Lachmann and Veblen: Institutions versus Neoclassicism

Abstract

In this study, an intellectual relationship endeavour is constituted between Lachmann and Veblen through the lens of institutions. Their mutual perspective lies in their efforts to understand economics through institutions, diverging from orthodox neoclassical economics. Simultaneously, the authors share a similarity in their ways of defining institutions. The foundations of institutions, as conceived by Lachmann in the plans within the human mind and the institutions expressing Veblen’s habits of thoughts and life, are closely aligned. This proximity established through institutions also provides an opportunity to address the enduring problem of the actor-structure dilemma in social theory. In other words, the article offers a different resolution to the ongoing debate between methodological individualism and methodological holism in social theory through the developed connection between Lachmann and Veblen. Furthermore, the hermeneutic approach, which has found limited traction in economics, persists firmly with Lachmann and Veblen. The hermeneutic approach, overt in Lachmann and more implicit in Veblen, presents another possibility for establishing an intellectual relationship between the two scholars. JEL Classification : A14 , B25 , B31 , B41

Keywords

• Lachmann
• Veblen
• institutions
• neoclassicism
• plans
• process

References

1. Agassi, J. (1975). Institutional Individualism, The British Journal of Sociology, 26 (2): 144-155. google scholar
2. Boettke, P. J. (1989). Evolution and Economics: Austrians as Institutionalist, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Method-ology, 6: 73-89. google scholar
3. Braun, E., P. Lewin & N. Cachanosky (2016). Ludwig von Mises’s Approach to Capital as a Bridge between Austrian and Institutional Economics, Journal of Institutional Economics, 12 (4): 847-866. google scholar
4. Caldwell, B. (1989), Austrians and Institutionalists: The Historical Origins of Their Shared Characteristics, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 6: 91-100. google scholar
5. Colander, D. (2000). The Death of Neoclassical Economics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22 (2): 127-143. google scholar
6. Colander, D., R. Holt & J.B. Jr. Rosser (2004). The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics, Review of Political Economy, 16 (4): 485-499. google scholar
7. Dekker, E. & P. Kuchar (2019). Lachmann and Shackle: On the Joint Production of Interpretation Instruments, Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 37B: 25-42. google scholar
8. Dequech, D. (2007). Neoclassical, Mainstream, Orthodox, and Heterodox Economics, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 30 (2): 279-302. google scholar

