The* Historical school of economics does not enjoy the best reputation among present-day economists, but especially the Austrian school appears to be out of sorts with its former adversary in the Methodenstreit. It seems fair to say that David Gordon’s (1996, p. 7ff.) account, according to which the members of the Historical school bluntly rejected economic laws like the principle of supply and demand, is generally accepted among Austrian scholars today. In the English-speaking world, Friedrich von Hayek, Joseph Schumpeter, and Ludwig von Mises are mainly responsible for this state of affairs (Hodgson 2010, p. 296; Grimmer-Solem and Romani 1998, p. 268).

I do not try, in this chapter, to overturn this negative judgment. However, I would like to point out that there are some elements in the body of Austrian Economics that definitely stem from the Historical school. Surprisingly, the Historical school acts as the model for Mises’s capital concept and, by implication, for his economic calculation argument against socialism. Mises’s discussion of the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism does not, or not only, rest upon praxeological reasoning. In fact, the same praxeological laws apply in both capitalism and socialism. In order to make his case, Mises has to presuppose several historical institutions that only exist in developed and monetized market economies. In this context, he draws on concepts developed by the Historical school. It was not necessary for him to acknowledge his debt to this school — and possibly he was not even aware of it — because he could act on the authority of Carl Menger, at least regarding the capital concept they both employed. Carl Menger himself, however, derived the capital concept on which Mises would later rely directly from Richard Hildebrand, a member of the Historical school. Like in monetary theory (see Gabriel 2012, p. 41), the influence of the Historical school on Mises concerning capital theory was an indirect one — via Menger.

The present chapter starts, in section 2, with a short presentation of how Menger, in 1888, changed his point of view on capital, and continues, in section 3, with the demonstration that Menger, in adopting the new and different view, made a step toward the Historical school. Section 4 traces this historical point of view on capital in Ludwig von Mises’s writings. It cannot be said that section 5 demonstrates, once and for all, that Mises implicitly admitted that economics is, in some sense, a historical science. But it tries to indicate the difference he made between praxeology and economics. The former he calls the general theory of human action, but the latter he does not consider to be entirely free from historical preconditions. Finally, section 6 contains a short discussion of Albert Schäffle’s analysis of economic calculation as a central institution of capitalism. Apparently, Mises argument against the feasibility of socialism was at least foreshadowed by a member of the often ridiculed Historical school.

Carl Menger on Capital

Carl Menger changed his point of view on capital theory considerably between 1871 and 1888 (Schumpeter 1997, p. 187; Braun 2014). He did not discuss capital very deeply in his Principles (Stigler 1937, p. 248), but to the extent he did, he advocated a capital theory that is concerned with production. His capital theory was connected to his vision of the production process as divided into several successive stages, where consumer goods result from the successive processing of combinations of higher-order goods to lower-order goods. Menger (1871, p. 155) says that one possesses capital if one “already has command of quantities of economic goods of higher order … in the present for future periods of time.” By adding this aspect to production theory and associating it with capital theory, he laid the groundwork for Austrian capital theory as developed by Böhm-Bawerk (1930), Friedrich von Hayek (1941), and Ludwig Lachmann (1978).

It is seldom recognized that by 1888 Menger had changed his view. In a long article on the subject — Zur Theorie des Kapitals (A Contribution to the theory of capital) — Menger proposed a radically different vision of the scope of capital theory. Streissler (2008, p. 371) is of the opinion that, by writing his article, Menger only made a prepublication attempt to refute the theory of Böhm-Bawerk. However, it seems more probable that Menger turned against all capital theories — including his own one — which have been developed by economists in disregard of everyday language use and established business practices. At the very outset, he declares that it is

a mistake that cannot be disapproved of enough when a science … denotes completely new concepts by words that, in common parlance, already describe a fundamentally different category of phenomena — a category that is also important for the respective discipline — correctly and properly (Menger 1888, 2).

It could be suggested that he was referring mainly to Böhm-Bawerk’s theory in this quote. However, there is every indication that Menger also implicitly revoked his earlier point of view. For the common parlance concept of capital is not identical with his own one from the Principles at all. In Menger’s (1888, p. 37; emphasis added) words, the common parlance view has nothing to do with the production process or the different orders of goods:

When businessmen and lawyers speak about capital, they do mean neither raw materials, nor auxiliary materials, nor articles of commerce, machines, buildings and other goods like this. Wherever the terminology of the Smithian school has not already penetrated common parlance, only sums of money are denoted by the above word.

He hastens to add that capital only embraces sums of money that are dedicated to the acquisition of income, and that “sums of money” not only refers to plain money, but to the monetary value of all kinds of business assets in economic calculation.

Menger thus switched sides in a debate that seems to be as old as economics itself. Does the term “capital” refer to a production factor or does it refer to the organization of the market economy by calculating entrepreneurs who maximize the monetary yield on their financial capital? At a first glance, the distinction between these two viewpoints does not seem to create a great problem. To give an example, even Mises (1949, p. 260 ff.) contains traces of both concepts of capital. He reserved the plain term “capital” for the economic calculation of entrepreneurs but, for lack of a better term, he referred to the produced goods of higher orders as “capital goods.” The next section will demonstrate, however, that the two sides of the term capital do not fit together harmoniously; rather they roughly correspond to the two sides of the Methodenstreit between the Austrian and the Historical school of economics. Menger’s earlier concept was elaborated to Austrian capital theory, whereas his concept of 1888 turns out to be the one endorsed by the Historical school.

The Historical School as the Source of Menger’s Later Viewpoint on Capital

The first thing that must be mentioned is that Gustav Schmoller, Menger’s principal opponent in the Methodenstreit, was quite happy with Menger’s later standpoint on capital theory. In his Grundriß der allgemeinen Volks-wirtschaftslehre, Schmoller (1904, p. 180; emphasis added) appreciated Menger’s step toward the common parlance concept of capital:

Where one has provisions of goods in mind that technically serve further production, one may also use the term capital; often it will be better to say acquisitional wealth. All in all it seems to me to be the right thing to return, with C. Menger, to the capital notion as established in business life.

In fact, it can hardly surprise that Schmoller welcomed Menger’s shift of opinion. In his 1888 article, Menger clearly adopted the viewpoint of the Historical school of economics.

It is easy to demonstrate this point. When Karl Rodbertus (1843, p. 23ff.) made, probably for the first time in the history of economic thought (Jacoby 1908, p. 27), the distinction between social and private capital — between capital as a production factor and capital as a means of acquisition and calculation denominated in money — he ascribed each term to a distinctive problem area. For him, social (or real) capital is a universal, absolute, and pure concept that can be defined independently of time and place. It is the capital concept that he thought is apt for economic science. Private capital, on the other hand, only has relative importance. It results “from the arbitrary ingredients of a historical state of affairs. It would disappear if profit-yielding property disappeared” (Rodbertus 1843, p. 24, n.; emphasis added).

In other words, the capital concept which Menger used in his Principles and which later Austrians like Böhm-Bawerk, Hayek, and Lachmann adopted (and which relates to Mises’s “capital goods”) can be found in any economic system and in any time period. Individuals in isolation, like Robinson Crusoe, employ higher order goods in the same way as a socialistic and a capitalistic society does. It is a general theoretical concept and independent of historical factors. Monetary calculation, on the other hand, which is the background of Menger’s later (1888) capital concept, is only a historical phenomenon. It is neither part of Robinson’s island nor of a socialist society. It only appears in a developed and monetized market economy where property rights to the means of production are enforced. Later on, German economists like Adolph Wagner generally referred to this concept of capital as the historical-legal one (Jacoby 1908, p. 28).

