Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:14:38.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A RETROSPECTIVE LOOK AT “THE HAYEK STORY”: ROUNDABOUTNESS, STICKY CONSUMPTION, AND SEQUESTERED CAPITAL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2021

James E. McClure Open the ORCID record for James E. McClure [Opens in a new window] ,
David Chandler Thomas Open the ORCID record for David Chandler Thomas [Opens in a new window]  and
Lee C. Spector
James E. McClure
Affiliation:
James E. McClure, David Chandler Thomas, and Lee C. Spector, Ball State University.
David Chandler Thomas
Affiliation:
James E. McClure, David Chandler Thomas, and Lee C. Spector, Ball State University.
Lee C. Spector
Affiliation:
James E. McClure, David Chandler Thomas, and Lee C. Spector, Ball State University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Friedrich Hayek’s business cycle theory withered throughout the 1930s as he admitted that its underlying model of Böhm-Bawerkian roundaboutness was incomplete and inadequate. In 1934, Hayek started a two-volume book on capital theory, completing only one volume in 1941. Curiously, Hayek ([1941] 2009) cites John Hicks’s (1939) Value and Capital but not the financial measure of roundaboutness that Hicks suggested as a substitute for Böhm-Bawerkian roundaboutness. In 1967, in “The Hayek Story,” Hicks criticized the inexplicable lags. Hayek maintained his view that consumption was sticky and responded to Hicks with a mound-of-honey analogy. Nevertheless, Hayek maintained that his business cycle theory was fundamentally correct and continued to hope that others might someday discover a capital structure theory to undergird it. Toward fulfilling Hayek’s hope, we suggest augmenting the canonical stages of production with a sequestered-capital stage where products are invented, productized, and inventoried prior to launch, uncoordinated by observable prices.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 83 - 102
Copyright
© The History of Economics Society, 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For comments and criticisms on earlier drafts, we thank Roger Garrison and Steven Horwitz. Any remaining errors are ours.

