Austrian School And Neoliberalism: A Compatible Match?

The Austrian School is a heterodox school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism, the concept that social phenomena result primarily from the motivations and actions of individuals along with their self-interest. Austrian-school theorists hold that economic theory should be exclusively derived from basic principles of human action. It is closely associated with advocacy of radical laissez-faire views, and is often regarded as a more laissez-faire tradition of classical liberal economics.

Neoliberalism is a political philosophy and economic philosophy that is often associated with a set of economic liberalization policies, including privatization, deregulation, consumer choice, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. These policies are designed to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.

Given that the Austrian School is closely associated with laissez-faire views, and neoliberalism is often associated with policies that increase the role of the private sector, it is possible for one to be a proponent of both the Austrian School and neoliberalism. However, it is worth noting that there are competing definitions of neoliberalism, and it is often used pejoratively.

Austrian School's methodological individualism

The Austrian School of Economics is a heterodox school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism. This concept, which can be traced back to the writings of Joseph Schumpeter, states that social phenomena are primarily the result of individual motivations, actions, and self-interest. In other words, economic theory should be derived from basic principles of human action.

The Austrian School originated in Vienna with the work of Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others. It was opposed to the Historical School, which focused on historical circumstances rather than economic theory. The Austrian School's methodological individualism can be contrasted with methodological holism, which focuses on societal groups rather than individuals. Defenders of methodological individualism claim that it is politically neutral, but it has been embroiled in politicized debates due to its use in discrediting historical materialism.

Max Weber introduced methodological individualism as a precept for the social sciences, stating that social phenomena must be explained by showing how they result from individual actions and the intentional states that motivate them. This approach privileges the action-theoretic level of explanation, as only individual actions are "subjectively understandable." Weber's commitment to methodological individualism is closely related to his interpretive patterns of explanation in sociology, emphasizing the importance of understanding individual motives.

Friedrich von Hayek, a prominent member of the Austrian School, elaborated on Weber's ideas. Hayek argued that the desire to emulate the physical sciences leads social scientists to avoid references to intentional states and instead focus on statistical correlations. He emphasized the importance of understanding the limitations of individual perspectives and the role of spontaneous order in economic phenomena. Hayek's work also highlighted the potential for collective action problems in groups, underscoring the value of methodological individualism in avoiding fallacies in social-scientific explanation.

Methodological individualism has been criticized for its lack of empirical data and rejection of model-building, mathematical, and statistical methods. Critics argue that it is a "lazy misreading" of Austrian economics and that the real dispute is about the usefulness of a priori knowledge in macroeconomics. However, supporters of the Austrian School believe that it provides a strong foundation for economic theory and understanding individual choice.

Austrian School's views on laissez-faire

The Austrian School of Economics is a heterodox school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism, the concept that social phenomena result primarily from the motivations and actions of individuals along with their self-interest. Austrian School theorists believe that economic theory should be exclusively derived from basic principles of human action.

The Austrian School originated in Vienna with the work of Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others. It was methodologically opposed to the Historical School, in a dispute known as the Methodenstreit, or methodology quarrel. The Austrian School owes its name to members of the German Historical School of Economics, who argued against the Austrians during the late 19th-century Methodenstreit. The Austrian School was one of three founding currents of the marginalist revolution of the 1870s, with its major contribution being the introduction of the subjectivist approach in economics.

The Austrian School is generally critical of state socialism and supporters of laissez-faire capitalism. Austrian economists argue that laissez-faire capitalism offers the most efficient method for distributing resources. They place the individual at the centre of their economic models and emphasise the importance of deducing models from people's individual behaviour.

Austrian economists have also supported monopoly power, arguing that firms that gain monopoly power demonstrate efficiency and success and should not be discouraged. This contradicts neoclassical theory, which tends to view monopolies as harmful. Austrian economists have also criticised Marxist analysis of economic distribution.

The Austrian School's views on laissez-faire are closely linked to their belief in methodological individualism and methodological subjectivism. They argue that social phenomena, such as economic distribution and resource allocation, are best understood by examining the motivations and actions of individuals, rather than focusing on aggregate variables or societal groups. Austrian economists emphasise the importance of individual freedom and oppose government intervention in the economy. They believe that individuals should be given full economic freedom to secure political and moral freedom and that government interference in markets leads to an extension of coercive state activities.

In summary, the Austrian School's views on laissez-faire are informed by their commitment to methodological individualism and subjectivism, their support for laissez-faire capitalism, and their criticism of state socialism. They believe that individuals should be free to act in their self-interest, as this will result in the most efficient distribution of resources and the greatest social benefit.

Neoliberalism's economic liberalization policies

Neoliberalism is a broad concept that encompasses several schools of thought, including the Austrian School, which is often regarded as a more laissez-faire tradition of classical liberal economics. While there are some overlaps and interactions between these schools, they also compete with each other in certain aspects.

The Austrian School of Economics is a heterodox school of economic thought that emerged in Vienna, Austria, in the late 19th century with the work of Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, and others. It is characterised by its strict adherence to methodological individualism, which posits that social phenomena primarily result from the motivations, actions, and self-interest of individuals. Austrian theorists argue that economic theory should be derived solely from basic principles of human action.

