以待荒；岁凶谷乏而减其价，则贩者杜足，谷日内竭，而不救其死。乃减价者，小民之所乐闻，而吏可以要民之誉者也，故俗吏乐为之。夫亦念闻减价而欢呼者何民乎？必其逐末游食、不务稼穑、不知畜聚之民也。若此者，古谓之罢民，罚出夫布而置之圜土者也。……冀官之减价；乃不念价即减，而既减之金钱，顾其橐而何有也？如是者，徇其狂妄，而以拒商贩于千里之外，居盈之豪民，益挟持人之死命以坐收踊贵之利，罢民既自毙，而官又导之以趋于毙。呜呼！俗吏得美名，而饥民填沟壑，亦惨矣哉！——————王夫之《读通鉴论》

奥地利学派是什么？

在很多初学者眼里，奥地利学派经济学是什么是十分明确的，其教义就像是石板上的“十诫”，知道这些规定，就算懂奥地利学派经济学了。至于“十诫”的内容，可以是马赫鲁普（Machlup 1982, 39–40)的著名描述：

1. Methodological Individualism. In the explanation of economic phenomenas have to go back to the actions (or inaction) of individuals; group or collectives cannot act except through the actions of individual members. 

2. Methodological subjectivism. In the explanation of economic phenomena we have to go back to judgments and choices made by individuals on the basis of whatever knowledge they have or believe to have and whatever expectations they entertain regarding external developments and especially the consequences of their own intended actions.

3. Marginalism. In all economic decisions, the value, cost, revenues, productivity, etc. are determined by the significance of the last unit, or lot. added to or subtracted from the total.

4. Tastes and preferences. Subjective valuations (utility) of goods and services determine the demand for them, so that their market prices are influenced by (actual and potential) consumers; diminishing marginal utility of each good or service consumed affects the allocation of consumers' incomes among various uses.

5. Opportunity costs (first called Wieser's law of costs). The cost with which producers or other economic actors calculate reflect the most important of the alternative opportunities that have to be foregone if productive services are employed for one purpose rather than for the (sacrificed) alternatives.

6. Time structure of consumption and production. Decisions to save reflect "time preference" regarding consumption in the immediate, distant, or indefinite future, and investments are made in view of larger outputs to be obtained from given inputs by means of processes taking more time. 

1. 方法论的个人主义。在解释经济现象时，必须回到个人的行动（或不行动）；团体或集体不能行动，除非通过个人成员的行动。

2. 方法论主观主义。在解释经济现象时，我们必须回到个人所做出的判断和选择——基于他们拥有或认为拥有的任何知识，以及他们对外部发展特别是他们自己预期行动的后果所抱有的任何期望。

3. 边际主义。在所有经济决策中，价值、成本、收入、生产力等都是由添加到总数或从总数中减去的最后一个单位或批次的重要性决定的。

4. 口味和偏好。财货和服务的主观评价（效用）决定了对它们的需求，因此它们的市场价格受到（实际和潜在）消费者的影响；所消费的每种财货或服务的边际效用递减会影响消费者收入在各种用途之间的分配。

5. 机会成本（最初被称为维塞尔成本定律）。生产者或其他经济行动者计算的成本反映了如果生产性服务被用于一个目的而不是（牺牲的）替代品，则必须放弃的最重要的替代机会。

6. 消费和生产的时间结构。储蓄的决定反映了关于近期、遥远或不确定的未来消费的“时间偏好”，而投资是考虑到通过花费更多时间的过程从给定的投入中获得更大的产出而做出的。 

当然，也可以是其他人的总结，比如Boettke (2008)这篇。“十诫”观的持有者会轻易地相信自己已经掌握了奥地利学派的精髓，给自己贴上“奥地利学派信仰者”的标签，并因此热衷于“传播奥地利学派经济学”。

然而，奥地利学派经济学作为一种研究范式，其定义性的特征到底是什么是十分不明确的。伊斯雷尔·柯兹纳在审视了马赫卢普的这六项总结之后，认为"With varying degrees of emphasis most modern microeconomics incorporates all these ideas ... the list of six Austrian ideas was not really complete."“多数现代微观经济学文献虽然着重点不同，但整合了所有这些思想……包含六大奥地利学派思想的清单并非真正完备。”（Kirzner , 65）

卡伦·沃恩在《奥地利学派在美国》中写道："…, what has been discovered is that there is no one clear and uncontroversial version of what modern Austrian economics is all about."“……，已经发现的是，对于现代奥地利经济学的全部内容，没有一个清晰且没有争议的版本”(Vaughn 1994, 9) 

彼得·克莱因也承认："It is not always clear, however, exactly what distinguishes the Austrian School from other traditions, schools of thought, approaches, or movements within economics and its sister disciplines."“然而，奥地利学派与经济学及其姊妹学科中的其他传统、思想学派、方法或运动的确切区别并不总是一目了然”。(Klein 2008) 在克莱因的研究生教学大纲里，他把第一周的讨论主题定为了“试图定义奥地利学派”，列出的参考数目为：

Kirzner, Israel M. 1987. "Austrian School of Economics". In John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman, eds., The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (London: Macmillan).