That Carl Menger adopted the viewpoint of the Historical school becomes even more obvious when one compares his 1888 article with what Richard Hildebrand had written five years earlier. Hildebrand, a member of the Historical school teaching in Graz, Austria (Schulak and Unterköfler 2011, p. 25), had written a book on monetary theory that contained one chapter on capital. There, he clearly foreshadowed Menger’s later position. First of all, like Menger (1888), he rejected the efforts of economists to create capital concepts that deviate from common parlance. Hildebrand (1883, p. 72, n. 35) counters the

idea that the capital concept is open to arbitrary terminology at all, or that science, in a way, has to create or invent the concept in the first place. To the contrary, the concept of capital … is a fact that is already given by economic life.

Second, Hildebrand’s positive view of the common parlance concept unsurprisingly coincides with Menger’s. He (1883, p. 74, n. 35) states that “capital indeed can only be thought of or imagined as a certain sum of money,” and, like Menger, he immediately adds that capital also comprises real assets in so far as they have or represent monetary value.

Ludwig von Mises on Capital

As opposed to nearly all other Austrian economists to the present day, Ludwig von Mises did not follow Menger’s discussion of capital as contained in the latter’s Principles, but was oriented toward the 1888 article on capital theory. This shines through, for the first time, in his treatise on Socialism where he explicitly refers to Menger (1888) and states:

[W]e must first ask what significance is attached to the term [capital] in business practice. … The concept of capital is derived from economic calculation. Its true home is accountancy — the chief instrument of commercial rationality. Calculation in terms of money is an essential element of the concept of capital. (Mises 1951, p. 123)

In his Human Action, Mises went a step further and not only stuck to the monetary notion of capital, but explicitly rejected the social (or real) capital concept. He (1949, p. 262) called it a confusion to argue, as some economists do,

that “capital” is a category of all human production, that it is present in every thinkable system of the conduct of production processes — i.e., no less in Robinson Crusoe’s involuntary hermitage than in a socialist society — and that it does not depend upon the practice of monetary calculation.

So in fact, without admitting it though, Mises adhered to the capital concept developed and called for by the Historical school of economics. He did not follow the early Menger or Böhm-Bawerk, who had assigned capital theory to the analysis of the production process; he rather built upon Menger’s later article which was, as shown above, a concession to the Historical school.

The Historical Character of Economics — According to Ludwig von Mises

Why did Mises rely on the historical-legal capital concept? After all, Mises argued that economics is a part of the more universal science praxeology, and that praxeology is the science of every kind of human action (Mises 1949, p. 3). According to this classification, no historical relativity is involved in economics, and therefore the real capital concept, which can easily be reconciled with every individual human action like it is done in Crusoe economics, seems to suggest itself. However, it is often overlooked that economics is not identical with praxeology, even in Mises’s own thinking.

Whereas praxeology, the general theory of human action, “can be precisely defined and circumscribed” (Mises 1949, p. 235), the scope of economics can not so easily be demarcated. Its relationship to praxeology is not a simple one, and especially its area of application is not easy to determine.

The specifically economic problems, the problems of economic action in the narrower sense, can only by and large be disengaged from the comprehensive body of praxeological theory. (Mises 1949, p. 235; emphasis added)

And here comes the main point. Other than praxeology, which is general and absolute, economics is bound to special preconditions and, consequently, is not a general theory in the same way as praxeology. This claim is emphasized by Mises himself when he adds that “in this disengagement [of economics from praxeology], historical and conventional aspects cannot be ignored” (1940, p. 226; emphasis added).1 The historical relativity of economics, which Mises admits in these few words, manifests itself a few lines further where he says that economics and catallactics are “the analysis of those actions which are conducted on the basis of monetary calculation,” and that the analysis of socialism, where monetary calculation does not exist, “is possible only through the study of catallactics, the elucidation of a system in which there are money prices and economic calculation” (Mises 1949, p. 235).

In short, economics itself does not deal with all human actions in all kind of societies, but only with human actions that are directly or indirectly connected to money prices and economic calculation. It is true: in order to do this adequately, economics presupposes a general theory of human action — praxeology — but it is not identical with it.2

It should be remembered that Mises’s (1951) famous argument according to which a collectively planned society is not feasible is also based on historical institutions. Without exchange between money and producers’ goods, he argued, prices of these goods cannot be determined and consequently economic calculation becomes impossible in socialism. This argument is not based on praxeology alone, but it presupposes, for the market economy which serves as benchmark, the existence of money, monetary calculation, and property rights to the means of production. It was this aspect of capitalism that Mises focused on, and from this perspective it becomes clear why he adhered to the historical-legal capital concept. This kind of capital does not exist in socialism, and therefore it could help to distinguish capitalism from any other economic system.

The Economic Calculation Argument as Found in Albert Schäffle’s Work

That Mises’s use of the capital concept endorsed by the Historical school is no coincidence is apparent when reading the approach of earlier members of this school to the question of economic calculation. In this regard, especially Menger’s predecessor on the chair of economics in Vienna, Albert Schäffle (1823 — 1903), must be mentioned. It has been noted before that Schäffle at least hinted at the difficulties a socialist society would face when allocating the available resources to the myriads of different uses. Schäffle is cited for having argued, in Hodgson’s (2010, p. 300) words,

that a system based on calculations concerning labour time faced intractable problems, including the heterogeneity of labour and the inaccessibility of relevant data, and would undermine individual incentives.

Apparently, Schäffle had at least a sense of the calculation problem of socialism, although, according to Hodgson at least, he primarily seems to have aimed at the well-known incentive problem. Huerta de Soto (2010, p. 100) goes a step further and imputes to Schäffle the demonstration

that, without imitating the system of price determination found in market processes, it would be inconceivable that a central planning agency could efficiently, in terms of both quantity and quality, allocate society’s resources.

However, neither Hodgson nor Huerta de Soto argues that Schäffle has anticipated Mises’s argument in the proper sense. They merely concede him to have sensed the difficulties of organizing production without the help of economic calculation.

It does not become clear, in their short remarks, how close Schäffle actually came to deal with questions that later became central for the Austrian school. In his Kapitalismus and Socialismus, a book which Hodgson and Huerta de Soto do not analyze and which has not been translated into English, Schäffle demonstrates that he was well aware of the problem that has to be solved by any economic order. In this, he partly anticipated Leonard Read’s famous story I, pencil where it is shown that even in the production of such a simple thing as a pencil more or less the whole world participates.

The social character of the human economy shows that everyone, from morning to night, depends on the work of the whole humanity. I wake up in the morning and put on a dressing gown: the wool it consists of has been grown, years ago, in Australia; it has been shipped to Trieste by Dalmatians, freighted to Moravia by Italian workers and the staff of the Austrian railways, spun and woven there with the help of English machines, and dyed with African colors. (Schäffle 1870, p. 103)

Confronting the complicated relationships of the modern production process, Schäffle (1870, p. 105; emphasis added) uttered the question: “The economic miracle of the much discussed division of labor — by which means is it accomplished?”

