LUDWIG LACHMANN AND THE THEORY OF ACTION FROM THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS TO INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS

Abstract

It has been claimed that after the 2000s, Orthodox neoclassicism changed and opened up to new approaches by adopting principles such as bounded rationality, rule following, institutions, cognition and evolution. It is thought that one of these new approaches is the Austrian school of economics. However, the thoughts of Ludwig Lachmann, who had a large role in the revival of the Austrian school of economics after 1970, are not compatible with orthodox neoclassicism. Lachmann’s thoughts of the kaleidic world, flowing time, changing expectations and human action based on plans cannot be compatible with any type of Orthodoxy, especially neoclassicism. Therefore, considering Lachmann’s ideas, it is not possible for the Austrian school of economics to place itself at the centre of economic science together with Orthodox neoclassicism. The study discusses Lachmann’s special position within the Austrian school of economics and argues that he carries the idea of interpretive institutional economics based on plan-based human actions and radical subjectivism, which is incompatible with orthodox neoclassicism. The main claim of this study is that with Lachmann’s plan-based action theory, not only the Continental European interpretive sociology was brought to economics through Max Weber, but also institutional economics came closer to the Austrian school of economics.

Keywords

• Ludwig Lachmann
• Plans
• Expectations
• Human Action
• Institutions

LUDWİG LACHMANN VE AVUSTURYA İKTİSAT OKULU’NDAN KURUMSAL İKTİSADA AÇILAN EYLEM TEORİSİ

Abstract

2000’li yıllardan sonra Ortodoks neoklasizmin sınırlı rasyonalite, kural takibi, kurumlar, bilişsellik ve evrim gibi ilkeleri benimseyerek değiştiği ve yeni yaklaşımlara doğru açıldığı ileri sürülmüştür. Bu yeni yaklaşımlardan birinin de Avusturya iktisat okulu olduğu düşünülmektedir. Ancak 1970 sonrası Avusturya iktisat okulunun canlanışında büyük bir paya sahip olan Ludwig Lachmann’ın düşünceleri Ortodoks neoklasizmle uyumlu değildir. Lachmann’ın sürekli değişen dünya, akan zaman, farklılaşan beklentiler ve planlara dayanan insan eylemi düşünceleri neoklasizm başta olmak üzere Ortodoksinin hiçbir türüne uyum sağlayamaz. Bundan dolayı Lachmann’ın düşünceleri özelinde Avusturya iktisat okulunun Ortodoks neoklasizmle birlikte iktisat biliminin merkezine yerleşmesi mümkün değildir. Çalışma, Lachmann’ın Avusturya iktisat okulu içindeki söz konusu özel konumunu tartışmayı ve Ortodoks neoklasizmle uyuşması mümkün olmayan plan temelli insan eylemleri ile radikal öznelciliğe yaslanan yorumlayıcı kurumsal iktisat düşüncesi taşıdığını savunmaktadır. Çalışmanın temel iddiası, Lachmann’ın plan temelli eylem teorisi ile sadece Max Weber üzerinden Kıta Avrupa yorumlayıcı sosyolojisi iktisada taşınmamış, aynı zamanda Avusturya iktisat okuluyla kurumsal iktisat da yakınlaşmıştır.

Keywords

• Ludwig Lachmann
• Planlar
• Beklentiler
• İnsan Eylemi
• Kurumlar

References

1. Addleson, M. (1986). “Radical subjectivism” and the language of Austrian economics. Kirzner, I. M. (Ed.), Subjectivism, Intelligibility and Economic Understanding (s. 1-14) içinde. Hampshire: The Macmillan Press.
2. Agassi, J. (1975). Institutional individualism. The British Journal of Sociology, 26(2), 144-155.
3. Boehm, S., I. M. Kirzner, R. Koppl, D. Lavoie, P. Lewin, C. Torr, & L. S. Moss (2000). Professor Ludwig M. Lachmann (1906-1990)-scholar, teacher, and Austrian school critic of late classical formalism in economics. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 59(3), 367-417.
4. Boettke, P. (1989). Evolution and economics-Austrians as institutionalist. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 6, 73-89.
5. Boettke, P., Coyne, C. J., & Newman, P. (2016). The history of a tradition-Austrian economics from 1871 to 2016. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 34a, 199-243.
6. Boettke, P., & Piano, E. E. (2019). Capital, calculation, and coordination. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 37b, 9-24.
7. Cowen, R. ve Rizzo, M. J. (1996). The genetic-causal tradition and modern economic theory. KYKLOS, 49(3), 273-317.
8. Dequech, D. (2017). Some institutions (social norms and conventions) of contemporary mainstream economics, macroeconomics and financial economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41, 1627-1652

