Economic science and neoclassicism

Hülsmann, Jörg Guido

doi:10.1007/s12113-999-1028-5

Cited by 75 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the most insightful and conversant critique of the Austrian approach was expressed by Caplan (1999) and then quickly mitigated by Block (1999) andHülsmann (1999). What this dialogue reveals, and what may be worrying in context of this paper, is that the amalgamation of opposite methodologies may sometimes be unwelcome by scholars themselves.…”

Section: Other Trouble Spotsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Ecumenical foundations? On the coexistence of Austrian and neoclassical views on utility

Senderski

2014

IJPEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Note on terminologyAlthough it is sensible to refer to the Austrian school and the Austrian economists with a small rather than a capital letter (as it denotes the affiliation to a particular current, not the nationality), the prevailing consensus is to apply capital "A" with "Austrian", regardless of its actual usage. The author respects this consensus, even though he does not agree with it.2 Abstract Utility has always been a debatable concept, with many competing interpretations. The Austrian school and the neoclassical school, however broad these categories may seem, have made the most substantial and, by the same token, the most contrasting contributions to the theory of value. The paper's goal is not to adjudicate past arguments or observe the evolution of the theory, but rather to resolve contemporary misunderstandings. The references are made to such trouble spots as subjectivism vs. objectivism, cardinality vs. ordinality, and mathematical formalism vs. verbal formalism. Both schools entrenched themselves in their views long ago. Nevertheless, this paper shows that discussing utility on common ground and on the basis of shared presumptions is not necessarily the melody of the future. The paper is concluded with recommendations on how the current dissent may be attenuated.

show abstract

Section: Other Trouble Spotsmentioning

confidence: 82%

Ecumenical foundations? On the coexistence of Austrian and neoclassical views on utility

Senderski

2014

IJPEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In response to this kind of criticism, there seem to be two positions among Austrians. The first is represented by Hülsmann (1999), who implicitly rejects Rothbard's approach and prefers to follow Mises in not being concerned with the shape of demand curves. What role then the LDMU plays in the theory, if not influencing the shape of the demand curve, is unclear.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Rothbardian demand: A critique

Hudík

2011

Rev Austrian Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The sentiment appears to 4 Kydland and Prescott (1991b: 164) would plead the case of the representative agent on this point: " [The Solow (1956) growth model] was not fully neoclassical, however, because the consumption-savings decision was behaviorally determined.....With the consumption-savings decision endogenized [by a representative agent] Solow's growth model becomes fully neoclassical with agents' maximizing subject to constraints and market clearing." Many Austrians, of course, would not accept this construct as "human reason and will causing certain action," e.g., see Hülsmann's (1999) critique of neoclassical economics as an attempt to "analyze how people act as a corollary or sequel of given circumstances" (5); rather than Austrian attempts to "explain the realized manifestation of human action... as a corollary of the nonrealized part" (5), i.e., purposes and foregone alternatives. Also of note, Rothbard's critique sounds similar to points raised in KP's advocacy of the GTA (see below).…”

Section: General Equilibrium Approach: Foundationsmentioning

confidence: 99%