L. Lachmann, D. Lavoie and a Critical Look to the Austrian School’s Revival: Can Hermeneutics be a Solution to the Agent-Structure Problem?

Abstract

In this paper, Austrian’s school revival and some of their members’ U turn toward hermeneutics is questioned, regarding the agent-structure problem in social sciences. Rather than reconciling individual and social structure, the mainstream neoclassical school dichotomize these two constructs. Austrian economics criticize neoclassical economics due to its several reductionist assumptions related with its human agent. On the other hand Austrian school recognizes the significance of “cognitive and subjective individual” as a central unit of analysis related with its action theory. Here in this paper the idea of reconciliation of “subjective individualism with hermeneutics” after the revival of Austrian economics is questioned and it is tried to shown that this attempt is not successful methodologically.

Keywords

• Austrian School,Hermeneutics,Agent-Structure

L. Lachmann, D. Lavoie ve Avusturya Okulunun Yeniden Canlandırmasına Kritik Bir Bakış: Yorumsama (Hermeneutics) Ajan-Yapı Problemine Çözüm Olabilir mi?

Abstract

Bu makalede, sosyal bilimlerdeki ajan-yapı sorunuyla ilgili olarak Avusturya okulunun yeniden canlandırılması ve üyelerinden bazılarının hermeneutiğe yönelmeleri sorgulanmıştır. Bireysel ve toplumsal yapıyı uzlaştırmak yerine, ana akım neoklasik okul bu iki kurumu ikiye ayırır. Avusturya ekonomisi, insan kaynağıyla ilgili birkaç indirgemeci varsayımından dolayı neoklasik ekonomiyi eleştirmektedir. Öte yandan, Avusturya okulu “bilişsel ve öznel birey” in önemini, eylem teorisiyle ilgili merkezi bir analiz birimi olarak kabul etmektedir. Bu makalede, Avusturya iktisadının yeniden canlandırılmasından sonra “öznel bireycilik ile yorumsama” uzlaştırılması fikri sorgulanmakta ve bu girişimin metodolojik olarak başarılı olmadığı gösterilmeye çalışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Avusturya Okulu,Yorumsama,Ajan-Yapı

References

1. ADDLESON, Mark. Equilibrium Versus Understanding, London, Routledge, 1995
2. BHASKAR, Roy. Reclaiming Reality, London, Verso, 1989a
3. BHASKAR, Roy. The Possibility of Naturalism, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989b
4. BOETTKE, P. J. and V. H. STORR. “Post-Classical Political Economy Polity, Society andEconomy in Weber, Mises and Hayek.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology61(1): 2002: 161-191
5. DILTHEY, Wilhelm. Selected Works, Volume 1, Introduction to the Human Sciences, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1989
6. FAY, Brian. Critical Social Science, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1987
7. FOSS J. N. and G. GARZARELLI. ‘’Institutions as Knowledge Capital: Ludwig M. Lachmann’s Interpretative Institutionalism’’. SMG Working Paper No: 16/2006
8. GADAMER, Hans Georg. Truth and Method, New York, The Continuum Publishing, 1986

9. GIDDENS, Anthony. The Constitution Of Society, University of California Press, 1984
10. GIDDENS, Anthony. Politics, Sociology and Social Theory, Stanford University Press 1995.
11. HARRE, Rom. The Philosophies of Science, England, Oxford, 1985
12. HARRE, Rom and P.F SECORD. The Explanation of Social Behavior, New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams & Co, 1973
13. HODGSON, M. Geoffrey. Economics and Institutions, Polity Press, Cambridge, 1988.
14. LACHMANN, Ludwig. The Legacy of Max Weber: Three Essays, Berkeley, Glendesarry Press, 1971
15. LACHMANN, Ludwig. Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions Essays in Economics by Ludwig Lachmann Ed. D. Lavoie. London: Routledge, 1994
16. LAVOIE, Don. (Ed.), Economics and Hermeneutics, London: Routledge, 1990
17. LAVOIE, Don. ‘’The Interpretive Dimension of Economics: Science, Hermeneutics and Praxeology.’’ Review of Austrian Economics, 24, 2011: 91-128
18. LAWSON, Tony. Economics and Reality, London: Routledge, 1997
19. LEWIS, Paul. “Structure, Agency and Causality in Post-revival Austrian Economics: Tensions and Resolutions.” Review of Political Economy, 17(2), 2005: 291-316
20. OAKLEY, Allen. The Revival of Modern Austrian Economics A Critical Assessment of its Subjective Origins. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. 1999
21. OUTHWAITE, William. “Hans-Georg Gadamer.” Q. SKINNER (Ed.), The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985: 21-41
22. OUTHWAITE, William. New Philosophies of Social Science, England, Macmillan Press, 1987
23. PRYCHITKO, David L. “Ludwig Lachmann and the Interpretive Turn in Economics: A Critical İnquiry into the Hermeneutics of Plan.” Advance in Austrian Economics, Vol. 1, 1994: 303-319
24. SCHUMPETER, Joseph A. History of Economic Analysis, Oxford, Oxford Univesity Press, 1968
25. TAYLOR, Charles. 1985a. “Self-˙Interpreting Animals.” Human Agency and Language,Philosophical Papers 1, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985a: 45-77.
26. TAYLOR, Charles. 1985b. “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man.” Human Agency and Language, Philosophical Papers 2, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1985b: 15-58.
27. WEBER, Max. The Methodology of the Social Sciences, Glencoe, Free Press, 1949.