So he clearly posed the question that Mises would answer in his discussion of the possibility of economic calculation under socialism. Furthermore, he was well aware of the fact that the socialist authors had either not realized that socialism has to solve this problem or had provided merely superficial solutions. This becomes clear in the second edition of Kapitalismus und Socialismus which was part of a larger work on the social sciences. First, Schäffle pointed out that socialism must think of something that could substitute private entrepreneuship:

With the abolition of private capital as the profit-oriented director of the economy, the difficulty occurs to achieve productivity, which was aspired by private capital in its own interest, in the same or even a larger and progressing measure, so that the fairer distribution of the created wealth does not end up with less to distribute than the present-day market. (Schäffle 1881, p. 317; emphasis removed)

Therefore, he continued, socialism must find a means of minimizing costs. But “[h]ow are the [socialist] managers of the production process supposed to determine the ‘socially required’ amount of costs?” (Schäffle 1881, p. 317). This would be a very difficult task, he noted, as the ‘socially required’ amount of costs depends on numerous and variable factors. Socialist theorists deceive themselves as long as they ignore this problem:

In my opinion, socialism exposes itself to a fateful and economically cardinal calculation error as long as it does not try to contrive ways and means which guarantee, in a better way than the current competition among capitalists does, that no arbitrary measure of “socially required” amount of labor is found and asserted for the determination of exchange value, but the one that is as low as possible from a social and evolutionary point of view. (Schäffle 1881, p. 318)

How deep Schäffle actually analyzed the whole question of economic calculation in socialism is difficult to tell. He wrote several books, like The Quintessence of Socialism and The Impossibility of Social Democracy, touching on this topic. Hodgson (2010), who analyzed them, has not found a systematic treatment of the issue. Kapitalismus und Socialismus, from which I have quoted above, is a treatise of more than 700 pages and consists of public lectures Schäffle had given in Vienna. Therefore, it does not contain a systematic line of argument. Schäffle neither comes up with a proposal for the organization of the production process under socialism nor does he outrightly deny its possibility. He rather seems to advocate a mixed economy as he does in his other books (Hodgson 2010, p. 311). However, a profound judgment can only be made after a thorough study of all of his works which include, next to his lengthy monographs on socialism, several multi-volume textbooks on economics and sociology.

At this place it suffices to register that Albert Schäffle, a member of the Historical school, came close to seeing the problem of economic calculation under socialism. Whether he analyzed it satisfactorily is not top priority. One must not forget that, unlike Mises and Hayek, Schäffle wrote decades before the Bolshevik Revolution and had no real-world example of socialism to consider. Furthermore, he mainly wrote before the neoclassical revolution, thus lacking the apparatus necessary for the dismantling of Marxist theory (Hodgson 2010, p. 306). At any rate, Schäffle and the Historical school can be shown to have points of contact with Austrian Economics, whatever the methodological differences may be. Whether these links are worth a closer inspection and whether modern Austrians can profit from it cannot be foretold. For my part, I believe that the comprehensive rejection of a whole school of thought will rarely be justified.

Conclusion

Streissler (1990, p. 31) has called it a myth that the early members of the Austrian school elaborated their novel insights independently of and in contrast to German economics of their day. I would not go so far as to maintain that the fundamental opposition between the Austrian and the Historical school is also a myth. At any rate, I tried to show in this chapter that at least some caveats must be made. Although he did not stress this point, even Ludwig von Mises, the father of the general theory of human action, in some of his theoretical arguments presupposes the existence of historical conditions and institutions. The connection to the Historical school can best be seen in the fact that both Menger and Mises employed its capital concept. Mises’s argument on the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism is based on it, and it even seems that the argument naturally flows from it. At least one member of the Historical school, Albert Schäffle, was led to similar, though less elaborated and precise views concerning the role of economic calculation in capitalism and socialism.

References

Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1930. The Positive Theory of Capital, translated with a preface and analysis by W. Smart. New York: G. E. Stechert.

Braun, Eduard. 2014. “The Menger-Lachmann Trajectory on Capital: A Comment on Endres and Harper.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 36 (1): 97–102.

Gabriel, Amadeus. 2012. “Why was the Reception of the First Edition of Mises’s Theory of Money and Credit so Lukewarm?” In Jörg Guido Hülsmann, ed., Theory of Money and Fiduciary Media: Essays in Celebration of the Centennial, pp. 37–61. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Gordon, David. 1996. The Philosophical Origins of Austrian Economics. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Grimmer-Solem, E., and R. Romani. 1998. “The Historical School, 1870–1900: A Cross-National Reassessment.” History of European Ideas 24 (4/5): 267–99.

Hayek, F. A. 1941. The Pure Theory of Capital. London: Macmillan.

Hodgson, G.M. 2010. “Albert Schäffle’s critique of socialism.” In J. Vint et al., ed., Economic Theory and Economic Thought, pp. 296–315. Florence, Ky.: Routledge.

Huerta de Soto, Jesús. 2010. Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar.

Jacoby, W. 1908. Der Streit um den Kapitalsbegriff: Seine geschichtliche Entwicklung und Versuche zu seiner Lösung. Jena: G. Fischer.

Lachmann, Ludwig M. 1978. Capital and Its Structure, 2nd ed. Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed Andrews and McMeel.

Menger, Carl. 2007 [1871]. Principles of Economics. J. Dingwall and B. F. Hoselitz, trans. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Menger, C. 1888. “Zur Theorie des Kapitals.” Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik 17: 1–49.

Mises, Ludwig v. 1940. Nationalökonomie: Theorie des Handelns und Wirtschaftens. Genf: ed. Union.

——. 1949. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

——. 1951. Socialism. An Economic and Sociological Analysis. J. Kahane, trans. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Robertus, K. 1842. Zur Erkenntniss unsrer staatswirthschaftlichen Zustände. Neubrandenburg and Friedland: Barnewitz.

Salerno, Joseph T. 2008. “The Entrepreneur: Real and Imagined.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 11: 188–207.

Schäffle, Albert E. F. 1870. Kapitalismus und Socialismus mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Geschäfts- und Vermögensformen. Tübingen: Laupp.

——. 1881. Bau und Leben des socialen Körpers. Dritter Band, new edition. Tübingen: Laupp.

Schmoller, Gustav. 1904: Grundriß der allgemeinen Volkswirtschaftslehre. Zweiter Teil. 1–6. Auflage. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.

Schulak, Eugen Maria, and Herbert Unterköfler. 2012. The Austrian School of Economics. A History of Its Ideas, Ambassadors, and Institutions. A. Oost-Zinner., trans. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1997. Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. 9th ed. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Stigler, George J. 1937. “The Economics of Carl Menger.” Journal of Political Economy 45(2): 229–250.

——. 2008. “Capital and Time.” In R. Scazzieri et al., ed., Markets, Money and Capital: Hicksian Economics for the Twenty-first Century, pp. 367–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• *Eduard Braun holds a postdoctoral position to the chair of economics at Clausthal University of Technology, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany. I attended the Mises University in 2007 and was a summer research fellow in 2008. The present chapter is an outflow of my introduction to and study of German economic thought between 1800 and 1950, which I became interested in while a summer fellow at the Mises Institute under the direction of Professor Salerno.
• 1I quote from Mises’s Nationalökonomie because the same passage in Human Action does not seem to make sense: “Accidental facts of the history of science and conventions play a role in all attempts to provide a definition of the scope of ‘genuine’ economics” (Mises 1949, p. 235). The same is true for the third edition.
• 2Joseph Salerno comes to a similar conclusion concerning another important economic concept: The entrepreneur-promoter does not exist under all circumstances, either. The entrepreneur-promoter “cannot be defined with praxeological rigor; it can only be identified by a historical judgment” (Salerno 2008, p. 195).

