Methodological Pluralism and the Austrian School of Economics?

One of our loyal and precocious readers has repeatedly asked for debate and contending theoretical perspectives.  I agree that an intellectual openness to alternative methods and theoretical perspectives would be healthy for the economics profession.  But I have always found the demand for pluralism to be completely inappropriate at the level of the individual.

At the level of the individual scientist, in their work as scientists, they have to commit themselves to an approach and pursue it doggedly even in the face of great doubt and resistence by one's peers.  Think of scholars in economics such as Jim Buchanan with public choice and rational choice political philosophy, or Hayek on the epistemic turn required in economics and political economy, or Vernon Smith and experimental economics.  One could also think of Paul Samuelson and mathematical economics.  All paradigmatic shifts in science are a result of the dogged commitment of individual scholars to a particular perspective methodologically and theoretically.  As Michael Polanyi points out in Personal Knowledge, science progresses through commitment by individual scholars and the contentious play between differently committed scholars in the 'republic of science'.

So pluralism is a by-product, not a cause of scientific progress.

Does that mean that a scholar should be blind to alternative perspectives?  No, but we should recognize that being "blind" does not imply that a scholar cannot make significant contributions.  A scholar can choose to ignore others in the pursuit of their scientific agenda.  In fact, as an empirical fact there are only so many hours in a day of work and if you are pursuing your own agenda you cannot focus on others and expect to get your work done.  Gary Becker once stated in front of me in response to a question about critics to his work that "When I was a young economist I replied once to a critic and it turned out to be completely unproductive so I have not replied to critics ever since."  BTW, readers of this blog will be interested to note that the exchange was between Becker and Israel Kirzner in the JPE in the 1960s.  Becker wasn't being 'dogmatic', he was being practical.  There is scarcity in his research time and he has to allocate that time efficiently.

Our concern with dogmaticism should not be focused at the level of the individual, but the community.  Science can progress, and in fact relies on, the dogged commitment of individuals to a perspective --- pursue that perspective to its logical ends, resist the naysayers, persist in the face of failure, etc.  But the community of scientists cannot be dogmatic if we expect progress to result.  Again, pluralism is something we should value in the community, but perhaps deplore at the level of the individual.  I say perhaps, because I think "lifetime learners" are the most exciting intellects to be around, but the most productive 'lifetime learners' I have ever been exposed to are focus on continually learning new things that relate to their unique perspective, not the overturning of their perspective.  The community does the overturning, the individual does the pursuit of a particular perspective to the end.

Now with regard to the specifics of the Austrian school.  I do think there should be a sense of respect for the contending perspectives in the tradition, but we all are forced at some point to make a choice of what perspective we are going to pursue in our economic work.  Unless, of course, we just want to be a historian of the Austrian school --- which means we give up on being an economic scientist as such, but instead become an intellectual historian.  The task of the intellectual historian is different than that of the economist (we sometimes in our Austrian school community forget this because we respect intellectual history and most of us do some work in that field and some of us never leave it).

The choice we are forced to make within the Austrian school for the doing of economics is what theoretical perspective provides the most productive one for the task before us.  A judgement call must be made as to who has the better argument, who is more sophisticated, who is going to help you do better economics and political economy.  In my own case, I have become more or less comfortable with the Mises-Hayek-Kirzner framework in economics and the Buchanan-Tullock-Ostrom perspective in politics and political economy.  It is not that I am unfamiliar with the Lachmann critique of Kirzner, or the Rothbardian critique of public choice and his natural rights perspective.   I respect both Lachmann and Rothbard, but I am more focused on how the perspective that I have developed can explain the problems which concern me as an economist --- the history and failure of socialism, the transition to capitalism, the failure of development planning, the exploration of mechanisms of self-governance, and the institutional configuration of a society of free and responsible individuals.

In my capacity as editor of the RAE, I have adopted a more pluralistic approach, but in my efforts as an economist I am more single minded in my pursuits.  There are different roles to be played within the republic of science.  But the most important role played is that of the doggedly committed because that is how science ultimately progresses.   The caretakers of the institutional framework of the republic of science --- the journal editors, the university administrators, the foundation heads, etc. --- must recognize the importance of both contending perspectives and the level of commitment required by any one scientist in the community to pursue truth as they see it.  It is just another case of the 'essential tension' that constitutes a vibrant scientific and scholarly community.

