Commensurability and beyond: from Mises and Neurath to the future of the socialist calculation debate

Mises' 'calculation argument' against socialism argues that monetary calculation is indispensable as a commensurable unit for evaluating factors of production. This is not due to his conception of rationality being purely 'algorithmic,' for it accommodates non-monetary, incommensurable values. Commensurability is needed, rather, as an aid in the face of economic complexity. The socialist Neurath's response to Mises is unsatisfactory in rejecting the need to explore possible non-market techniques for achieving a certain degree of commensurability. Yet Neurath's contribution is valuable in emphasizing the need for a balanced, comparative approach to the question of market versus non-market that puts the commensurability question in context. These central issues raised by adversaries in the early socialist calculation debate have continued relevance for the contemporary discussion

Two views on neutral money: Wieser and Hayek versus Menger and Mises

Neutral money plays a central role in contemporary macroeconomic theory, and is a live issue in recent monetary policy discussions. We challenge the opinion that Hayek’s writings on neutral money have been influenced by, and are similar to, the work of Menger and Mises. We show, first, the significant alternative influence of Friedrich von Wieser on Hayek’s work on the subject. Second, we rehabilitate a neglected method of monetary theorizing specific to Menger and Mises that rejects money neutrality both as a tool for investigating monetary phenomena and as the standard by which monetary regimes, and the market economy itself, should be evaluated. Examining this chapter in the history of economic thought can aid in a deeper reconsideration of the doctrinal foundations of modern monetary theory and policy

The halfway house: democracy, complexity, and the limits to markets in green political economy

The argument of the Austrian school of economists that markets are indispensable in the face of social and economic complexity is of defining importance for the modern day case for markets. The dominant paradigm in green political economy accepts this view, whilst proposing that markets be combined with a thick layer of democratic, non-market institutions to ensure environmental sustainability. Closer attention to the relationship between the Austrian and green arguments reveals important implications for both. The Austrian thesis raises significant challenges for the 'halfway house' combination of market and non-market that greens propose. Also, potential responses to the Austrians emerge from green thought. New light is shed upon the problem of complexity and the how it might be addressed by non-market political institutions

Modelling the US Federal Spending Process: Overview and Implications

The object of study is the US Federal budget process - an institutional process of increasing prominence in US and world affairs - which is unique in generating quantitative data for scholarly research. The authors first outline their rigorous, but simple, econometric models of how budget decisions are made, coordinated, and implemented and then trace the implications of their high-inertia view of the process for the US economic cycle. They propound a presidential and Congressional ambition model of current and postwar cyclical economic difficulties, including stagflation, in terms of a macroeconomic model of the US economy in which federal governmental expenditure is endogenous. The chapter concludes with speculation on the disastrous consequences for society of the growth of a sluggishly adaptable bureaucratic process operating in a rapidly changing economic and social environment

Neoliberalism, managerialism and the reconfiguring of social work in Sweden and the United Kingdom

This is the author's manuscript of an article published in Archaeological Dialogues. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508412448222This paper considers some of the ways in which neoliberalism, through the processes of managerialism, has impacted on the occupation of social work in Sweden and the UK. It is argued that there are similar implications in both countries, through the managerial drive for increased performance in economy, efficiency and effectiveness, but also in the development of evidence based practice. Whilst the key focus of the paper is on similarities between these two countries, differences are also noted. There is also recognition of the way in which resistance to the reconfiguration of social work is taking shape

Democratic equilibria: Albert Hirschman and workplace democracy

This paper clarifies the usage of Albert Hirschman’s categories of market behaviour as of exit and voice in debates about workplace democracy by taking seriously his critique of the neoclassical analysis of competition. Pro-market liberals are generally hostile to the idea of workplace democracy and tend to favour top-down hierarchies as a way of organising labour. This hostility is generally inspired by the neoclassical analysis of exploitation and efficiency, which leads them to defend distributions achieved through exit-based competitive equilibria. Following Hirschman, I propose to consider a hypothetical alternative: a democratic equilibrium, reached through the use of voice. I show that it would present the same appealing characteristics than its competitive counterpart while also accounting for the non-ideal conditions in which markets operate. Support for free markets should entail support for workplace democracy minimally understood as a strengthening of voice

Ludwig von Mises and the 'Ordo-Interventionists' More than Just Aggression and Contempt?

This paper explores the four decades of intellectual relationship between the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and two major representatives of German ordoliberalism, Walter Eucken (1891-1950) and Wilhelm Röpke (1899-1966). The timespan covered starts in the early 1920s and terminates with Röpke's passing in 1966, a period featuring numerous encounters in person and several debates in published works, accompanied by exchange in correspondence. The central goal of the paper is to provide a more nuanced understanding of the reasons for the hostile climate and the confrontation patterns than earlier narratives in secondary literature. A key tool is the technique of embedding the scholarly component of the interactions into a complex network of interpersonal relationships. The four decades are separated into five distinct phases with differently nuanced communication patterns: 1) early socialization echoing the animosities between the Austrian School and the Historical School; 2) initial debates in the 1920s and early 1930s on business cycle theory and policy where seniority and maturity play an important role; 3) clashes on political economy and social philosophy at the Colloque Walter Lippmann in 1938 and during the two initial decades of the Mont Pèlerin Society after 1947; 4) coexistence during the German "economic miracle"; 5) exchanges in the 1960s, including a discussion of archival materials never published before about Mises' only honorary doctorate in economics, awarded to him by the University of Freiburg in 1964. Based on this historical account at the heart of the paper, conjectures are formulated as to why - despite the common ground in the inquiries pursued - the protagonists continuously fail to engage in more fruitful scholarly debates, and hypotheses are formulated about the substantive core at stake. In addition, a critical overview of selected strands within the extensive historiographic literature exploring the Austrian School and ordoliberalism in recent decades is provided, including a specific reading of the concept of neoliberalism

Reflections on the entrepreneurial state, innovation and social justice

The state and its role in technological innovation and social justice have become, once again, fashionable topics of political and economic debate. A number of innovation theorists argue that never more than today, it is necessary to rethink the state’s entrepreneurial role in society and welfare. Their argument provides justification for the existence of the state, going beyond classical political theory and especially contractarian accounts of legitimacy and obligation. It emphasises the ability and willingness of the state to take risks and reduce uncertainty of economic agents for the sake of innovation that can make everyone better off. This paper insists that although the risk-taking argument of innovation theorists deserves further attention and analysis, it should not be abstracted from a holistic politico-theoretical approach to the state. Such an approach is necessary for a critical understanding of the complex set of predominantly political institutions which compose the state and which have been historically developed to guarantee social evolution. Any risk-taking for innovative enterprise and mission-oriented investment ought to be justified and legitimised on the grounds of principled democratic procedures. This implies that innovation itself is a value-laden political process, requiring participation in the decision-making and standards of fairness