In the comments on another thread, Arare asked me to list what I see as my top 3 publications and offer some reasons why, with the goal being a way to guide folks to what work of mine they should look at first. I think that's a great idea and I'd challenge my co-bloggers to do the same when they have a minute. So here's my list, which is actually five, and in no particular order. I have also not included books, just articles. I invite our well-read commentariat to tell me I'm full of crap.
1. “The Costs of Inflation Revisited,” Review of Austrian Economics, 16 (1), March 2003, pp. 77-95. Of all my macro/money stuff, this is the most well-developed part of the argument. I also like this paper because it starts with core Austrian insights and supplements it with important ideas from NIE and Public Choice. You can get the podcast version from FEE here.
2. “From The Sensory Order to the Liberal Order: Hayek's Non-rationalist Liberalism,” Review of Austrian Economics, 13 (1), March 2000, pp. 23-40. Not only did the original draft of this get me an unforgettable trip to the MPS meetings in Cannes, I think it's one of my most complete statements on Hayek. It's also one of my most cited pieces, especially by Very Important Scholars.
3. “From Smith to Menger to Hayek: Liberalism in the Spontaneous Order Tradition,” The Independent Review, 6 (1), Summer 2001, pp 81-97. Reprinted in The Challenge of Liberty: Classical Liberalism Today, Robert Higgs and Carl Close, eds., Oakland: Independent Institute, 2006. Another very well-cited paper and one that I'm especially proud of as I do think it offers a good overview of the spontaneous order tradition, locating Hayek and the Austrians in the longer-run development of both liberalism and the social sciences. It was also orginally given in 1999 as the Piskor Faculty Lecture here at SLU.
4. “Monetary Calculation and the Unintended Extended Order: The Misesian Microfoundations of the Hayekian Great Society,” Review of Austrian Economics, 17 (4), December 2004, pp. 307-21. Since Arare's question was raised in the discussion of Pete's Mises Institute post, this article is relevant in two ways. This was my SDAE presidential address and my attempt to respond to the "dehomogenization" arguments of Salerno and others. Presidential addresses are a good place to lay out a broad vision, and I tried here to make a statement about what I think Austrian economics is all about and why it's the economics of both Mises and Hayek. I wish this article would get more attention than it has.
5. “The Functions of the Family in the Great Society,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29 (5), September 2005, pp. 669-84. My recent foray into the economics and social theory of the family really begins here, with an attempt to lay out a Hayekian understanding of the role of the family in the Great Society/extended order. This paper, like the others, feels like a "complete statement" in a way that I'm very happy with, as well as being an original contribution to the literature on Hayek. (For the Austrian economics take on the family, see my paper with Peter Lewin here. That one gets honorable mention: “Heterogeneous Human Capital, Uncertainty, and the Structure of Plans: A Market Process Approach to Marriage and Divorce” (with Peter Lewin), Review of Austrian Economics, 21 (1), March 2008, pp. 1-21.)
One other honorable mention is this paper:
“Monetary Exchange as an Extra-Linguistic Social Communication Process,” Review of Social Economy, 50 (2), Summer 1992, pp. 193-214. Reprinted in Individuals, Institutions, Interpretations: Hermeneutics Applied to Economics, David L. Prychitko, editor, Aldershot, UK: Avebury Publishing, 1995, chapter 9, pp. 154-175.
So there you go. Pete, Pete, Chris, Frederic, and Dave can play too, and I'd be curious if people who know my work think differently.