Heterodox
I have been thinking of posting a review of Quiggin's book, but this is not it. I suppose I should mention that I am in the acknowledgements. Jorge Besada raves at the Mises Institute. Peter Boettke on his blog. Tyler Cowen lists Quiggin's book in his current reading. Diane Coyle on her blog. David Gordon at the Mises Institute. Richard Holden at Inside Story. Arnold Kling on his blog. "hayekian" raves. Quiggin has a response to a couple of the above. By the way, he had a paper, in 1987, on public choice. I think any reviewer should note that Quiggin is extremely generous to Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt does not mention "opportunity cost". By focusing on this concept, Quiggin makes Hazlitt seem more coherent than he is. I agree with Quiggin that this coherence does not
Topics:
Robert Vienneau considers the following as important: Austrian School Of Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes Another Hayekian Triangle Not Supporting The Austrian School
Robert Vienneau writes Roger Garrison On The Inadequacy Of Hayekian Triangles
Robert Vienneau writes The Production Of Commodities And The Structure Of Production: An Example
Robert Vienneau writes The Production Of Commodities And The Structure Of Production
I have been thinking of posting a review of Quiggin's book, but this is not it. I suppose I should mention that I am in the acknowledgements.
- Jorge Besada raves at the Mises Institute.
- Peter Boettke on his blog.
- Tyler Cowen lists Quiggin's book in his current reading.
- Diane Coyle on her blog.
- David Gordon at the Mises Institute.
- Richard Holden at Inside Story.
- Arnold Kling on his blog.
- "hayekian" raves.
Quiggin has a response to a couple of the above. By the way, he had a paper, in 1987, on public choice.
I think any reviewer should note that Quiggin is extremely generous to Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson. Hazlitt does not mention "opportunity cost". By focusing on this concept, Quiggin makes Hazlitt seem more coherent than he is. I agree with Quiggin that this coherence does not require Hazlitt to think the economy is always in equilibrium. It is consistent with prices providing signals, that, when entrepreneurs act on them, move the economy towards equilibrium. It is not consistent, as Quiggin notes in his book, with the economy persisting for a long time within the production possibility frontier, without any tendency to more towards the frontier.
It is no answer to or review of Quiggin's book to rattle on about Keynesianism or the logically incorrect AustrianBusiness Cycle theory. One has to also address Quiggin's points about externalities, information asymmetries, and the continual redefinition of property rights.
Furthermore, a fair reviewer would note that Quiggin does not recommend a mechanical calculation of, say, taxes and subsidies to correct market failures. Although, I guess, he does not mention "government failure" in his book, his consideration of policies is a lot more nuanced than that.
Furthermore, if one thinks the theory of public choice provides an answer to Quiggin, one should note that Hazlitt does not discuss these matters. Hazlitt was a propagandist and, for decades, should have not been taken seriously.
As far as I know, public choice is an application of neoclassical economics. Gloria-Palermo and Palermo (2005), as I recall this paper, argues that the Hayekian argument about the coordinating function of market prices does not provide a welfare criterion alternative to Pareto efficiency. I think I have such criteria in focusing on conditions for the continued reproduction of society, as opposed to the efficient allocation of given resources. One can also point to the Veblenian dichotomy, between instrumental and ceremonial aspects of institutions, as well as to the pragmatism of John Dewey. If I do review Quiggin's book, I want to point out how it is too accepting of Neoclassicism, as well as where it points beyond.
Reference- Sandy Gloria-Palermo and Giulio Palermo (2005). Austrian economics and value judgements: A critical comparison with Neoclassical Economics. Review of Political Economy 17(1): 63-78.