Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:32:12.766Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HAYEK THE APRIORIST?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2015

Scott Scheall
Scott Scheall*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University at the Polytechnic Campus, Science, Technology, and Society, Mesa, Arizona.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper argues that Terence Hutchison’s (1981) argument that the young F. A. Hayek maintained a methodological position markedly similar to that of Ludwig von Mises fails to support the relevant conclusion. The first problem with Hutchison’s argument is that it is not clear exactly what conclusion he meant to establish. Mises (in)famously maintained a rather extreme methodological apriorism. However, the concept of a priori knowledge that emerges from Hayek’s epistemology as implied in his work on theoretical psychology is the opposite of Mises’s treatment of a priori knowledge. Thus, it cannot be maintained—if, indeed, Hutchison meant to establish—that Hayek was a Misesian apriorist during the years in question. What’s more, the paper shows that Hutchison’s argument does not support a weaker interpretation of the relevant conclusion. There are alternative interpretations of Hutchison’s evidence, more charitable and more consistent with Hayek’s epistemology, which undermine Hutchison’s conclusion.

Type
Minisymposium
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 87 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Butos, William N. [1985] 1991. “Hayek and General Equilibrium Analysis.” In Wood, John Cunningham and Woods, Ronald N., eds., Friedrich A. Hayek: Critical Assessments. Volume IV. London: Routledge, pp. 102–117.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. 1988. “Hayek’s Transformation.” History of Political Economy 20, 4 (Winter): 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. [1988] 1989. “La Méthodologie de Hayek: Description, évaluation, et interrogations.” In Dostaler, G. and Ethier, D., eds., Friedrich Hayek: Philosophie, économie, et politique. Paris: Economica, pp. 71–85.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. 1992a. “Hayek the Falsificationist? A Refutation.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 10: 1–15.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. 1992b. “Reply to Hutchison.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 10: 33–42.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce. 2004. Hayek’s Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F. A. Hayek. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ebenstein, Alan. 2001. Friedrich Hayek: A Biography. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Hands, D. Wade. 2001. Reflection without Rules: Economic Methodology and Contemporary Science Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, John. 2009. “Machlup’s Misrepresentation of Hutchison’s Methodology.” Journal of Economic Methodology 16, 3 (Sept.): 325–340.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1931. Prices and Production. New York: Augustus M. Kelly.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1935a. “The Nature and History of the Problem.” In Hayek, F. A., ed., Collectivist Economic Planning. London: Routledge, pp. 1–40.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1935b. “The Present State of the Debate.” In Hayek, F. A., ed., Collectivist Economic Planning. London: Routledge, pp. 201–243.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1937. “Economics and Knowledge.” Economica 4, 13 (Feb.): 33–54.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1933] 1939. “Price Expectations, Monetary Disturbances and Malinvestments.” In Friedrich A. Hayek, Profits, Interest, and Investment. London: Routledge, pp. 135–156.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1941. The Pure Theory of Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1942–1944. “Scientism and the Study of Society.” Economica 9, 35 (Aug. 1942): 267–291; Vol. 10, 37 (Feb. 1943): 34–63; Vol. 11, 41 (Feb. 1944): 27–39.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1940] 1948. “The Competitive Solution.” In Hayek, Friedrich A., Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 181–208.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1943] 1948. “The Facts of the Social Sciences.” In Hayek, Friedrich A., Individualism and Economic Order. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 33–56.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1952a. The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of Theoretical Psychology. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1952b. The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1955. “Degrees of Explanation.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 6, 23 (Nov.): 209–225.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1964] 1967. “The Theory of Complex Phenomena.” In Hayek, F. A., Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 22–42.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1969] 1978a. “The Primacy of the Abstract.” In Hayek, F. A., New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 35–49.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1975] 1978b. “The Pretence of Knowledge.” In Hayek, F. A., New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 23–34.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1981. Letter (26 November) to Terence Hutchison. Hoover Institution, Hayek Archives, box 26, folder 8.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. [1920] 1991. “Contributions to a Theory of How Consciousness Develops.” Translated by Grete Heinz. Hoover Institution, Hayek Archives, box 92, folder 1.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1994. Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue. Edited by Kresge, Stephen and Wenar, Leif. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 2006. Die Sensorische Ordnung: Eine Untersuchung der Grudlagen der Theoretischen Psychologie. Translated by Streit, Manfred. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 2008. Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle. Translated by Kaldor, N. and Croone, H. M.. In Salerno, Joseph, ed., In Prices and Production and Other Works: F.A. Hayek on Money, the Business Cycle, and the Gold Standard. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, pp. 1–130.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Terence. W. 1938. The Significance and Basic Postulates of Economic Theory. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Terence. W. 1981. The Politics and Philosophy of Economics: Marxians, Keynesians, and Austrians. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Terence. W. 1988. “The Case for Falsificationism.” In De Marchi, Neil, ed., The Popperian Legacy in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–181.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Terence. W. 1992. “Hayek and ‘Modern Austrian’ Methodology: Comment on a Non-Refuting Refutation.” Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology 10: 17–32.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Terence. W. 1998. “Ultra-deductivism from Nassau Senior to Lionel Robbins and Daniel Hausman.” Journal of Economic Methodology 5: 43–91.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Terence. W. 2009. “A Formative Decade: Methodological Controversy in the 1930s.” Edited by Backhouse, R. E.. Journal of Economic Methodology 16, 3 (Sept.): 297–314.Google Scholar
Leonard, Robert. 2010. Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the Creation of Game Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Menger, Carl. 1963. Problems of Economics and Sociology. Edited by Schneider, L., translated by Nock, F. J. from the German Untersuchungen über die Methode der Sozialwissenschaften, und politischen Ökonomie inbesondere. Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. 1962. The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand and Co.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. 1966. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Fourth revised edition. Chicago: Contemporary.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. [1960] 1981. Epistemological Problems of Economics. Translated by Reisman, George. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Morgenstern, Oskar. 1928. Wirtschaftsprognose: Eine Untersuchung ikrer Voraussetzungen und Möglichkeiten. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Michael. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1934. Logik der Forschung. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Schulak, Eugen Maria, and Unterköfler, Herbert. 2011. The Austrian School of Economics: A History of Its Ideas, Ambassadors, and Institutions. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph. 1908. Das Wesen und der Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Weimar, Walter B., and Palermo, David S., 1982. Cognition and the Symbolic Process. Volume 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wieser, Friedrich. 1929. Gesammelte Abhandlugen. Edited by Hayek, F. A.. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr.Google Scholar