So it is my contention that pluralism is not a viable individual position for progress in science, but it is an important by-product of a free and open scientific community.  Another case of the principle "of human action, but not of human design."

Comments

[Mario Rizzo]

Pete is right!

[dglesvic]

Prof. Boettke,

I am glad that you are focused on the framework of Hayek and Mises, and would remind you of what it is.

Mises: "The idea underlying all inerventionist policies is that the higher income and wealth of the more affluent part of the population is a fund which can be freely used for the improvement of the conditions of the less prosperous. The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution. Every measure is ultimately justified by declaring that it is fair to curb the rich for the benefit of the poor.

In the field of public finance progressive taxation of incomes and estates is the most characteristic manifestion of this doctrine. Tax the rich and spend the revenue for the improvement of the condition of the poor, is the principle of contemporary budgets. In the field of industrial relations shortening the hours of work, raising wages, and a thousand other measures are recommended under the assumption that they favor the employee and burden the employer. Every issue of government and community affairs is dealt with exclusively from the point of view of this principle."

Hayek: "Redistribution" was "the crucial issue on which the whole character of future society will depend" and "it would be disingenuous to avoid discussing" it.

So, when are you going to discuss it?

[Peter Boettke]

Mr. Lesvic,

I have raised the issue ---

http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/11/redistribution.html

Pete

[dglesvic]

Prof. Boettke,

I raised the issue, after which you nodded to it, but never got past your nodding acquaintance with it.

If you want to allocate your time most productively, why all the discussion of whether or not to discuss redistribution rather than discussing it; if you want to stem the tide of statism, why concede its most fundamental assusmption, that taking from the rich to give to the poor reduces inequality?

[matthew mueller]

Another great post. I would agree (though certainly not with the enthusiasm Rizzo expressed) that science progresses through the dogged commitment of scholars working within a particular paradigm. But we have to be careful. While commitment to a research program makes possible the recognition of error, it does nothing to promote it. Scholars pursuing such a path often smell of dogma. They are averse to novelty and favor instead theoretical exercises that clearly spell out the legitimate areas of their science so that solutions to problems that concern them can always be anticipated in advance. This environment certainly does not encourage the discovery of anomalies. "Paradigm shifts" are the result of acts of resistance by younger generations, not those already committed to a particular course. Scientific progress depends on pluralism. If younger generations pursued their science with the same dogged commitment as their mentors, I doubt scientific progress would obtain at all.

In the aggregate, perhaps there is something to be said about the possibility of scientific progress with each individual doggedly pursuing a different paradigm. But the success of this argument depends on the quality of dialogue that exists between scientists of different stripes. And this is the point Polanyi tried to make. Jerry Gill wrote a great book entitled "The Tacit Mode" in which he discusses at length the meaning of Polanyi's work in this area. To summarize, our concern is not with objective truth, because that would imply that the human social context can be ignored, but instead with the acceptance, by the scientific community, of certain findings and statements. I would argue that the existence of a collection of dogmatic scientists does not guarantee the advancement of science. Respect for competing ideologies and a willingness to engage in dialogue are prerequisites to scientific progress. Again, these are characteristics that are not usually found among the doggedly committed. The younger generations are the engine of scientific progress.

There are of course time constraints, and one cannot learn everything. But someone who remains curious can certainly find the time to read widely. What I have found is that you can either read things that confirm what you already know, or read things that challenge what it is you think you already know. Lately, my reading list has focused on the latter.

Your posts are great, and I wish I could comment on every sentence, but I will end here. Thanks again for another great read!

[dglesvic]

Every day that you avoid the issue is one day closer to Hillarycare. So, when you get it, don't blame anyone but yourselves.

[Lesvic Junior]

If you do not pay attention to me Lesvic Junior, I shall stamp my feet and roll around on the floor screaming and leaving 1 line comments all over this blog.

So start paying attention to me because I am very very important and know more economics than Peter Boettke.

[dglesvic]

Make that more economics than anybody.

[Dick]

Wow! The modesty of this Lesvic fellow is truly staggering. You austrians must be real spineless to not ban him!

[dglesvic]

I thought you boys would like that one.