Везде
Austrian School Methodology: A Forgotten Perspective?
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Austrian School Methodology: A Forgotten Perspective?
Annotation
PII
S086904990011442-8-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Aleksandr Kavaliou 
Occupation: Associate Professor
Affiliation:
Centre for Business Education, Kazimieras Simonavicius University (Vilnius, Lithuania)
Department of Management, Belarusian National Technical University (Minsk, Republic of Belarus)
Address: Vostochnaya st., 39–84, Minsk, 220040
Edition
Issue 1
Pages
108-118
Abstract

The article contains analysis of the Austrian school methodology. Despite to popular beliefs, methodological individualism is neither atomism nor reductionism. It is shown that human interaction in the tradition of the school is analyzed through the prism of the institutional environment. The real man in his economic activity, not the hypothetical Homo Economicus is considered. The role of methodological subjectivism as a basis for understanding the reality is underlined. It is emphasized that it is impossible to compare and summarize the subjective estimates of individuals. The concept of subjectivity of information leads to a rejection of the general economic equilibrium approach and the maximizing public welfare policy. Author agrees with presented criticism of the concept of social liberalism by other representatives of the Austrian school and supplements the criticism with two more aspects. Firstly, on the way of the transition from individual to public interest the problem of the value comparability does not solved. The second question is on the correctness to use the basic term "liberalism" for this concept.

Keywords
methodological individualism, methodological subjectivism, institutions, Austrian school, social liberalism
Received
11.09.2020
Date of publication
29.01.2018
Number of purchasers
8
Views
1217
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite   Download pdf

References

1. Avtonomov V. (2014) Eshche neskol’ko slov o metodologicheskom individualizme [Some More Words On Methodological Individualism]. Obshchestnennye nauki i sovremennost’, no. 3, pp. 53–56.

2. Bazhenov G. (2015) Metodologicheskaya differenciaciya napravlenij avstrijskoj shkoly: marginalizaciya ili integraciya s meinstrimom [Methodological Differentiation of Austrian School Directions: Marginalization or Integration to Mainstream]. Izvestiya UrGEU, no. 6, pp. 14–22.

3. Blaug M. (2004) Metodologiya ekonomicheskoy nauki, ili kak ekonomisty obyasnyayut [The Methodology of Economics: Or how Economists Explain]. Мoscow: Zhurnal “Voprosy Ekonomiki”.

4. Expectations and the Meaning of Institutions. Essays in economics by Ludwig Lachmann (1994). Ed. by Don Lavoie. New York: Routledge.

5. Grebnev L. (2007) O predmete ekonomicheskoj nauki ili s chego nachinat’ prepodavanije ekonomiki? [On Subject of Economics, Or from Which Point Should We Start to Teach Economics?]. Voprosy ekonomiki, no. 8, pp. 134–145.

6. Grinberg R., Rubinshtein A. (2013a). Individuum i gosudarstvo: ekonomicheskaya dilemma [An Individuum and the State: Economic Dilemma]. Мoscow: Ves’ mir.

7. Grinberg R., Rubinshtein A. (2013b) Koncepciya ekonomicheskoy sociodinamiki: predposylki i resul’taty [Conception of the Economic Sociodynamics: Prerequisites and Results]. Мoscow: IE RAN.

8. Hayek F.A. (2011) Individualizm i ekonomicheskij poryadok [Individualism and Economic Order]. Cheliabinsk: Sotsium.

9. Hayek F.A. (2006) Pravo, zakonodatelstvo i svoboda [Law, Legislation, and Liberty]. Moscow: IRISEN.

10. Hodgson G. (2000) What is the Essence of Institutional Economics? Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 34, issue 2, pp. 317–330.

11. Huerta de Soto J. (2008) Avstrijskaja ekonomicheskaja shkola: rynok i predprinimatelskoje tvorchestvo [The Austrian School: Market Order and Entrepreneurial Creativity]. Cheliabinsk: Sotsium.

12. Huerta de Soto J. (2011) Social’no-ekonomicheskaya teoriya dinamicheskoy effektivnosti [Socio-economic Theory of Dynamic Efficiency]. Cheliabinsk: Sotsium.

13. Kavaliou A. (2008а) ‘Robinzonada’ kak metodologicheskiy priyom v ekonomicheskoy nauke ['Robinson' as Methodological Instrument in Economics]. Problemy Sovremennoj ekonomiki, no. 2, pp. 54–57.

14. Kavaliou A. (2008b) Ekonomicheskiy raschet pri socializme: sovremennoe ponimanie diskussii [Socialist Calculation Debate: a Contemporary Understanding]. Vestnik BNTU, no. 2, pp. 52–60.