Modern* economic theory tends to treat production, the process of generating valued consumption in a market, as a function carried out within firms and so out of reach for the general market (Coase 1937). Firms are seen as “black box” generators of output from inputs in accordance with a calculable and formalized “production function,” and both inputs and outputs are exchanged at competitive money prices in market transactions. The market, consequently, is seen as simply a means for efficiently allocating resources through the price mechanism. The development and production of the specific goods and services that are directly valued by consumers is considered of much lesser import.

In contrast, Austrians emphasize the causal processes in the economy and therefore pay much attention to production — the way value is created through consumer wants satisfaction — and capital theory — how factors are utilized to support production. Austrians recognize that the specialized market process consists of and is dependent on an intricate structure of productive resources. This structure supports roundabout production processes that exploit productivity-enhancing uses of non-permanent intermediate (produced) goods. Such an advanced production apparatus is dependent on the specific uses of capital goods that facilitate taking factors of production through stages aimed at eventually satisfying consumer wants.

This distinctly Austrian perspective on the market as a process of production is the subject for this chapter, with specific emphasis on how changes to the economy’s production apparatus or capital structure are brought about. The aim is to elaborate on the implications of the market’s capital and production structure and thereby illustrate a specific theoretical problem that is conspicuously missing in the Austrian analysis. I draft a solution to this problem by addressing potential remedies made available by market actors exercising productive entrepreneurship. In this sense, the essay elucidates a realm for entrepreneurship within production and capital theory.

Production and Capital Structure

Capital goods can be defined as “the produced goods that must be combined still further with other factors in order to provide the consumers’ good” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 299). These intermediate or “produced” goods that can only indirectly satisfy consumer wants are “a necessary way station to increased consumption” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 966; emphasis in original). Seen as a whole, they compose “an intricate, delicate, interweaving structure of capital goods” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 967; Lachmann 1978 [1956]), a production structure that in its current length and form is configured to satisfy wants already anticipated by entrepreneurs.

A production structure is composed of specific capital goods, themselves a combination of other capital goods and original factors. It is assembled and configured in a specific way for a specific purpose (Lachmann 1978 [1956]) and operated by specialized labor. Production is temporally dependent since it must be carried out in time. Carrying out a production process with already existing, supporting capital goods takes time, as does the production of the capital goods used in the process. The existent production structure was brought together and configured in the past, and is used and operated in the present to produce consumers’ goods available in the future.

Time, therefore, is both a limitation and a factor of production: due to its irreversibility, it “puts the future services of certain resources beyond our reach in the present and so makes it impossible to anticipate their use” (Hayek 1941, p. 52). In other words, we cannot conceive of specialized production without capital. Even acknowledging that there is a capital structure supporting production in multiple stages ultimately appears insufficient for us to fully understand the production process. For this reason, a theory of production is of limited use without a capital theory that also includes action and so explains the structure’s dynamic: how and why the production structure has taken a certain shape and how and why the structure changes over time. As we will see, the Austrian conception of production subject to the heterogeneous structure of productive capital indicates a problem related to the structure of tasks in an economy’s production apparatus. This problem does not exist for Robinson Crusoe but is potentially crippling in a specialized market, and it requires entrepreneurship and integration to be solved.

Roundabout Production Without Existing Capital

Imagine that a person P, in a world without existent capital, decides to manufacture a product A with the intention of making it available for consumers in the open market. To the extent the production process requires (or is more productive with) capital, these capital goods must first be produced. Regardless of the complexity of the specific production process, the only possible way of realizing production of A is to first produce the necessary intermediate goods such as tools and machinery, and then, at a later time and using the intermediate goods, produce A. To make this happen, P therefore accumulates the resources necessary, gets busy creating the means to carry out the production process, and then produces the end product.

Due to P’s productive endeavor to establish the necessary structure for their envisioned production process, the world now has capital. This capital gives P a competitive advantage in the market by creating a unique production capability (Barney 1995; 1991), which increases in the overall valuable output in the economy. The direct effect of the “advancing capital structure increases the marginal productivity of labor” without requiring an increase in “the labor energy expended” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 578). The capital created is essentially an extension of and therefore facilitates more productive uses of labor. In this sense, the investment creating “non-permanent resources enables us [the market] to maintain production permanently at a higher level than would be possible without them” (Hayek 1941, p. 54, emphasis in original). Overall, P’s endeavor has brought about a situation where the original factors — land and labor — are used more efficiently toward satisfying consumer wants than was the case before. Production has become more roundabout.

The value of this better use of original factors is measured by the subjective valuations of consumers who benefit from this production. As Austrians have known since Menger (2007 [1871]), the market value of the capital produced is derived from consumer benefits. This means the value cannot be established until consumer valuation of the end product has been revealed through market action (purchases of the product). The market value of the produced capital — the indirect means to satisfy consumer wants — is equal to their contribution to the value consumers ultimately place in the consumption good produced (Mises 1951 [1936]; Rothbard 1987).

The temporal sequence of actions within the production process is then exactly the opposite of how its value is derived. Production begins with the extraction of the highest-order goods from their natural state and the production of intermediate or capital goods, and continues through the stages to eventually produce the lowest-order good offered to consumers. Upon consumers’ decision to purchase the lowest-order good at a certain price, the market value of capital goods is established by imputation “upstream” through the higher orders to the highest order and original factors (Menger 2007 [1871]). There can be no capital that is not preceded by production, and there can be no specialized, roundabout production without the existence of capital.

Roundabout Production In the Specialized Market

Let us now turn to analyzing a specialized market economy with existing advanced production structures, as does e.g. Rothbard (2004 [1962]) and Coase (1937). We assume a market with highly specialized production with a capital structure that is well configured to satisfy consumer wants. As capital is heterogeneous, by which is meant that it “is not an amorphous mass but possesses a definite structure [and] is organised in a definite way” (Hayek 1941, p. 6), the capital structure entails both productivity gains and high costs of adjustment. As the market data change, the existing capital structure will be misaligned to real consumer wants. In this sense, the specialized market place is very fragile to (unanticipated) changes.

This problem is partly recognized in the Austrian business cycle theory, but it is scarcely elaborated. Rather, it is acknowledged that the realignment process of the market’s capital structure, from the anticipated and prepared-for market situation to the new and revealed situation, takes time. This is undoubtedly true, and this process is carried out by entrepreneurs (broadly defined), who are “eager to earn profits, appear as bidders at an auction, as it were, in which the owners of the factors of production put up for sale land, capital goods, and labor” (Mises 1998 [1949], p. 335). Time-consuming and costly realignment follows (cf. Williamson 1985, pp. 21–22).

Yet this problem does not arise only when the market process is affected by abrupt and/or unanticipated exogenous change such as the expansion of credit by banks and the subsequent distortion of market prices. In fact, any reconfiguration, elaboration, or expansion of the capital structure, whether as a reaction to changing consumer preferences or as a means toward increased productivity and economic growth, is subject to what we can describe as a “specialization deadlock”: production structure based inertia to which both market actions and actors are subject.

