Horwitz's 3 (well 5 or 6 or 7) Best and Why

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.

Comments

[Neel]

My favorite Horwitz papers are 4), 2) and "Beyond Equilibrium Economics".

[Peter Boettke]

Steve,

All good choices. But I was surprised you didn't list your JHET paper, which I think of as the best discussion of the link between monetary disequilibrium theory and the Austrian theory of the business cycle --- and which forms the basis of your excellent book; obviously (1) and (4) touch on this subject as well, but I think that JHET paper is outstanding.

Pete

[Pete]

All of these are great. But I also want to second Pete B.'s vote for the JHET paper, which deserves a spot on the list too.

[Roger Koppl]

I support Pete's comment on the JHET paper, Steve. On the old thread I nominated it as one of your top 3. You should also give an honorable mention to "monetary calculation and the extension of social cooperation into anonymity." Great stuff that, IMHO.

[Roger Koppl]

BTW: I know it's a cliche, but my best paper is always my next paper.

[Steve Horwitz]

I thought about including the JHET paper, but I figured that was all encompassed by the book, and since I wasn't going to do the books... But okay, I do like that paper a lot too!

[Ludwig van den Hauwe]

Can someone remind me of the exact and complete reference to the JHET paper? Thanks!

[Steve Horwitz]

“Capital Theory, Inflation, and Deflation: The Austrians and Monetary Disequilibrium Theory Compared,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 18 (2), Fall 1996, pp.287-308. Reprinted in The Legacy of Friedrich von Hayek, Vol III: Economics, Peter J. Boettke, ed., Cheltenham UK: Edward Elgar, 2000.

http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/Papers/Monetary_JHET_1996.pdf

[Roger Koppl]

Okay, I’m caving into my vanity and giving my top 3 articles, as Arare Litus requested on an earlier thread. Make that top 4. I don’t know which of the following to delete.

1. “Austrian Economics at the Cutting Edge,” Review of Austrian Economics, 2006, 19(4):231-241.

http://alpha.fdu.edu/~koppl/sdae.doc

This article gives my overview of Austrian economics and might be the best start if you want to know how I think.

2. “The Varieties of Subjectivism: Keynes and Hayek on Expectations,” with William Butos, History of Political Economy, 1997, 29(2): 327-359.

http://ideas.uqam.ca/ideas/data/Papers/wpawuwpmh9505001.html

This paper with Bill Butos has been cited a good bit. We give a Hayekian theory of expectations and say why it beats Keynes. Several defenders of Keynes have risen up to strike us down in the journals.

3. “Big Players and Herding in Asset Markets: The Case of the Russian Ruble,” with Leland Yeager, Explorations in Economic History, 1996, 33(3): 367-383.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0014498396900200

This is the beginning of my Big Players project. It, too, has been cited a fair bit. I think our readers have not quite realized that the theory of Big Players is a theory of the state of confidence. Thus, it competes directly with Minsky and other Post Keynesian authors who are, I think, getting more attention lately.

4. “How to Improve Forensic Science,” European Journal of Law and Economics, 2005, 20(3): 255-286.
http://129.3.20.41/eps/le/papers/0503/0503001.pdf

This is my opening statement on forensic science. Mostly, I’m trying to work on these themes today. For more, please click the “Research” button on my institute’s webpage: hppt://www.fdu.edu/ifsa. IMHO, liberal and libertarian scholars should pay more attention to the criminal justice system, which the where the state-power rubber meets the civil-liberties road.

I list these as “my” articles, but you never do anything alone. Butos and Yeager are co-authors. Both scholars have been huge influences. Bill and I have co-authored several things. My co-authors Dick Langlois and Barkley Rosser are also haunting this list. Plus a whole bunch of other people!

[Steve Horwitz]

Koppl's #2 is a terrific piece and very undercited and underappreciated among even sympathetic Austrians.

[Mario Rizzo]

Steve Horwitz, Microfoundations and Macroeconomics (a BOOK!)

http://www.amazon.com/Microfoundations-Macroeconomics-Austrian-Perspective-Foundations/dp/0415197627

[Dave Prychitko]

Mario is onto something here. I'd find it more interesting if others would offer what they think are Steve's and Rogers three best papers.

[Brian Pitt]

Professor Horwitz,

It is simply a crime that you did not include: "Is the Family a Spontaneous Order?"

[Steve Horwitz]

Thanks Brian. For those who want to see that one, it's here:

“Is the Family a Spontaneous Order?” Studies in Emergent Order, 1, 2008, available at: http://www.studiesinemergentorder.com/Fall08/8_SIEO_Vol1_2008_Horwitz.pdf

Sometimes I forget to please the sociologists in the audience!

[John Singleton]

I liked "Liberalism in the Spontaneous Order Tradition." Recently cited it for a writing assignment.

Steve, I really think you're onto something important in "Spontaneity and Design in the Evolution of Institutions: The Similarities of Money and Law" as well.

[Lee Kelly]

Steve,

Although I have only sampled so far, this is very good stuff. Deep down, I think most people are full of crap, including myself, and yet, you do not seem to be full of crap. That's high praise from me!

From my brief perusal, I suddenly have a strong desire have a long conversation with you. That would be very interesting, I think. I am especially interested in your paper about Hayek's sensory order. Very few people seem to appreciate just how deep Hayek's thoughts went: he was hardly economist, but more an evolutionary epistemologist with an interest in economics. Hayek's ideas were more revolutionary than even most of his admirers comprehend.

[Josh Hendrickson]

Steve and Roger,

I agree with your picks, but I would like to offer a couple comments.

Steve, I know that you don't want to list books, but I think that you are doing yourself a great disservice by not including Microfoundations and Macroeconomics. The book is excellent because it blends Steve's own unique work with that of other authors such as George Selgin and Larry White on monetary theory/banking/productivity norm; Roger Koppl and Bill Butos on expectations; Leijonhufvud and Yeager on monetary disequilibrium; and countless others.

Roger's book on Big Players should also be on his list. The book does an excellent job of developing the theory (and the foundations of the theory) and then presenting careful and meaningful empirical analysis. Roger also does a great job of placing this theory within the context of Hayekian versus Keynesian expectations.

I would echo the point that "The Varieties of Subjectivism" deserves greater appreciation, but I must mention that the greatest title of a Roger Koppl paper is "Hayek and Kirzner at the Keynesian Beauty Contest" (with Bill Butos).

Finally, I would like to see Pete Boettke's list as well. Of course, it has to include "Where Did Economics Go Wrong?"

[Arare Litus]

I would like to see everyone's list on the mast head - this is a great way for people to get into the Austrian literature and see how things are done. There seems to be either very elementary accounts which can get people interested but doesn't go very far, the core curricula (i.e the big books used for inspiration & deep study), and the current literature. The current literature shows how things are being done and how one actually applies the mindset to interesting problems, and is hard to break without a lowering of transaction costs... (such as peoples "top lists").

[libertyfirst]

It has been a great idea to write these lists... I too think that GMU Austrian economics is harder to find, so that a 360° view of modern AE is difficult to get.

[Steve Horwitz]

In case I didn't post this, or folks didn't figure it out, here's the page with links to a number of my pubs:

http://myslu.stlawu.edu/~shorwitz/Papers/pubs.htm