15. Kirdina S. (2013а) K pereosmysleniyu principa metodologicheskogo individualizma [To Rethinking Methodological Individualism]. Мoscow: IE RAN.

16. Kirdina S. (2013b) Metodologicheskiy individualism i metodologicheskiy institucionalism [Methodological Individualism and Methodological Institutionalism]. Voprosy ekonomiki, no. 10, pp. 66–89.

17. Kuznetsov Yu. (2002) Kritika teoreticheskih osnov antimonopol’nogo regulirovaniya [Critics of Theoretical Foundations of Antitrust Regulation]. Ecovest, issue 2 (no. 4), pp. 595–613.

18. Libman A. (2013) Social’nyi liberalism, obshchestvennyi interes i povedencheskaya ekonomika [Social Liberalism, Public Interest, and Behavioral Economics]. Obshchestnennye nauki i sovremennost’, no. 1, pp. 27–38.

19. Menger C. (1894) Issledovanuje o metodah socialnyh nauk i politicheskoj ekonomii v osobennosti [Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences With Special Reference to Economics]. St.-Petersburg: Zinserling.

20. Menger C. (1992) Osnovaniya politicheskoy ekonomii [Principle of Economics]. Мoscow: Ekonomika.

21. Mises L. (2005) Chelovecheskaja deyatel’nost’: Traktat po ekonomicheskoj teorii [Human Action: A Treatise on Economics]. Cheliabinsk: Sotsium.

22. Rakviashvili A. (2015) Social’nyi liberalism i liberalism avstrijskoy ekonomicheskoy shkoly [Social Liberalism and Austrian Economic School Liberalism]. A. Zaostrovtsev (ed.) Social’nyi liberalism: mezhdu svobodoy i etatismom [Social Liberalism: Between Liberty and Statism]. St.-Petersburg: MSCEI “Leontieff Center”.

23. Rubinshtein A. (2008) K teorii rynkov “opekaemyh blag” [To the Theory of the Markets of Sponsored Goods]. Мoscow: IE RAN.

24. Rubinshtein A. (2011) Opekaemye blaga: institucional’nye transformacii [Sponsored Goods: Institutional Transformations]. Мoscow: IE RAN.

25. Rubinshtein A. (2012b) Social’nyi liberalism: k voprosu ekonomicheskoy metodologii [Social Liberalism: to the Question of Economic Methodology] Obshchestnennye nauki i sovremennost’, no. 6, pp. 13–34.

26. Rubinshtein A. (2015) Teoriya opekaemyh blag i paternalism v ekonomicheskih teoriyah: obshchee i osobennoe [Theory of Sponsored Goods and Paternalism: Common and Specific]. Мoscow: IE RAN.

27. Rubinshtein A. (2012a) Vvedenie v novuyu metodologiyu ekonomicheskogo analiza [Introduction to the New Methodology of Economic Analysis]. Мoscow: IE RAN.

28. Rubinshtein A., Pliskevich N. (eds.) (2016) Social’nyi liberalism [Social Liberalism]. St.-Petersburg: Aleteya.

29. Sapov G. (2004) Sobstvennost’: uslovie chelovecheskoy deyatel’nosti i yuridicheskaya kategoriya [Property as a Condition of Human Action and as a Term of Law]. Otechestvennye zapiski, no. 6 (20), pp. 8–17.

30. Tambovtsev V. (2013) Metodologicheskiy analiz i razvitie ekonomicheskoy nauki [Methodological Analysis and the Development of Economics]. Obshchestnennyenauki i sovremennost’, no. 2, pp. 42–53.

31. Tihonova N. (2013) Social’nyi liberalism: est’ li al’ternativa? [Does Social Liberalism have an Alternative?]. Obshchestnennyenauki i sovremennost’, no. 2, pp. 32–44.

32. Urnov М. (2013) Social’nyi liberalism v Rossii (vzgliad politologa) [Social Liberalism in Russia: An Political Scientists’ View]. Obshchestnennye nauki i sovremennost’, no. 3, pp. 30–43.

33. Usanov P. (2015) Neprednamerennye posledstviya social’nogo paternalizma [Unintentional Consequences of Social Paternalism]. A. Zaostrovtsev (ed.) Social’nyiliberalism: mezhdu svobodoy i etatismom [Social Liberalism: Between Liberty and Statism]. St.-Petersburg: MSCEI “Leontieff Center”.

34. Zaostrovtsev A. (2015) Social’nyi liberalism: analiz s poziciy avstrijskoj shkoly [Social Liberalism: An Analysis from Austrian School’ Point of View]. Obshchestnennye nauki i sovremennost’, no. 1, pp. 64–74.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate