I just returned from my first trip to Italy. It was a very short trip and I didn't get to see much of the county. I was there for a conference sponsored by the Institut Bruno Leoni. I was extremely thrilled that I took the time out from my time in London to travel to this conference.
Now, Sophia Loren was not there, but there was a female invasion of economic research that I will talk about shortly. But first let me talk about the conference and the Institut that sponsored the conference. This was the 3rd annual Ludwig von Mises Seminar sponsored by the Institut Bruno Leoni. When I agreed to do this conference I knew I would be commenting on a paper by Maja Drakic of Montenegro, who I have had the pleasure of working with at the Mercatus Center. Maja is an intelligent and energetic young scholar so I was very happy to attend. Maja's paper was on "Privatization in Economic Theory" which I think will eventually be a very strong paper. Maja's paper basically argues that neoclassical theory does not help us much in understanding the subtle issues associated with privatization in the post-communist situation. Rather than neoclassical theories of optimization and efficient allocation of resources, Maja argues that the Austrian theory of economic calculation and spontaneous order, as well as the Coasean and subsequent Alchian/Demsetz theory of property rights, and finally public choice analysis of government are required to provide the framework for the analysis of privatization.
My comments were limited to four areas: (1) Conceptual issues, which I divided into (i) meta-level interpretation --- legal positivism versus common-law traditions, and (ii) micro-level concepts --- Tullock's transitional gains trap, and McChesney's public choice analysis of inefficient property rights assignments; (2) Empirical puzzles that result from the different forms of privatization that were followed in East and Central Europe and the former Soviet Union --- voucher; management-employee buyouts; and direct sale of assets [ both voucher and management-employee buyouts did not help produce positive growth rates in the period 1990-2002, while countries that pursued direct sale of assets actually experienced positive (though modest) growth rates]; (3) Conceptual answers to the empirical puzzle; and (4) Implications for the economic theory of privatization with a particular emphasis on Steve Pejovich's insight on the "interactionist thesis" from his Review of Austrian Economics paper "Its the Culture Stupid." I am looking forward to continue reading Maja's work in this and other areas.
But Maja was not the only impressive young scholar presenting her work. In fact, I found all the papers very refreshing. They were informed by the Austrian tradition and classical liberal thinking, they were clearly written and forcefully argued and they were all exercises in applied political economy. And they were all written by young FEMALE economists. The papers exhibited a thorough knowledge of the subject under examination and a great willingness to dig deep into the details of the issue. For example, Maria Kilmas of the University of Guelph (as student of Glen Fox) did an excellent job with her presentation on "Managing Nutrients with Property Rights" which addressed policy debates in Canada on the issue. Maria de la Luz Domper R. also did an excellent job with her paper on "The Privatization of Water and Sewage Companies in Chile" --- again exhibited a willingness to dig deep into the details of the subject.
I have reserved for last a paper by Claudia Williamson and Carrie Kerekes. It wasn't until I saw Claudia present this paper that I realized why Israel Kirzner always took such a special interest in my development as a scholar starting when I was in graduate school working with Don Lavoie. See Don Lavoie was Israel's first student that wrote exclusively in the field of Austrian economics, and Israel was extremely proud of Don's thesis "Rivalry and Central Planning". Israel would often tell me I was his "grandstudent" because he was Don's "doctoral father" and Don was mine. I somehow always understood the value of intellectual lineage --- I am very conscious and proud that I also did my undergraduate studies with Hans Sennholz (Mises's first PhD student in the US) -- but I never expected to have a certain affection for the students of my former students. But watching Claudia present her paper with Carrie and seeing her develop an argument in a way which reflected the multiple discussions I had with Pete Leeson (her teacher) over the years he studied with me, led to a sense of accomplishment that I hadn't expected. Claudia and Carrie's work is extremely well done and reflects an excellent command of the theoretical literature and empirical techniques required to address the topic in a persuasive manner. I think their paper will find a good journal home after some revisions and perhaps the inclusion of a case study of the failure of Hernando de Soto's condification of informal property rights. Anyway, Claudia did an outstanding job presenting. The work that Claudia and Carrie are doing is great stuff and I encourage everyone to check out the work.
Back to the seminar --- the audience included Vito Tanzi (the great empirical economist from the IMF who did a major study on the growth of governemnt in the 20th century that I often use), Alex Chafuen of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, and several economists from the Prague University of Economics (one of my favorite schools in the world for high quality economic education and policy relevant research in political economy). When I used to teach in the program for the Fund for American Studies at Charles University in Prague, one of my favorite aspects of that job was the time I got to spend with Josef Sima and Dan Stastny --- two men who are as bright and committed to the cause of economic education and liberal economic policy as you will ever find throughout the world. I had no idea they would be there and as when I saw them I was elated. Josef is the department chair of the economic policy division, and Dan is the Vice Dean of Academic Affairs, and they both work at the Liberali Institut in Prague as well. They are in my opinion, the most consistent and best voices for sound economics in East and Central Europe.
The discussants for the papers were Kendra Okonski --- a dynomo of an economic policy activitist (I haven't seen her since she was just graduated from Hillsdale, and it was great to see her doing so well professionally and personally --- and with baby due in January), Jean Pierre Centi of the University of Aix-en-Provence, and Stephen Littlechild of Cambridge University. The moderators for the events were Marco Bassani of the Univeristy of Milan and Alberto Mingardi of IBL. Both men possess both great intelligence and wit --- I hope to meet them again soon and spend more time with them.
Now lets come back to the Institut Bruno Leoni. The seminars they are running are simply amazing and should provide a model. They encourage young scholars to present their work, they have more established scholars discussing their work, and they are among the most gracious hosts I have ever been exposed to. And let me stress something again ... they were amazingly entrepreneurial in finding five outstanding young female economists: Maria Kilimas, Claudia Williamson, Carrie Kerekes, Maja Drakic, and Maria de la Luz Domper R.
What a fitting tribute to Mises and to Bruno Leoni.
They know how to do things in Italy. This was demonstrated by the third annual conference of the Association des Historians de la Tradition Economique Autrichienne, held in May 2001 in the Tuscan cities of Pisa and Lucca.The book is dedicated to the late Don Lavoi who wrote the keynote paper but did not live to deliver it.The Austrians have been accused of spending too much effort on philosophy and methodology and not enough on research and applied development ofAustrian theory. This collection looks like a telling rejoinder to that criticism
Markets, Information and Communication: Austrian Perspectives on the Internet Economy edited by Jack Birner and Pierre Garrouste, published byRoutledge, 2004, in the Foundations of the Market Economy series, edited by Mario J Rizzo and Lawrence H White. Hardback, 320 pp, index.
This sounds like the conference of dreams. Thanks to Raimundo Cubeddu of the Uni of Pisa the accommodation was the Royal Victoria Hotel, favoured holiday address of many European Royal Families. Locations for the sessions included the spectacular town hall of the ancient fortified city of Lucca. Meals were taken at a series of carefully chosen restaurants. Adverse comparisons with the Popper conference in Vienna spring to mind. This was the first conference of the Association to be held outside France and I am advised that the association is now defunct so there is not likely to be another conference in the near future.
For a summary of the papers
http://oysterium.blogspot.com/2005/11/collection-of-austrian-research-papers.html
Posted by: Rafe | October 08, 2006 at 07:43 PM