June 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad

« The Mises Institute Does Amazing Work | Main | Financial Innovation or Superfluous Discovery »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

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


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.


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.

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.

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

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!

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

“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.


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.


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.


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.


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.

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!

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

Steve Horwitz, Microfoundations and Macroeconomics (a BOOK!)


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.

Professor Horwitz,

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

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!

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.


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.

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?"

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").

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.

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:


The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books