Advertisement

The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 29–42 | Cite as

Why should Austrian economists be pluralists?

  • Robert F. GarnettJr.
Article

Abstract

Peter Boettke (2007) argues that economists need not act pluralistically in order for pluralism to thrive in the marketplace of economic ideas. From a market process perspective, Boettke sees intellectual diversity and openness as catallactic outputs, not inputs—emergent by-products of academic specialization and trade. To expect individual scholars to behave in a pluralistic manner is unnecessary and “completely inappropriate” since it detracts from their central task: “to commit themselves to an approach and pursue it doggedly, even in the face of great doubt and resistance by one’s peers” (Boettke 2007). This paper proposes a Smithian revision of Boettke’s position. The author argues that scholarly pluralism is best understood as a constitutional rule of academic life—a virtue ethic that promotes learning and intellectual freedom by mitigating tyranny and autarky in the republic of science. Drawing from the writings of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Deirdre McCloskey, Bruce Caldwell, James Buchanan, Don Lavoie, and Boettke himself, the author argues that scholarly pluralism has been, and continues to be, a necessary condition for the flourishing of Austrian economists as free, responsible, efficacious thinkers.

Keywords

Pluralism Marketplace of ideas Republic of science Epistemic virtue Weingast paradox Adam Smith Academic freedom 

JEL codes

A20 B40 B53 

Notes

Acknowledgment

A preliminary version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Development of Austrian Economics in Washington, DC, November, 2008. I would like to thank Peter Boettke, Ted Burczak, Emily Chamlee-Wright, Steve Horwitz, Roger Koppl, Alice MacLachlan, and Stephen Turner for their valuable questions and suggestions.

References

  1. American Association of University Professors. (1915). General declaration of principles. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  2. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2006). Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  3. Backhouse, R. E. (2001). On the credentials of methodological pluralism. In J. E. Biddle, J. B. Davis, & S. G. Medema (Eds.), Economics broadly considered: Essays in honor of Warren J. Samuels (pp. 161–181). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Balch, S. (2004). The antidote to academic orthodoxy. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(33), B7.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  6. Boettke, P. J. (1994). Storytelling and the human sciences. In P. J. Boettke & D. L. Prychitko (Eds.), The market process: Essays in contemporary Austrian economics (pp. 179–186). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  7. Boettke, P. J. (2004). Obituary: Don Lavoie (1950–2001). Journal of Economic Methodology, 11(3), 377–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boettke, P. J. (2007). Methodological pluralism and the Austrian School of Economics? http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/12/methodological.html. Accessed 18 November 2009.
  9. Boettke, P. J., & Leeson, P. T. (2004). Liberalism, socialism, and robust political economy. Journal of Markets and Morality, 7(1), 99–111.Google Scholar
  10. Buchanan, J. M. (1991). The economics and ethics of constitutional order. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  11. Caldwell, B. J. (1982). Beyond positivism: Economic methodology in the twentieth century. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  12. Code, L. (1987). Epistemic responsibility. Hanover and London: University of New England Press.Google Scholar
  13. Colander, D., Holt, R. P. F., & Rosser, J. B., Jr. (2004). The changing face of economics: Conversations with cutting edge economists. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Conant, J. B. (1956). The citadel of learning. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. De Langhe, R. (2009). Why should I adopt pluralism? In R. Garnett, E. O. Olsen, & M. Starr (Eds.), Economic pluralism (pp. 87–98). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Feyerabend, P. (1978). Science in a free society. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
  17. Fleischacker, S. F. (1999). A third concept of liberty. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fuller, S. (2000). Thomas Kuhn: A philosophical history for our times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Garnett, R. F., Jr. (2006). Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics. Review of Political Economy, 18(Fall), 521–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garnett, R. F., Jr., & Butler, M. R. (2009). Should economic educators care about students’ academic freedom? International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education, 1(1 and 2), 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harpham, E. J. (2000). The problem of liberty in the thought of Adam Smith. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22(2), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hayek, F. A. (1944). The road to serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Hayek, F. A. (1967). Studies in philosophy, politics and economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hoksbergen, R. (1994). Postmodernism and institutionalism: Toward a resolution of the debate on relativism. Journal of Economic Issues, 28(3), 679–713.Google Scholar
  25. Hutchison, T. W. (1960 [1938]). The significance and basic postulates of economic theory (2nd ed.). New York: Kelley.Google Scholar
  26. Keynes, J. M. (1964 [1936]). The general theory of employment interest and money. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Klein, D. B. (2008). Toward a public and professional identity for our economics. Econ Journal Watch, 5(3), 358–372.Google Scholar
  28. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Lavoie, D. (1995a). The market as a procedure for the discovery and conveyance of inarticulate knowledge. In D. Prychitko (Ed.), Individuals, institutions, interpretations: Hermeneutics applied to economics (pp. 115–137). Brookfield: Avebury.Google Scholar
  31. Lavoie, D. (1995b). The “objectivity” of scholarship and the ideal of the university. Advances in Austrian Economics, 2B, 371–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Madison, G. B. (1994). Hermeneutical integrity: A guide for the perplexed. In P. J. Boettke & D. L. Prychitko (Eds.), The market process: Essays in contemporary Austrian economics (pp. 201–211). Brookfield: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  33. McCloskey, D. N. (1985). The rhetoric of economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  34. McCloskey, D. N. (1994). Knowledge and persuasion in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCloskey, D. N. (1998). The rhetoric of economics (2nd ed.). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  36. McCloskey, D. N. (2000). How to be human—though an economist. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mill, J. S. (1956 [1859]) On liberty, edited with introduction by C. V. Shields. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  38. Mirowski, P. (2002). Machine dreams: Economics becomes a cyborg science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Morgan, M. S., & Rutherford, M. (Eds.). (1998). From interwar pluralism to postwar neoclassicism. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Nussbaum, M. C. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Oakeshott, M. (1959). The voice of poetry in the conversation of mankind. London: Bowes and Bowes.Google Scholar
  42. Otteson, J. R. (2002). Adam Smith’s marketplace of life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paul, R. (1999). Critical thinking, moral integrity, and citizenship: Teaching for the intellectual virtues. In B. A. Pescosolido & R. Aminzade (Eds.), The social worlds of higher education (pp. 128–136). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  44. Polanyi, M. (1951). The logic of liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  46. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City: Doubleday & Company.Google Scholar
  47. Polanyi, M. (1969). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. In M. Green (Ed.), Knowing and being: Essays by Michael Polanyi (pp. 49–72). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Popper, K. (1945). The open society and its enemies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Radnitsky, G. (1987). The “economic” approach to the philosophy of science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 38(2), 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ramstad, Y. (1995). John R. Commons’s puzzling inconsequentiality as an economic theorist. Journal of Economic Issues, 29(4), 991–1012.Google Scholar
  51. Richardson, A. W. (2006). The many unities of science: Politics, semantics, and ontology. In S. Kellert, H. Longino, & K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 1–25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  52. Roberts, R. C., & Wood, W. J. (2003). Humility and epistemic goods. In L. Zagzebski & M. DePaul (Eds.), Intellectual virtue (pp. 257–280). Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rorty, A. O. (1983). Experiments in philosophical genre: Descartes’ meditations. Critical Inquiry, 9, 545–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Rutherford, M. (2000). The prospects of heterodox economics: A comment. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22(2), 185–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Samuels, W. J. (1997). The case for methodological pluralism. In A. Salanti & E. Screpanti (Eds.), Pluralism in economics (pp. 67–79). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  57. Sen, A. K. (1997). Human rights and Asian values. Sixteenth Morgenthau Memorial Lecture on Ethics and Foreign Policy. New York: Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs.Google Scholar
  58. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, A. (1976) [1759] The theory of moral sentiments, D. D. Raphael, & A. L. Macfie (Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Smith, A. (1981) [1759] An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, R. H. Campbell, & A. S. Skinner (Eds.). Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  61. Weingast, B. (1995). The economic role of political institutions: Market-preserving federalism and economic development. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11(1), 1–31.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsTexas Christian UniversityFort WorthUSA

Personalised recommendations