A specialized market consists of production processes that encompass many stages and where the stages are carried out separately by specialized labor operating specialized capital structures configured to facilitate this particular (and perhaps similar) stage. While there may be several uses for specialized capital, each of the uses tends to be highly specific and the capital goods are therefore very limitedly substitutable in the market. To the degree capital traded in the market has undergone a particular transformation by being irreversibly combined into a non-decomposable unique (or uniquely aligned) capital good, there is no existent market for the produced means of production. New capital goods exist in a non-salable state to the degree their uses have no or very limited substitutability and lack obvious substitute uses. Whether or not a market for specialized capital goods emerges depends on the competitive discovery process (Hayek 1978) as entrepreneurs imitate and attempt to surpass the original entrepreneur’s successful production achievement (Bylund forthcoming; 2011).

While the uniqueness of particular capital goods in specialized production may severely limit their markets (both in terms of demand and supply), this may not constitute more than a temporary problem. The problem emerges as specialized capital is utilized in roundabout production processes under intensive division of labor. Assuming a market with entrepreneurs alert to and ready to adjust errors and misalignment through arbitrage (Kirzner 1973), and therefore an equilibrating market process, the market should soon approach stasis.

Entrepreneurs, eager for profit, will bid for capital and labor factors that they perceive to be undervalued or in otherwise suboptimal use. Provided entrepreneurs do not commit more errors than successful adjustments, and provided consumer preferences do not frequently, radically, and unexpectedly change, a market without innovation has limited opportunity for growth and productivity increase. In fact, even allowing for innovation of capital goods, which can be usefully thought of as finding new productive combinations of land factors and existing capital (Schumpeter 1934 [1911]), will not facilitate economic growth through productivity increases unless there is also a corresponding intensification in the division of labor. As Mises (1998[1949], p. 164) notes,

The division of labor splits the various processes of production into minute tasks, many of which can be performed by mechanical devices. It is this fact that made the use of machinery possible and brought about the amazing improvements in technical methods of production. Mechanization is the fruit of the division of labor, its most beneficial achievement, not its motive and fountain spring.

The truthfulness of the temporally dependent order in Mises’s claim can easily be shown, as we shall see in the next section.

The Specialization Deadlock

Consider the specialized market in the previous section. Assuming the market is minimally regulated and therefore without artificial barriers of entry, we can assume with Rothbard (2004 [1962], p. 369, fig. 41) that the rate of interest income for capitalist investments in each production stage will be approximately the same. Entrepreneurial arbitrage will see to it that this holds true within one production process as well as across parallel, competing processes. Alert entrepreneurs will discover and correct through arbitrage any “errors” revealed by above-normal returns in any process or stage. Profitable (successful) undertakings tend to be imitated and loss-generating (unsuccessful) are abandoned by entrepreneurs eager to earn profits, which suggests an equilibrating process consisting of continuous adjustment through correction (Shane 2003). This, in turn, suggests that markets are effectively created for specific capital goods utilized in production processes as entrepreneurs set out to imitate and emulate processes that earn profits (Stigler 1951; Bylund 2015). The economy in this sense functions as a continuous “discovery process” where competition for profit is the driving force toward better alignment between the totality of the production structure and consumer wants (Hayek 1978).

Along the lines of this reasoning one can develop a theory of strategic management based on the resources used within the firm, as has been done by Barney (1986; 1991) and others. The incentive of any firm (or rather, its owners and management) is here to strive for including and utilizing as rare and unsubstitutable resources as possible that are still valuable in production. The rarer and less substitutable (and imitable) the resources, the longer a firm can stay ahead of its competition and earn above-normal profits — competitors are simply unable to emulate the capital recipe of success. But it should be noted that while this competitive advantage may last for some time due to the unavailability of necessary resources for competitors, it will eventually be undermined by the discovery of better processes or alternative implementations of the same process.

The reason for this is that capital goods are produced and non-permanent. Even in situations where a certain capital good cannot be imitated or emulated (however unlikely this scenario is), it must be reproduced when it is used up or expired. The serviceability of capital can be extended through investments in maintenance, upkeep, and repairs. Still, capital is ultimately consumed during the production process, which means the owner of a unique capital good used in profitable production must at some point invest to extend its productive life. In a specialized market economy, any such reproduction must to some degree depend on the availability of market for materials, parts, etc., — the higher-order goods used in production of the capital good. It is therefore an impossibility that a certain resource combination — a particular capital good — is non-reproducible over time.

But even so, as Mises shows in the quote above, capital is ultimately dependent on division of labor preceding its development and use. Only through the splitting of tasks can capital goods be (1) innovated and (2) utilized in new processes. The former holds true simply because new specializations (that is, a more intensive division of labor) are necessary in order to produce a new type of capital good, at the very least in the tasks of combining factors or configuring an existing capital good. The latter is illustrated by Mises’s example of mechanization of the minute tasks that are made into separate tasks only through the splitting of existing, more broadly defined, tasks.

Consider a production process in our previously assumed specialized market that is dedicated to the production of bread. It consists of the following division of labor: a farmer produces wheat, a miller produces flour, and a baker produces and sells the bread. Each stage uses capital: the farmer uses a plow in the spring and sickle in the late summer, the miller uses milling stones, and the baker uses an oven. One can imagine making this process more roundabout through the innovation of new capital goods to support either of the stages, e.g. a tractor for the farmer or a blender for the baker (Böhm-Bawerk 1959 [1889]). But no such capital can be made available for the farmer or baker without an innovative entrepreneur figuring out the full production process for that specific capital good. This amounts to a much greater undertaking than the error-correction type of arbitrage provided by Kirznerian entrepreneurs (Kirzner 1973; 2009).

An alternative is to make the bread-producing process itself more roundabout through the insertion of more narrowly specialized labor: splitting a task into several (Smith 1976 [1776]; Bylund forthcoming). The splitting of a task is different from simply “adding” labor power. The farmer can “hire” labor workers to carry out the same tasks as he is already carrying out, which increases output through increasing the volume of labor being used in the process. As these workers need to be paid — and likely monitored (Alchian and Demsetz 1972; Williamson 1993) — it is not obvious that this is a profitable investment for the farmer. Where an increase in the number of workers leads to diminishing returns, the farmer is likely to make a loss on invested funds.

The alternative is to engage in intensifying the division of labor, which, as suggested in the Mises quote above, entails taking an existing task and dividing it into a number of more narrowly defined tasks. In the case of the bread production process, this amounts to replacing one of the existing stages with several new and separate tasks in the same way a hypothetical original production process was split from self-sufficiency toward specializations in farming, milling, and baking.

Where a market stage already consists of easily separable tasks, such as the plowing, sowing, watering, and harvesting of farming, specialization may not be more than a minor change. For instance, a farmer having hired labor workers may assign specific tasks to different workers and thereby simplify specialization. This must be preceded by increased density of labor factors (Durkheim 1933 [1892]) and can be facilitated by coordination through centralized ownership (Stigler 1951). As this type of “marginal” or incremental specialization can be rather easily brought about, it may not constitute an economic problem of production. In fact, such productivity-increasing measures should be easily discernible for the actors themselves: we know that “work performed under the division of labor is more productive than isolated work and that man’s reason is capable of recognizing this truth” (Mises 1998 [1949], p. 144; emphasis added). This is not a division of labor as much as it is a rational (re)allocation of labor input across already existing chores. But this means it also cannot constitute a problem for competing farmers, who as (or even more) easily can institute this type of division of labor by imitation or emulation. So we may, for the sake of simplicity, assume that such comparatively simple opportunities have already been exploited. Indeed, we can think of the inefficient use of laborers on the farm as an “error” to be corrected by the alert farmer.