9. Foss, N. J. ve Garzarelli, G. (2007). Institutions as knowledge capital-Ludwig M. Lachmann’s interpretative institutionalism. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(5), 789-804.
10. Gruchy, A. G. (1969). Neoinstituionalism and the economics of dissent. Journal of Economic Issues, 3(1), 3-17.
11. Hodgson, G. M. (2002). Darwinism in economics-from analogy to ontology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12, 259-281.
12. Horwitz, S. (2019). Ludwig Lachmann as a theorist of entrepreneurship. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 57(70), 19-40.
13. Kirzner, I. M. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
14. Koppl, R. (2006). Austrian economics at the cutting edge. The Review of Austrian Economics, 19, 231-241.
15. Lachmann, L. M. (1943). The role of expectations in economics as a social science. Economica, 10(37), 12-23.
16. Lachmann, L. M. (1944). Finance capitalism? Economica, 11(42), 64-73.
17. Lachmann, L. M. (1950). Economics as a social science. The Quarterly Journal of the Economic Society of South Africa, 18(3), 231-241.
18. Lachmann, L. M. (1951). The science of human action. Economica, 18(72), 412-427.
19. Lachmann, L. M. (1971). The legacy of Max Weber-three essays. Berkeley: The Glendessary Press.
20. Lachmann, L. M. (1976a). On Austrian capital theory. Dolan, E. G. (Ed.), The foundations of modern Austrian economics (s. 145-151) içinde. Kansas City: Sheed & Ward, Inc.
21. Lachmann, L. M. (1976b). From Mises to Shackle-an essay on Austrian economics and the kaleidic society. Journal of Economic Literature, 14(1), 54-62.
22. Lachmann, L. M. (1978). Carl Menger and the incomplete revolution of subjectivism. Atlantic Economic Journal, 6, 57-59.
23. Lachmann, L. M. ([1983] 2005). John Maynard Keynes-a view from an Austrian window, D. Lavoie (Ed.), Expectations and the meaning of institutions-essays in economics by Ludwig Lachmann (s. 179-191) içinde. London: Routledge.
24. Lachmann, L. M. (1990). Austrian economics-a hermeneutic approach. D. Lavoie (Ed.), Economics and hermeneutics (s. 132-144) içinde. London: Routledge.
25. Lewin, P. (1997). Capital in disequilibrium-a reexamination of the capital theory of Ludwig M. Lachmann. History of Political Economy, 29(3), 523-548.
26. Lewin, P. (2014). Hayek and Lachmann. R. W. Garrison ve N. Barry (Ed.), Elgar companion to Hayekian economics (s. 165-194) içinde. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
27. Lewin, P. (2019). Ludwig Lachmann and the Austrians. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 37b, 55-67.
28. Lewis, P. ve Runde, J. (2007). Subjectivism, social structure and the possibility of socio-economic order-the case of Ludwig Lachmann. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 62, 167-186.
29. McCloskey, D. N. (2019). Lachmann practiced humanomics, beyond the dogma of behaviorism. The Review of Austrian Economics, 32, 47-61.
30. Mittermaier, K. H. M. (1992). Ludwig Lachmann (1906-1990)-a biographical sketch. The South African Journal of Economics, 60(1), 4-12.
31. North, D. C. (1978). Structure and performance-the task of economic history. Journal of Economic Literature, 16(3), 963-978.
32. North, D. C. (1986). The new institutional economics. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142(1), 230-237.
33. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34. Özveren, Y. E. (1998). An institutionalist alternative to neoclassical economics? Review, 21(4), 469-530.
35. Perlman, M. (1986). Subjectivism and American institutionalism. Kirzner. I. M. (Ed.), Subjectivism, intelligibility and economic understanding (s. 268-280) içinde. Hampshire: The Macmillan Press.
36. Rothbard, M. N. (1995). The present state of Austrian economics. Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 6(1), 43-89.
37. Rutherford, M. (2001). Institutional economics-then and now. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 173-194.
38. Salerno, J. T. (1992). Mises and Hayek dehomogenized. The Review of Austrian Economics, 6(2), 113-146.
39. Salerno, J. T. (2010). Menger’s causal-realist analysis in modern economics. The Review of Austrian Economics, 23, 1-16.
40. Samuels, W. J. (1989). Austrian and institutional economics-some common elements. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 6, 53-71.
41. Samuels, W. J. (1990). The self-referentiability of Thorstein Veblen’s theory of the preconceptions of economic science. Journal of Economic Issues. 24(3), 695-718.
42. Samuels, W. J. (1995). The present state of institutional economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19(4), 569-590.
43. Stoor, V. H. (2019). Ludwig Lachmann’s peculiar status within Austrian economics. The Review of Austrian Economics, 32, 63-75.
44. Torr, C. (2019). Lachmann, Keynes, and subjectivism. Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, 37b, 69-81.
45. Vanberg, V. J. (2022). Carl Menger, F. A. Hayek and the evolutionary strand in Austrian economics. The Review of Austrian Economics. 35, 481-515.
46. Vaughn, K. I. (1990). The Mengerian roots of the Austrian revival. B. J. Caldwell, (Ed.), Carl Menger and his legacy in economics (s. 379-407) içinde. Durham: Duke University Press.
47. Vaughn, K. I. (1992). The problem of order in Austrian economics-Kirzner vs. Lachmann. Review of Political Economy. 4(3), 251-274.
48. Vaughn, K. I. (1994). Austrian economics in America-the migration of a tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49. Veblen, T. ([1919] 1961). The place of science in modern civilisation and other essays. New York: Russell and Russell.
50. Zijp, R. V. (1995). Lachmann and the wilderness-on Lachmann’s radical subjectivism. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 2(2), 412-433.