9. Dequech, D. (2021). The Future of Heterodox Economics: An Institutional Perspective, Journal of Economic Issues, 55 (3): 578-583. google scholar
10. Edgell, S. & R. Tilman (1989). The Intellectual Antecedents of Thorstein Veblen: A Reappraisal, Journal of Economic Issues, 23 (4): 1003-1026. google scholar
11. Foss, N. J. & G. Garzarelli (2007). Institutions as Knowledge Capital: Ludwig M. Lachmann’s Interpretative Institutionalism, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31 (5): 789-804. google scholar
12. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481-510. google scholar
13. Hedoin, C. (2009). Weber and Veblen on the Rationalization Process, Journal of Economic Issues, 43 (1): 167-188. google scholar
14. Hodgson, G. M. (1988). Economics and Institutions. Cambridge: Polity Press. google scholar
15. Hodgson, G. M. (2000). What is the Essence of Institutional Economics?, Journal of Economlc Issues, 34 (2): 317-329. google scholar
16. Hodgson, G. M. (2006). What Are Institutions?, Journal of Economic Issues, 40 (1): 1-25. google scholar
17. Hodgson, G. M. (2021), Debating the Future of Heterodox Economics, Journal of Economlc Issues, 55 (3): 603-614. google scholar
18. Jennings, A. & W. William (1994). Evolutionary Economics and Cultural Hermeneutics: Veblen, Cultural Relativism, and Blind Drift, Journal of Economlc Issues, 28 (4): 997-1030. google scholar
19. Klein, P. A. (1990), Institutionalism as a School: A Reconsideration, Journal of Economlc Issues, 24 (2): 381-388. google scholar
20. Koppl, R. (1998), Lachmann on the Subjectivism of Active Minds, Koppl, R. & G. Mongiovi (Ed.), in Subjectlvlsm and Economlc Analysls: Essays ln Memory of Ludwlg M. Lachmann (61-79), London: Routledge. google scholar
21. Koppl, R. & G. Mongiovi (1998), Introduction, Koppl, R. & G. Mongiovi (Ed.), in Subjectlvlsm and Economlc Analysls: Essays ln Memory of Ludwlg M. Lachmann (1-11), London: Routledge. google scholar
22. Lachmann, L. M. ([1956] 1978), Capltal and lts Structure, Kansas City: Sheed Andrews and McMeel, INC. google scholar
23. Lachmann, L. M. (1943). The Role of Expectations in Economics as a Social Science, Economlca, 10 (37): 12-23. google scholar
24. Lachmann, L. M. (1944). Finance Capitalism?, Economlca, 11 (42): 64-73. google scholar
25. Lachmann, L. M. (1951). The Science of Human Action, Economica, 18 (72): 412-427. google scholar
26. Lachmann, L. M. (1962). Cost Inflation and Economic Institutions, The South Afrlcan Journal of Economlcs, 30: 177-186. google scholar
27. Lachmann, L. M. (1971). The Legacy of Max Weber: Three Essays, Berkeley: The Glendessary Press. google scholar
28. Lachmann, L. M. (1976). From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society, Journal of Economlc Llterature, 14 (1): 54-62. google scholar
29. Lachmann, L. M. (1990). Austrian Economics: A Hermeneutic Approach, Lavoie, D. (Ed.), ln Economlcs and Hermeneutlcs (132-144), London: Routledge. google scholar
30. Leathers, C. G. (1990). Veblen and Hayek on Instincts and Evolution, Journal of the Hlstory of Economlc Thought, 12: 162-178. google scholar
31. Lewis, P. (2008). Solving the “Lachmann Problem”: Orientation, Individualism, and the Causal Explanation of Socioeconomic Order, The Amerlcan Journal of Economlcs and Soclology, 67 (5): 827-858. google scholar
32. Lewis, P. & J. Runde (2007). Subjectivism, Social Structure and the Possibility of Socioeconomic Order: The Case of Ludwig Lachmann, Journal of Economlc Behavlor & Organlzatlon, 62: 167-186. google scholar
33. McCloskey, D. N. (2019). Lachmann Practiced Humanomics, Beyond the Dogma of Behaviorism, The Revlew of Austrlan Economlcs, 32: 47-61. google scholar
34. Mirowski, P. (1987). The Philosophical Bases of Institutionalist Economics, Journal of Economlc Issues, 21 (3): 1001-1038. google scholar
35. North, D. C. (1990). Instltutlons, Instltutlonal Change and Economlc Performance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
36. O’Hara, P. A. (2002). The Contemporary Relevance of Thorstein Veblen’s Institutional-Evolutionary Political Economy, Hlstory of Economlcs Revlew, 35 (1): 78-103. google scholar
37. Özveren, Y. E. (1998), An Institutionalist Alternative to Neoclassical Economics?, Revlew, 21 (4): 469-530. google scholar