One of the key figures in the Austrian School is Friedrich Hayek, who shared the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Hayek's work contributed to the revival of laissez-faire thought in the 20th century and played a significant role in the development of neoliberalism. However, within the Austrian School, there are differing views on political theory, with some economists, such as Walter Block, considering libertarian political theory as an integral part of the school, while others, like Hayek, hold more moderate views.

The Austrian School has a distinct approach to economic liberalisation policies compared to other schools of neoliberalism. Austrian economists emphasise the dynamic and perpetually disequilibrated nature of the economy, rejecting the neoclassical view of the economy as an equilibrium system. They advocate for radical laissez-faire policies, emphasising the importance of private property and entrepreneurship in economic development, and often viewing government intervention in market processes as counterproductive.

Austrian economists also differ from their neoclassical counterparts in their methodological approaches. They reject empirical methods and mathematical modelling, instead focusing on deductive reasoning and a priori knowledge. They argue that economic theory can be logically deduced from the axiom of "human action," which recognises the presence of conscious beings using reason to achieve subjective goals. This sets them apart from schools like the Chicago School, which embraces model building and empirical testing.

In summary, the Austrian School's economic liberalisation policies are characterised by their commitment to laissez-faire principles, methodological individualism, and a priori economic theory. They emphasise the dynamic nature of the economy and the importance of private property and entrepreneurship. However, there are differing views within the school regarding the role of government intervention and political theory.

Neoliberalism's political policy aspects

Neoliberalism is a political philosophy and economic ideology that emerged in the 1930s as a response to the perceived decline in popularity of classical liberalism. It is associated with a set of economic liberalization policies, including privatization, deregulation, consumer choice, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. Neoliberalism is oriented towards the establishment of institutions and is inherently political in nature, extending beyond mere economic considerations.

Neoliberal policies center around economic liberalization, including reductions to trade barriers and other policies meant to increase free trade, deregulation of industry, privatization of state-owned enterprises, reductions in government spending, and monetarism. Neoliberal theory contends that free markets encourage economic efficiency, economic growth, and technological innovation, while state intervention is believed to worsen economic performance.

Neoliberalism emphasizes economic and political freedom, arguing that they are inextricably linked. Milton Friedman, a prominent neoliberal thinker, claimed that centralized control of economic activities is always accompanied by political repression. In his view, the voluntary nature of transactions in a market economy and the diversity of choices available pose fundamental threats to repressive political leaders. Through the elimination of centralized economic control, economic power can be separated from political power, creating a system of checks and balances.

Neoliberalism strongly advocates for free trade, arguing that it promotes economic growth, reduces poverty, maximizes consumer choice, and is essential for freedom. Neoliberals believe that protectionism harms consumers, incentivizes resource misuse, distorts investment, stifles innovation, and props up certain industries at the expense of consumers and other industries.

Monetarism, an economic theory commonly associated with neoliberalism, focuses on the macroeconomic aspects of the money supply and advocates for central banks to maintain price stability, even at the cost of other macroeconomic factors. Monetarist policies have been credited with ending high inflation in the US during the 1970s and 1980s, but have also been criticized for causing job losses.

Neoliberalism has faced criticism from academics, journalists, and activists across the political spectrum. Critics argue that neoliberal thinking prioritizes economic indicators like GDP growth over social factors such as labor rights and access to education. This focus on economic efficiency can compromise social goods and promote exploitation and social injustice. Additionally, some critics allege that neoliberal policies produce economic inefficiencies by privatizing government-owned monopolies, leading to reduced economies of scale.

In conclusion, neoliberalism is a political and economic ideology that emphasizes free-market principles, economic liberalization, and reduced government intervention. While proponents argue that neoliberal policies encourage economic efficiency and growth, critics highlight their negative social impacts and potential for exacerbating inequality.

Neoliberalism's critics and opposition

Neoliberalism has faced a lot of criticism from academics, journalists, religious leaders, and activists from both the political left and right. Some of the most common criticisms of neoliberalism are:

• Undermining democracy: Neoliberalism is criticised for prioritising economic indicators like GDP growth and inflation over social factors that might not be easy to quantify, like labour rights and access to higher education. It is also said to undermine democracy by increasing economic inequality, which in turn undermines democratic control.
• Economic irrationality: Critics argue that neoliberalism has an undeserved "faith" in the efficiency of markets, in the superiority of markets over centralised economic planning, in the ability of markets to self-correct, and in the market's ability to deliver economic and political freedom.
• Increased economic inequality: Critics argue that neoliberalism has led to a growth in economic inequality and exacerbated global poverty.
• Corporations gaining too much power: Neoliberalism is criticised for giving corporations too much power, which can then be used to subvert the will of the people.
• Harming workers' rights: Critics argue that neoliberalism harms workers' rights and causes economic instability.
• Anti-democratic: Critics argue that neoliberalism is anti-democratic and can lead to exploitation and social injustice.
• Adverse impact on public services: Critics argue that advocating for a free-market approach in areas such as health and education is misguided because these services are public services and not subject to the same profit motivation as other industries.
• Increased financial instability: Critics argue that capital deregulation, contrary to what proponents of neoliberalism claim, has not helped economic development but has instead led to an increase in financial instability.

Frequently asked questions