This leaves the type of disruptive specializing that suggests a new production sub-process to replace a commonplace and standardized task carried out by market actors. We can now begin to discern the problem, since all the “low-hanging fruits” in terms of productivity-increasing allocative measures are easily exploitable and so should tend to already be exploited. What remains is the unintuitive or highly coordinative task-splitting that requires foresight, investment, and perhaps development of new types of capital goods to be realized. Add to this situation how within-stage (horizontal) competition should tend to standardize the procedures used and therefore effectively produce market standards around best practices. This is the process through which markets are created, which was explained by Stigler (1951). While the market may not reach a general equilibrium, it can easily be seen how its competitive process brings about standardizing at the production possibilities frontier. At this point, further specializing should seem unattainable if at all advantageous — much like splitting the task of “driving a taxi” into the more specialized tasks of driving straight, driving around corners, and going in reverse.

Further advances in productivity requires the adoption of a more intensive division of labor — the further splitting of existent tasks — and the use of (new) capital to replace labor with automatic execution of newly identified and separated “minute tasks.” The market, in other words, finds a state of rest in the sense of a highly restricting inertia — if not impossibility — of adopting further productivity-increasing measures. Specialization cannot go further through incremental adoption of better utilizations of labor. Whether or not market actors have exhausted all opportunities for further incremental improvements to production processes, the market is in a specialization deadlock.

Breaking Free From the Specialization Deadlock

So far we have considered production in the market: while not all actions necessarily take place independently and under the price mechanism, we noted how markets are generated as new production structures are imitated by competitors (Stigler 1951; Bylund 2011; forthcoming). For all tasks carried out in an economy’s production apparatus, therefore, there is semi-standardization within the limits of substitutability where the price mechanism is applicable. In other words, there is a tendency toward standardization of best practices through competition as improvements are all but universally implemented through profit-induced imitation in the open market.

So far we have not made any assumptions about who brings about or profits from the adjustments made in the market. The reason for this is that opportunities for incremental changes to the production structure are neither difficult to discover nor to implement or observe /imitate. This suggests the function of adjustment can be carried out by most or all market actors and without much foresight, coordination or investment. Indeed, the farmer who hires labor workers and assigns different responsibilities to them is engaging in (a weak form of) specialization and division of labor, but in such a mundane fashion that it is of little analytical importance. These tasks were already carried out — they may even have been identified as separate such — and the increased density due to increased volume of available labor facilitated an “obvious” opportunity for “specializing.” Rather than each labor worker switching between the same or similar tasks, each worker could save time and energy by streamlining their work and so focusing on a single or only a few tasks serially divided among them (Smith 1976 [1776]). This type of improvement in productivity is, indeed, within the limits of man’s capability of reason. In fact, we might expect the common worker, knowledgeable of the production process as well as the “particular circumstances of time and place” (Hayek 1945, p. 521), to identify and act to implement such productivity-increasing measures.

But this only augments our perception that the specialization deadlock is an economic problem. It should furthermore be an increasing problem as a market becomes more intensely specialized, since specializing increases heterogeneity and therefore lowers the overall density of workers carrying out similar tasks in the market place. As opportunities for specializing are exploited, taking specialization even further may necessitate much less obvious changes — and coordination. So far in our discussion, we have not included more than minimal coordination in the market place, primarily through the price mechanism and simple agreements.

Consider the case of the tractor noted above. In order to provide a tractor in this market, actors need to break free from the specialization deadlock. This is a problem of innovation, coordination, and capital investment, since it includes the insertion of a new productive sub-process to produce a higher-order good (the tractor) to be used in farming. This sub-process requires its own division of labor to carry out tasks specific to tractor production. In this case, this is a novel process the tasks of which may not have been more than limitedly known. But this need not be the case: we can easily imagine splitting the existing tasks into several independent subtasks. The solution is however found to be the same: innovation, coordination, and capital investment are necessary for the implementation and thus realization of the new tasks and thereby the more roundabout production structure.

It is not within the scope of this chapter’s discussion to specify the exact nature of implementing such improvements to the production structure. This has been done elsewhere (Bylund 2011; 2015; forthcoming), so it should therefore be sufficient to point out that this is the role of the innovative and imaginative entrepreneur. But it should also be noted that there can be no blueprint for the implementation (realization) of such novel production processes that introduce a radically intensified division of labor since their functioning is strictly unknowable — detailed information about the intricate workings of a previously unseen sub-process is revealed only through its implementation process. For this reason, the entrepreneur can only guide the project and must rely on the decentralized problem-solving or proxy-entrepreneurship of employed workers (Foss, Foss and Klein 2007). This appears to require an integrated production structure, which is commonly referred to as a firm.

Implications for Economic Theory

What has been drafted above suggests that production theory is incomplete without both capital theory and entrepreneurship. This may appear obvious to Austrians, but the entrepreneurship aspect appears often missing or lacking in discussions on capital theory. Rothbard’s discussion on production theory in Man, Economy and State can serve as an illustrative example.

Rothbard here provides a groundbreaking discussion on production theory, but his discussion on the effect of saving on the economy’s production stages is severely lacking. Increased saving, states Rothbard, shifts “investment further up the ladder to the higher-order production stages.” And further: “Simple investigation will reveal that the only way that so much investment can be shifted from the lower to the higher stages … is to increase the number of productive stages in the economy, i.e. to lengthen the structure of production” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 519, emphasis in original). Perhaps this is a necessary conclusion, but as we have seen in this chapter, increasing the number of production stages implies the splitting of tasks and, essentially, breaking free from the specialization deadlock of the existent capital structure. We can hardly assume that this process is automatic or immediate (and it is of course unlikely that Rothbard would rely on such an assumption).

But even if we allow this process to be time-consuming, any production process must already encompass a full-length process with stages covering the production distance from virgin land to consumer. A more roundabout production process does not add stages to the “top,” but must split a stage into several or insert a new sub-process in-between or to assist existing stages. This has implications for the income accruing to factors and capitalists involved in each stage, since a “local” intensification of the division of labor by splitting one stage into many necessarily disrupts production.

Rothbard seems to assume a preexisting market for each production stage, which suggests standardization and substitutability throughout the market and thus somewhat accurately determined market prices. From the perspective of Rothbard’s discussion, it may not be limiting but useful to rely on analytical aggregates and talk of “readjustment.” But “readjusting” the production structure to new levels of saving is a much messier process than the type of arbitrage-like allocative adjustment we discuss above — and much messier than is shown in Rothbard’s analysis. Changes to the length of the production structure means the structure is disrupted by an imaginative entrepreneur, which has implications throughout the “intricate, delicate, interweaving structure of capital goods” (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 967). It is insufficient and potentially misleading to assume changes in the savings rate reallocates “capital” within the production process (and therefore across the production apparatus’ existing stages). More realistically, productive investments can fundamentally change production processes by splitting or inserting stages, and this can bring about important changes to the economy’s capital structure.

It is furthermore insufficient to treat the entrepreneur as simply the discoverer of price discrepancies who then acts to shift factors from one production process to another to better account for their “real” value (Rothbard 2004 [1962], p. 511; cf. Kirzner 1973; Sautet 2000). As Rothbard (2004 [1962], pp. 858–59) puts it:

to view entrepreneurship as simply the founding of new firms is completely invalid. Entrepreneurship is not just the founding of new firms, it is not merely innovation; it is adjustment: adjustment to the uncertain, changing conditions of the future. This adjustment takes place, perforce, all the time and is not exhausted in any single act of investment.