Dolan, Edwin G. 1976. "Austrian Economics as Extraordinary Science" In Dolan, ed., The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (Kansas City: Sheed and Ward), pp. 3–18.

Klein, Peter G. 2008. "The Mundane Economics of the Austrian School." Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 11, nos. 3–4: 165–87.

Optional: Robbins, Lionel. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science (London: Macmillan), chapters 1–4.

Optional: Boettke, Peter J. 2008. "Austrian School of Economics." In David R. Henderson, ed., The Concise Enclopedia of Economics (second edition, Indianapolis: Liberty Fund).

Optional: Backhouse, Roger E., 2000. "Austrian Economics and the Mainstream: View from the Boundary." Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3, no. 2: 31–43.

这种不明确，和奥地利学派经济学的独特经历有关。它是现代经济学的三大起源之一，在长达150多年的历程中，经历过崛起、被主流吸收、衰落、主要成员迁移到美国、复兴等各种各样的事件，并因此形成了众多的版本。并且，奥地利学派这个招牌和和几代几代奥地利学派经济学家的说法，可能会让很多人误认为它是一个神秘的小宗派组织，有着正式的入会仪式和掌门继承机制。实际上并不是这样，它只是一个松散的学术传统。此外，我们完全可以把奥地利学派这个招牌理解为一度消亡，后来又在复兴运动中被重新启用。约瑟夫·萨勒诺（Salerno 2010）在《现代经济学中门格尔的因果-现实主义分析》（提取码: igba）中提出了一种对这个演变过程的理解，并认为

the term “Austrian economics” as the designation for the intellectual movement that coalesced in the early 1970s may now have outlived its usefulness. This term, which initially served an important strategic purpose in promoting the revival of the broad Mengerian tradition, may have come to obscure the meaning and importance of the praxeological research paradigm that Menger originated. 

作为在20世纪70年代初联合起来的智识运动的名称，“奥地利学派经济学”一词现在可能已经超出了它的有效期。这个术语最初在促进广义的门格尔主义传统复兴方面具有重要的战略目的，但可能已经模糊了门格尔创始的行动学研究范式的意义和重要性。  

Kesong Wang，当今中国最优秀的年轻奥地利学派经济学家之一，在评论《奥地利学派经济学作为一项进步研究计划的未来》的时候说道：

……，我就对构造作为某种research paradigm的Austrian economics这件事彻底失去兴趣了。我现在反正只使用Austrian economists这个词，用来表示a group of economists who agree with most parts of the writings of menger, bohm bawerk and mises on the issue of economics

在十多年的学习和探索之后，尽管有些不情愿，我是很理解这个说法的——它更准确。

当然，因为“奥地利学派经济学”这个招牌实在太有力量（主流新古典的少数正当挑战者之一），所以，就算大部分资深研究者都对其含混性心知肚明，愿意响应萨勒诺号召放弃这面招牌的也人寥寥无几。在可预见的将来，大家还得在这个屋檐下凑合着过日子。

参考文献

Backhouse, Roger E., 2000. "Austrian Economics and the Mainstream: View from the Boundary." Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3, no. 2: 31–43.

Boettke, Peter J. 2008. "Austrian School of Economics," in David R. Henderson, ed., Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

Dolan, Edwin G. 1976. "Austrian Economics as Extraordinary Science," in Dolan, ed., The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics. Kansas City: Sheed and Ward, pp. 3–18.

Kirzner, Israel M. 1987. "Austrian School of Economics," in John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, and Peter Newman, eds., The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics. London: Macmillan.

Kirzner, Israel M. 1992. The Meaning of Market Process: Essays in the Development of Mordern Austrian Economics. London: Routledge. 

Klein, Peter G. 2008. “The Mundane Economics of the Austrian School.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 11 (3–4): 165–87.

Machlup, Fritz. 1982. "Austrian economic," in Encyclopedia of economics, ed. Greenwald, Douglas. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Robbins, Lionel. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan, chapters 1–4.

