December 2019

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 31        
Blog powered by Typepad

« Katharina Pistor on Law, Economics, Finance, and Getting Beyond Both the Autonomous Rational Actor Model and the Socially Embedded Actor Model | Main | The 2011 Nobel Prize in Economic Science »


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

Lots of stuff on institutions, networks, and agent-based modeling. All indications that mainstream economics is moving toward Austrianism.


I think you were ironic.

Thanks for passing this along, Pete.

Not at all. I truly believe that the main problem with Austrian economics is that it was literally decades ahead of its time. The rest of economic science is just now starting to catch up, mostly because there are now the tools to deal with economies as they truly are, and as Austrian economics has always understood economies to be: complex, self-organizing, agent-based processes.

I don't like a government entity, the NSF, being involved in soliciting these opinions. By their choices they help set the agenda. My own view is that while the stuff should be skimmed it would be wrong to pay a lot of attention to it. Why? First, you cannot predict the future course of knowledge (Popper and all that). Second, we are out of sync with most of these guys in terms of method. And I say: The medium is message.

FWIW, I had one of these NSF white papers, too, although it seems they did not classify it as "economics." Here's the link:

If find this statement made first by Hayek, and then later in Popper, although the idea is implicit in Popper:

"you cannot predict the future course of knowledge (Popper and all that)"

Hayek made this point in a paper attacking the planning and organization of scieintific research, made proposed by important British scientists:

"you cannot predict the future course of knowledge"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books