Pete Boettke blogs today on the upcoming debate between himself and Dan Klein about whether we should start calling Austrian economics by another name. (See below). Klein advocates renaming Austrian economics, "spontaneous order economics." It seems to me that Austrian economics encompasses more than examinations of spontaneous orders, so I'm not sure why we would want to call it this. Additionally, it seems odd to rename Austrian economics in light of the fact that it already has a name: Austrian economics.
But my purpose in this post is not debate the relative merits of alternative labels for what we do. On the contrary, I wanted precisely to note that it matters little what we label this. Who cares what we call Austrian economics? Certainly not anyone outside of Austrian economics.
What is important is getting on with the project of doing good economics, regardless of what it's called. I believe, and I would wager most readers of this blog do as well, that good economics is rooted in the ideas of Menger, Mises, Hayek, Buchanan, Tullock and other economists interested in analyzing the processes of exchange and the institutions within which that exchange takes place. So, let such thinkers be your inspiration and engage this kind of research actively.
Let others apply a name to the resulting style of economics pursued. Good economics characterized by certain commonalities among its practitioners is "labeled" by others, not by its practitioners. Mises and Hayek did not decide one day to name what they were doing "Austrian economics." The same is true for other schools of thought.
Sensibly, economists in question didn't care about what their research was called, or even distinguishing with a special name from the economics of others. They did what they saw as good economics, and labels were later applied to them by others once what they were doing was recognized by outsiders as important and meriting distinction.
What's in a name? Very little. And certainly not enough to justify spending time that could be spent doing good economics instead debating labels.
Comments