Salerno, J. T. 2010. Menger’s causal-realist analysis in modern economics. The Review of Austrian Economics, 23(1), 1–16.

Vaughn, Karen I. 1994. Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

《预见危机》

“中国著名奥派经济学家”最近出了一本“翻译”（估计大部分还是另两个年轻学生翻译的）的新书，作者是米塞斯研究院的高级研究员马克·桑顿，书名《预见危机》（原名The Skyscraper Curse，摩天楼诅咒）。

桑顿一直想在中国出一本自己作品的中文版。15年我在奥本，他曾把我叫到他办公室，希望我帮他翻译他的另一本小册子，但那本小册子的完成度还不够，所以我没法帮他找到合适的出版社。而这本The Skyscraper Curse出版于18年，完成度比那本小册子高多了，它的顺利出版也算了却了桑顿的一桩心事。

摩天楼诅咒是指这样一种现象，即摩天楼往往是在经济繁荣（信用扩张）的时候大量修建的，但这种（人为）繁荣是无法持续的，所以当摩天楼建成的时候，经济往往就走向萧条了。简单地说，这是奥地利学派商业周期理论的应用型研究。如果你熟悉当代奥地利学派的”版图“的话，应该会知道”摩天楼诅咒“算是桑顿的”专属领域“。

书当然是好书，值得一读，但是属于锦上添花的读物，而不是理论核心。如果你要让我去翻译这本书，我是会拒绝的。我爱桑顿，但这种程度的书应该交给资历更浅的年轻学者去翻译，一个经济学硕士生甚至优秀的本科生和爱好者都能很好地完成任务。我的时间应该去探索更深入、更硬核的东西。所以，我对朱海就的质疑仍然成立，为什么要如此疯狂地沉迷于刷名气？艰难的正事一件不做，又简单又便于出名的事每天狂做！

动物会行动吗？

动物会行动吗？在这个问题上，米塞斯（以及德索托）和罗斯巴德之间存在着一些细微的差异。

《人的行动》第1章第1节的标题是“有意图的行动与动物性反应”（Purposeful Action and Animal Reaction）。但奇怪的是，本节并没有包含关于动物性反应的任何讨论。但是，这个标题暗示了米塞斯不认为动物可以有意图地采取行动，它们只会“反应”。

德索托在他的讲义Cruso por Internet de Introduccion a la Economia清楚地说明了：

No es acción humana el comportamiento de los animales, ni el del sonámbulo, ni los actos reflejos. (p. 42)
人的行动不是动物的行为，也不是梦游者的行为，也不是反射性行为。

显然，他也认为动物的行为算不上行动，只有人才行动。

另一方面，罗斯巴德在《人，经济与国家》中写道：

人因其为人而行动的事实，是无可争辩、不容置疑的。设想这一事实的反面将会是荒谬无稽的。它的反面——不存在有动机的行为——只适用于植物和无机物。（p. 2）

在脚注中，他进一步解释了：

这里无须研究从低级有机物到高级灵长目的动物行为的艰深难题；这一问题可以被视作在纯粹的反射性行为与有意识的行动之间的一条分界线。无论如何，人只有从他们能够理解的动物动机才可以理解（而非仅仅观察）这些行为。(p. 2, fn.5)

因此，他的立场似乎是这样的，好吧，植物和无机物绝对不会行动，但是动物是否会行动并不是我想要关心的。鉴于动物在某种程度上确实具有有意图的行为（例如，我的猫在想要零食时会对我卖萌），因此，我认为罗斯巴德在这里的理解更好。

更新1：经济学家Erwin Dekker表示：“门格尔谈到了动物和人类之间的连续统一体，并以鸟类筑巢作为规划动物的例子。”

更新2：小弗里德曼回复我：“我很确定戈登·图洛克写过关于将理性假设应用于动物的文章。”

更新3：Brian J. Gladish跟我推荐了他几年前就这个问题写的这篇博客。在结论部分，他表示：

With the modification of Mises's viewpoint on action yet another objection to the epistemology of the Austrian School can be overcome.  This modification is hardly a blow to Mises's overall system as it supports, rather than rejects, his action axiom.  At the same time it ties economics more closely to the sciences, a goal that we can only believe Mises would have supported.

随着米塞斯的行动观点的修正，对奥地利学派认识论的另一个反对意见可以被克服。 这种修改几乎不会对米塞斯的整个系统造成打击，因为它支持而不是拒绝他的行动公理。 同时，它将经济学与科学更紧密地联系在一起，我们只能相信米塞斯会支持这一目标。