But as we saw above, while adjustment takes place “all the time” it can and does take place within the limits of the existing division of labor intensity; “adjustment” is unable to deal with the specialization deadlock and therefore excludes disruptive innovation. In other words, it does not include “breaking free” from the deadlock through revolutionizing the production structure, which necessitates realizing an innovative splitting of tasks — which in turn requires integration (a firm) (Bylund 2015). Entrepreneurial adjustment ensues upon and as a consequence of disruption, but it is limited to corrections given the existing production or capital structure and incremental improvements to it.

In this sense, we have drafted a scope for entrepreneurship with the help of capital and production theory that both confirms and challenges Rothbard’s analysis. It confirms Rothbard’s focus on adjustments, which are carried out “all the time” through the market’s competitive discovery process and “is not exhausted in any single act of investment.” This can potentially be seen as a “Kirznerian” type of entrepreneurship (Kirzner 1973; 1979; 1999; 2009). Yet Rothbard, by not including the type of disruptive entrepreneurship that can be found in e.g. Schumpeter (1934 [1911]), sees no significance in organization or its function in the market. He therefore does not recognize the causal relationship between the division of labor and the creation of capital that Mises notes and that we here found to suggest a solution to the interlocking compatibilities of the production structure that we refer to as the “specialization deadlock.”

In fact, it appears Rothbard in Man, Economy and State fails to recognize the great importance of the division of labor for production and capital theory as well as for the evolution of society. This chapter attempts to show, in line with Mises’s view (Mises 1998 [1949]; Salerno 1990) as well as Rothbard’s later and more astute understanding (Rothbard 1991), how the importance of the division of labor hardly can be exaggerated, but that it in fact can be used to explain the process of capital creation.

References

Alchian, Armen A., and Harold Demsetz. 1972. “Production, Information Costs and Economic Organization.” American Economic Review 62(5): 777–95.

Barney, Jay B. 1986.“Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy.” Management Science 32(10): 1231–41.

——. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.

——. 1995. “Looking inside for Competitive Advantage.” Academy of Management Executive 9(4): 49–61.

Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1959 [1889]. Positive Theory of Capital. South Holland, Ill.: Libertarian Press.

Bylund, Per L. 2011. “Division of Labor and the Firm: An Austrian Attempt at Explaining the Firm in the Market.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 14(2): 188–215.

——. 2015. The Problem of Production: A New Theory of the Firm. London, UK: Pickering & Chatto Publishers.

——. Forthcoming.“Explaining Firm Emergence: Specialization, Transaction Costs, and the Integration Process.” Managerial and Decision Economics.

Coase, Ronald H. 1937. “The Nature of the Firm.” Economica 4(16): 386–405.

Durkheim, Émile. 1933 [1892]. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press.

Foss, Kirsten, Nicolai J. Foss, and Peter G. Klein. 2007. “Original and Derived Judgment: An Entrepreneurial Theory of Economic Organization.” Organization Studies 28(12): 1–20.

Hayek, F. A. von. 1941. The Pure Theory of Capital. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

——. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” American Economic Review 35(4): 519–30.

——. 1978. “Competition as a Discovery Process.” New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and the History of Ideas, pp. 179–90.

Kirzner, Israel M. 1973. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——. 1979. Perception, Opportunity, and Profit: Studies in the Theory of Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——. 1999. “Creativity and/or Alertness: A Reconsideration of the Schumpeterian Entrepreneur.” Review of Austrian Economics 11(1): 5–17.

——. 2009. “The Alert and Creative Entrepreneur: A Clarification.” Small Business Economics 32(2): 145–52.

Lachmann, Ludwig M. 1978 [1956]. Capital and Its Structure. Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed Andrews and McMeel.

Menger, Carl. 2007 [1871]. Principles of Economics. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Mises, Ludwig von. 1951 [1936] Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

——. 1998 [1949]. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1987. “Imputation.” In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, pp. 738–39. London: Macmillan Press.

——. 1991. Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

——. 2004 [1962]. Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Salerno, Joseph T. 1990. “Ludwig von Mises as Social Rationalist.” Review of Austrian Economics 4(1): 26–54.

Sautet, Frédéric E. 2000. An Entrepreneurial Theory of the Firm. New York: Routledge.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1934 [1911]. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Shane, Scott A. 2003. A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Smith, Adam. 1976. [1776]. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stigler, George J. 1951. “The Division of Labor Is Limited by the Extent of the Market.” Journal of Political Economy 59(3): 185–93.

Williamson, Oliver E. 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.

——. 1993. “Opportunism and Its Critics.” Managerial and Decision Economics 14(2): 97–107.

• *Per Bylund is John F. Baugh Center Research Professor in the Department of Entrepreneurship at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. I had the great pleasure and privilege of being a summer research fellow in 2009 and 2010, and a postdoctoral research fellow in 2012. This chapter is an extension of the theoretical perspective developed in my dissertation at the University of Missouri, which was originally developed while a summer fellow at the Mises Institute and with the help and encouragement of Professor Salerno.

In* his introduction to the second edition of Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State, Professor Salerno (2004) argues that Rothbard’s purpose in writing his treatise was not to develop a heterodox school of economics and break with the prevailing body of thought. On the contrary, Rothbard examined contemporary literature and attempted to integrate this literature with his own views. As Salerno shows, Rothbard believed that his treatise could draw other economists to the ideas that used to be part of the mainstream in the not-so-distant-past. We now know that Rothbard did not succeed in this and that as of today, there still is a communication gap between the Austrians and the rest of economic profession. This paper argues that the gap could be narrowed if the Austrian economics becomes more mathematized.1

At a first glance, mathematization of Austrian economics may seem to be contradiction in terms. Yet, at a closer inspection, the idea turns out to be not paradoxical at all: note for instance, that the “literary” character of Austrian economics is typically not included among its defining characteristics (Machlup 1982; Leeson and Boettke 2006; O’Driscoll, Jr., and Rizzo 2002); in a similar vein, Vaughn (1998, p. 2) sees the Austrian aversion to mathematics as a “superficial identifying characteristic,” and Backhouse (2000, p. 40) points out that, to the best of his knowledge, no Austrian has “ever explained why mathematics cannot be used alongside natural-language explanations”; on top of that, Moorhouse (1993, p. 71) reviewing Mises’s views on mathematical economics concludes that there is “no major methodological gulf between praxeology and neoclassical mathematical economics.”

Admittedly, Rothbard, as well as some other Austrians, raised objections against mathematization; but his demonstrated preferences speak otherwise: he sometimes expresses his ideas formally or semi-formally (e.g., Rothbard 2004, pp. 120–121, 152–153, 234). In addition, there is a long line of authors whom we may count as Austrian or Austrian-inspired who occasionally use mathematics in their economic writings. These include Wicksteed (1910), Fetter (1915), Hayek (1941), Haberler (1950), Machlup (1939), Morgenstern (von Neumann and Morgenstern 1953), McCulloch (1977), Garrison (1978), Murphy (2005), Leeson (2010), etc.

Some of these authors even explicitly claim that mathematization of economics is, at least to a certain extent, methodologically acceptable or even desirable. For example, Hayek (1952, p. 214) sees mathematization as “absolutely indispensable to describe certain types of structural relationships”; Machlup (1991) roots for “polylinguistic scholarship” characterized by coexistence of mathematical and non-mathematical language; in Boettke’s (1996) view, formal models are “fine” when constrained by an understandability criterion; and according to Morgenstern (1963, p. 19), an outright supporter of mathematization of economics, the laws of society will be written in the language of mathematics, just like the laws of nature.