References

REFERENCES

Boettke, Peter. 2017. Hayek’s Epistemic Liberalism. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/lm-hayek. Accessed 2019.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. [1889] 1959. “Positive Theory of Capital.” In Capital and Interest. Volume 2. South Holland: Libertarian Press, pp. 3–466.Google Scholar
Cachanosky, Nicholas, and Lewin, Peter. 2014. “Roundaboutness Is Not a Mysterious Concept: A Financial Application to Capital Theory.” Review of Political Economy 26 (4): 648–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cachanosky, Nicholas, and Lewin, Peter. 2018. “The Role of Capital Structure in Austrian Business Cycle Theory.” Journal of Private Enterprise 33 (2): 21–32.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce J. 1988. “Hayek’s Transformation.” History of Political Economy 20 (4): 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi. 2003. “The Hayek/Knight Capital Controvesy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time?” History of Political Economy 35 (3): 469–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Avi, and Harcourt, Geoffrey C.. 2003. “Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Theory Controversies?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (1): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Competitive Enterprise Institute. 2012. I, Pencil: The Movie. November. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE. Accessed July 5, 2018.Google Scholar
Curott, Nicholas, McClure, James, and Thomas, David Chandler. 2019. “Austrian Business Cycle Theory Redux: Integrating Sticky Consumption and Sequestered Capital.” Journal of Prices and Markets 7 (1): 68–91.Google Scholar
Foss, Nicolai. 1995. “More on ‘Hayek’s Transformation.’” History of Political Economy 27 (2): 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, Roger. 2001. Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of the Capital Structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Garrison, Roger. 2004. “Overconsumption and Forced Saving in the Mises-Hayek Theory of the Business Cycle.” History of Political Economy 36 (2): 323–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagemann, Harold, and Trautwein, Hans-Michael. 1998. “Cantillon and Ricardo Effects: Hayek’s Contributions to Business Cycle Theory.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 5 (2): 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Alvin, and Tout, Herbert. 1933. “Annual Survey of Business Cycle Theory: Investment and Saving in Business Cycle Theory.” Econometrica 1 (2): 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawtrey, Ralph G. 1931. Trade, Depression, and the Way Out. London: Longmans, Green and Company.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1928] 2012. “Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle.” In Salerno, Joseph T., ed., Prices & Production and Other Works of F.A. Hayek. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 3–130.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1929a. “Gibt es einen ‘Widersinn des Sparens’? Eine Kritik der Krisentheorie von W.T. Foster und W. Catchings mit einigen Bemerkungen zur Lehre von de Beziehungen zwischen Geld und Kapital.” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 1 (3): 125–169.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A.. [1929b] 2012. “The ‘Paradox’ of Saving.” In Salerno, Joseph T., ed., Prices & Production and Other Works of F.A. Hayek. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 133–187.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A.. [1931] 2012. “Prices and Production.” In Salerno, Joseph T., ed., Prices & Production and Other Works of F.A. Hayek. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 189–330.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1932a. “Money and Capital: A Reply.” Economic Journal 42 (166): 237–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1932b. “Trade Depression and the Way Out.” Economica 35: 126–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A.. [1934] 2012. “Preface to Second Edition.” In Salerno, Joseph T., ed., Prices and Production and Other Works of F.A. Hayek. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 191–196.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1936. “The Mythology of Capital.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 50 (2): 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A.. [1941] 2009. The Pure Theory of Capital. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1969. “Three Elucidations of the Ricardo Effect.” Journal of Political Economy 77 (2): 274–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A.. 1994. Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue. Edited by Kresge, Stephen and Wenar, Leif. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, John. 1939. Value and Capital. Glasgow: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, John. 1967. “The Hayek Story.” In Hicks, John, Critical Essays in Monetary Theory. Glasgow: Oxford University Press, pp. 201–215.Google Scholar
Jevons, William S. [1871] 1965. The Theory of Political Economy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank. 1935. “Professor Hayek and the Theory of Investment.” Economic Journal 45 (177): 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kresge, Stephen. 1994. “Introduction.” In Kresge, Stephen and Wenar, Leif, eds., Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, Inc., pp. 1–35Google Scholar
Lachmann, Ludwig. 1982. “The Salvage of Ideas: Problems of the Revival of Austrian Economic Thought.” Zeitschrift fur die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 138: 629–645.Google Scholar
Lachmann, Ludwig. 1986. “Austrian Economics under Fire: The Hayek-Sraffa Duel in Retrospect.” In Grassl, Wolfgang and Smith, Barry, eds., Austrian Economics: Historical and Philosophical Background. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press, pp. 225–242.Google Scholar
Lewin, Peter, and Cachanosky, Nicholas. 2018. “The Average Period of Production: The History and Rehabilitation of an Idea.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 40 (1): 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magliulo, Antonio. 2016. “Hayek and the Great Depression of 1929: Did He Really Change His Mind?” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23 (1): 31–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, James, and Thomas, David Chandler. 2017. “Explaining the Timing of Tulipmania’s Boom and Bust: Historical Context, Sequestered Capital, and Market Signals.” Financial History Review 24 (2): 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, James, and Thomas, David Chandler. 2018. “Can Sticky Consumption Cause Business Cycles?” Review of Austrian Economics 31 (1): 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClure, James, and Thomas, David Chandler. 2019. “Hayek’s Fan Simile: The Seeds of the Economy of Knowledge?” Journal of Private Enterprise 34 (3): 43–58.Google Scholar
Mill, James. 1826. Elements of Political Economy. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.li3qq6&view=1up&seq=39. Accessed November 19, 2020.Google Scholar
Skousen, Mark. 2005. Vienna & Chicago: Friends or Foes? Washington: Regnery Publishing.Google Scholar
Sraffa, Piero. 1932. “Dr. Hayek on Money and Capital.” Economic Journal 42 (165): 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar