Bureaucrates, interwiki, Administrateurs
3 471
modifications
Différences entre les versions de « Friedrich A. Hayek:The Hayekian Prism »
Friedrich A. Hayek:The Hayekian Prism (voir la source)
Version du 11 janvier 2009 à 11:19
, 11 janvier 2009 à 11:19aucun résumé de modification
| Ligne 6 : | Ligne 6 : | ||
|liens = [[:wl:Friedrich August von Hayek|Wikibéral]] | |liens = [[:wl:Friedrich August von Hayek|Wikibéral]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{titre2|The Hayekian Prism|Analyse de David Gordon|''Hayek's Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F.A. Hayek'', By Bruce Caldwell. University of Chicago Press, 2004. Xi + 489 pgs. }} | {{titre2|The Hayekian Prism|Analyse de David Gordon|''Hayek's Challenge: An Intellectual Biography of F.A. Hayek'', By Bruce Caldwell. University of Chicago Press, 2004. Xi + 489 pgs.}} | ||
<div class="text"> | <div class="text"> | ||
Bruce Caldwell has adopted a sensible strategy to cope with the formidable task he has set himself. Friedrich Hayek was not only one of the most eminent economists of the twentieth century, whose contributions ranged from capital and business cycle theory to the socialist calculation debate, his work in economics also led him to major contributions to political philosophy, the theory of knowledge, psychology, and history. How can an intellectual biographer of Hayek cope with this vast range of work? Must his breadth of knowledge rival Hayek's own, if he aims adequately to assess his subject's contributions? | Bruce Caldwell has adopted a sensible strategy to cope with the formidable task he has set himself. Friedrich Hayek was not only one of the most eminent economists of the twentieth century, whose contributions ranged from capital and business cycle theory to the socialist calculation debate, his work in economics also led him to major contributions to political philosophy, the theory of knowledge, psychology, and history. How can an intellectual biographer of Hayek cope with this vast range of work? Must his breadth of knowledge rival Hayek's own, if he aims adequately to assess his subject's contributions? | ||
Caldwell solves this problem through selection. Rather than attempt to follow Hayek on all his peregrinations, he chooses a few issues for analysis. The reader in search of an account of Hayek's capital theory, e.g., must go elsewhere; but the benefits in careful attention to detail that Caldwell's method allows outweigh its losses.1 | Caldwell solves this problem through selection. Rather than attempt to follow Hayek on all his peregrinations, he chooses a few issues for analysis. The reader in search of an account of Hayek's capital theory, e.g., must go elsewhere; but the benefits in careful attention to detail that Caldwell's method allows outweigh its losses.{{ref|1}} | ||
Caldwell begins with an account of Carl Menger's battle with the German Historical School. As he rightly discerns, a grasp of this controversy is essential to understanding Hayek's work. But one of his remarks surprises me. He states: "Given later developments, it is interesting that both Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises criticized the historical approach for its inability to produce predictions" (pp.96–97). Would it not be more accurate to say that Mises believed that the Historical School wrongly sought to substitute historical research for economic theory? Austrians contend that history, taken by itself, cannot generate theory: an Austrian would hardly then criticize the Historical School for failure to achieve an impossible goal. | Caldwell begins with an account of Carl Menger's battle with the German Historical School. As he rightly discerns, a grasp of this controversy is essential to understanding Hayek's work. But one of his remarks surprises me. He states: "Given later developments, it is interesting that both Carl Menger and Ludwig von Mises criticized the historical approach for its inability to produce predictions" (pp.96–97). Would it not be more accurate to say that Mises believed that the Historical School wrongly sought to substitute historical research for economic theory? Austrians contend that history, taken by itself, cannot generate theory: an Austrian would hardly then criticize the Historical School for failure to achieve an impossible goal. | ||
| Ligne 62 : | Ligne 62 : | ||
David Gordon covers new books in economics, politics, philosophy, and law for The Mises Review, the quarterly review of literature in the social sciences, published since 1995 by the Mises Institute. | David Gordon covers new books in economics, politics, philosophy, and law for The Mises Review, the quarterly review of literature in the social sciences, published since 1995 by the Mises Institute. | ||
[mailto:dgordon@mises.org dgordon@mises.org] | [mailto:dgordon@mises.org dgordon@mises.org] | ||
== Notes == | |||
<small># {{note|1}}Caldwell’s decision to ignore Hayek’s work on capital theory leads him to ignore at least one instance of material relevant to the topics he covers. In ''The Pure Theory of Capital'', Hayek has a most valuable discussion of how misleading terms can impede economic analysis.</small> | |||
</div> | </div> | ||
{{Friedrich A. Hayek}} | {{Friedrich A. Hayek}} | ||
[[wl:Hayek]] | [[wl:Hayek]] | ||