38. Perlman, M. (1986). Subjectivism and American Institutionalism, Kirzner, I. M. (Ed.), in Subjectlvlsm, Intelllglblllty and Economlc Under-standlng (268-280), Hampshire: The Macmillan Press. google scholar
39. Plotkin, S. & R. Tilman (2011). The Polltlcal Ideas of Thorsteln Veblen, New Haven & London: Yale University Press. google scholar
40. Prychitko, D. L. (1994). Ludwig Lachmann and the Interpretive Turn in Economics: A Critical Inquiry into the Hermeneutics of the Plan, Advances ln Austrlan Economlcs, 1: 303-319. google scholar
41. Rothbard, M. N. (1989). The Hermeneutical Invasion of Philosophy and Economics, The Revlew of Austrlan Economlcs, 3: 45-59. google scholar
42. Rothbard, M. N. (1995), The Present State of Austrian Economics, Journal des Economlstes et des Etudes Humalnes, 6 (1): 43-89. google scholar
43. Rutherford, M. (1992). Thorstein Veblen and the Problem of the Engineers, Internatlonal Revlew of Soclology, 3 (3): 125-150. google scholar
44. Rutherford, M. (1994a). Austrian Economics and American (Old) Institutionalism, Boettke, P. J. (Ed.), in The Elgar Companlon to Austrlan Economlcs (529-534), England: Edward Elgar. google scholar
45. Rutherford, M. (1994b). Instltutlons ln Economlcs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
46. Rutherford, M. (1998). Veblen’s Evolutionary Programme: A Promise Unfulfilled, Cambrldge Journal of Economlcs, 22: 463-477. google scholar
47. Samuels, W. J. (1989). Austrian and Institutional Economics: Some Common Elements, Research ln the Hlstory of Economlc Thought and Methodology, 6: 53-71. google scholar
48. Samuels, W. J. (1990). The Self-Referentiability of Thorstein Veblen’s Theory of the Preconception of Economic Science, Journal of Economlc Issues, 24 (3), 695-718. google scholar
49. Samuels, W. J. (1993). Thorstein Veblen and the Place of Science, Soclety, 30: 76-82. google scholar
50. Schumpeter, J. A. ([1954] 2006). Hlstory of Economlc Analysls, London: Routledge. google scholar
51. Searle, J. R. (2005). What is an Institution?, Journal of Instltutlonal Economlcs, 1 (1): 1-22. google scholar
52. Stoor, V. H. (2019). Ludwig Lachmann’s Peculiar Status Within Austrian Economics, The Revlew of Austrlan Economlcs, 32: 63-75. google scholar
53. Taiko, T., F. Almeida & R. G. Fernandez (2020). Thorstein Veblen’s Institutional Economics and Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s Behavioral Economics: An Analysis of Convergent Points, Brazlllan Journal of Polltlcal Economy, 40 (4): 746-765. google scholar
54. Tilman, R. (2004). Karl Mannheim, Max Weber, and the Problem of Social Rationality in Thorstein Veblen, Journal of Economlc Issues, 38 (1): 155-172. google scholar
55. Torr, C. (2019). Lachmann, Keynes, and Subjectivism, Research ln the Hlstory of Economlc Thought and Methodology, 37b: 69-81. google scholar
56. Torr, C. S. W. (1992). Lachmann and Hodgson on Institutions, The South Afrlcan Journal of Economlcs, 60 (1): 131-136. google scholar
57. Vaughn, K. I. (1992). The Problem of Order in Austrian Economics: Kirzner vs. Lachmann, Revlew of Polltlcal Economy, 4 (3): 251-274. google scholar
58. Veblen, T. ([1899] 2007), The Theory of the Lelsure Class, Oxford, Oxford University Press. google scholar
59. Veblen, T. ([1919] 1961), The Place of Sclence ln Modern Clvlllsatlon and Other Essays, New York: Russell and Russell. google scholar
60. Veblen, T. (1898). Why is Economics not an Evolutionary Science? The QuarterlyJournal of Economics, 12 (4): 373-397. google scholar
61. Veblen, T. (1918), The Instinct of Workmanship and the State of the Industrial Arts, New York: B. W. Huebsch. google scholar
62. Waller, W. T. (1982). The Evolution of the Veblenian Dichotomy: Veblen, Hamilton, Ayres, and Foster, Journal of Economic Issues, 16 (3): 757-771. google scholar
63. Weed, F. J. (1981), Interpreting ‘Institutions’ in Veblen’s Evolutionary Theory, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 40 (1): 67-78. google scholar
64. Wynarczyk, P. (1992). Comparing Alleged Incommensurables: Institutional and Austrian Economics as Rivals and Possible Complements?, Review of Political Economy, 4 (1): 18-36. google scholar
65. Yılmaz, F. (2007). Veblen and the Problem of Rationality, Journal of Economic Issues, 41 (3): 841-862. google scholar