This paper acknowledges that mathematization has costs and benefits. At the same time, it admits that it is probably impossible to determine the range of levels of mathematization for which benefits outweigh costs. Given this limitation, the aim of this paper is thus rather modest: it merely attempts to show that the optimal level of mathematization is not zero. More specifically, this paper points out the benefits of mathematization that seem to have been overlooked by some Austrian authors and it shows that most of Austrian criticisms which supposedly challenge mathematization, in fact point to different issues.

Benefits of Mathematization

Mises (1996; 2003; 1977) and Rothbard (2004; 1997a; 1997b) claim that formalization adds nothing to our knowledge as it only involves translation of verbal statements into symbols.2 According to Rothbard (1997a, p. 61; 2004, p. 325), benefits of formalization are none, and therefore formalization should be cut through the principle of Occam’s razor.3 Mises (1996, p. 333) suggests that if there is any benefit to formalization at all, it is pedagogical: diagrammatic exposition can be helpful to students of economics. Mises thus indirectly admits that mathematics (in a diagrammatic form) contributes to clarity of exposition. But why restrict this benefit only to students? Should not economists always communicate with their colleagues in the clearest possible way, especially when presenting new ideas?

Clarity of exposition achieved through diagrammatic representation is but one (and perhaps even not the most important) benefit of the use of mathematics in economics. I propose that mathematics offers also the following three benefits: First, mathematics is nowadays a common language of most economists and other researchers across disciplines — it is thus necessary to communicate ideas; Second, mathematics is less ambiguous than verbal language as it forces one to define precisely the meanings of concepts; and Third, mathematics is generally more efficient than verbal language, both for “producers” and “consumers” of economic ideas. These three benefits of mathematization are now discussed in turn.

Mathematics as a Common Language

If the great majority of economists use mathematics, it pays for each individual economist to use mathematics too; this is simply a coordination problem. The use of verbal language may lead to misunderstanding by the rest of the profession. When an Austrian and another economist speak of marginal utility or time preference, for example, do they in fact mean the same things?4

There are numerous examples in the history of economic thought when translation into the language of mathematics helped to clarify the differences between competing approaches.5 For instance, Marshall’s (1982) translation of Ricardo’s theory of price formation into mathematics allowed for distinguishing between the classical and marginalist theories and facilitated the latter’s acceptance. Similarly, mathematics in the hands of Hicks (1937) and some others helped to detect the differences between “Keynes and the classics” on macroeconomic issues and contributed to the creation of the “neoclassical synthesis.” According to one observer:

Keynes was impressed by the help given by mathematics when numerous economists (Harrod, Hicks, Samuelson, Bryce) cleared up confusions in his General Theory and also presented his system neatly with the help of mathematics. (Harris 1954, p. 384)

Several decades later, formalized language of mathematics revealed that the dispute between “monetarists” and “Keynesians” was not about a general theoretical framework but about different empirical assessment of the value of parameters of the same model (e.g., Modigliani 1977; Mayer 1995). To plunge into more heterodox waters, Roemer (1982; 1988) is one of several economists who formalized Marxian economics and thus helped readers to compare the similarities and differences between Marxism and other mathematized approaches.

With respect to Austrian economics it is interesting to note that according to Chipman (1954, p. 364), “it is hard to find in mathematical economics any discussions more abstruse and difficult to follow than the great verbal debates between the Austrian and American schools on capital theory.” Fortunately for Chipman and others, several attempts to formalize Böhm-Bawerk’s theory have emerged (e.g., Dorfman 1959; 1995; 2001; Potužák 2014) and helped to clarify the debate. Very helpful in this respect is also Garrison’s (1978; 2000) partly formalized treatment of Austrian macroeconomics.

Mathematization is of course not the only way of dealing with the “language-coordination problem.” For instance, one may ignore the majority of economists and choose to “play the game” only with those who use his (i.e., verbal) language. However, this would in effect amount to creating a closed school of thought whose members are able to communicate only with each other but would not be able to interact with the rest of the discipline.6 Closed schools of thought are analogous to closed economies: they protect their cherished ideas from competition. As in the case of trade, such a state of affairs benefits “producers” of ideas but hurts the “consumers” who receive products of inferior quality. Rothbard (1987) seems to have been aware of these adverse effects of isolated groups and perhaps that is also why he chose to communicate with the mainstream.7

Another possibility of approaching the “language-coordination problem” is to stick to verbal language with the proselytizing aim of persuading the rest of the profession to use it, too. In other words, one may be trying to change the language convention, and achieve a switch from a “mathematized equilibrium” to a “verbal equilibrium” of the “language coordination game.” Nevertheless, success of such an attempt seems unlikely, all the more for the fact that the “mathematized equilibrium” is — as I argue below — superior.

Mathematics as a More Precise Language

One of the benefits of mathematization is that it forces us to formulate our ideas precisely (e.g., Klein 1954; Tinbergen 1954; Chiang 1984; Clower 1995). It is sometimes correctly argued that verbal language can be made as precise as the language of mathematics (e.g., Menger 1973; Beed and Kane 1991). In reality, however, this opportunity very often goes unexploited: unless one is forced to express ideas formally, one is perhaps not even aware that the language is ambiguous. Perhaps the best example of increased clarity due to formalization is the creation of the supply and demand model. As Schumpeter (1994, p. 602) points out:

the sponsors of supply and demand [of the 19th century], again with the unnoticed exception of Cournot (and very few others, such as C. Ellet and D. Lardner), even experienced difficulty in setting on its feet the very supply-and-demand apparatus, the claims of which to a place in economic theory they tried to assert. They talked of desires or desires backed by purchasing power, of “extent” of demand and “intensity” of demand, of quantities and prices, and did not quite know how to relate these things to one another. The concepts, so familiar to every beginner of our own days, of demand schedules or curves of willingness to buy (under certain general conditions) specified quantities of a commodity at specified prices, and of supply schedules or curves of willingness to sell (under certain general conditions) specified quantities of a commodity at specified prices, proved unbelievably hard to discover and to distinguish from the concepts—quantity demanded and quantity supplied.

Precision of mathematics also helps to derive implications of one’s assumptions and to demonstrate possible inconsistencies (e.g., Dorfman 1954; Clower 1995). For instance, Samuelson (1957), by formulating Marxian model of wages and interest discovered an error in Marx’s theory that went unnoticed for 90 years (Brems 1975). Mathematics may also help to discover inconsistencies in the Austrian economics: Austrian economists work with preference scales; at the same time, they sometimes criticize the transitivity assumption used by other economists (Block and Barnett 2012). Yet, it is straightforward to show formally that an ability to rank alternatives on a single scale corresponds to the assumptions of completeness and transitivity of the preference relation. In other words, whenever a preference scale is introduced, completeness and transitivity of preferences are implicitly assumed (Hudík 2012). To use a different example, with the help of some simple mathematics it can be demonstrated that, contrary to Rothbard’s (2004, p. 240) claim, the principle of diminishing marginal utility does not necessarily imply a downward-sloping demand curve (Hudík 2011a).

Interestingly, Rothbard sees the ambiguity of the verbal language as an advantage. He quotes Bruno Leoni and Eugenio Frola:

the lack of mathematical precision in ordinary language reflects precisely the behavior of individual human beings in the real world. ... We might suspect that translation into mathematical language by itself implies a suggested transformation of human economic operators into virtual robots. (Rothbard 1997a, p. 62)

This argument is unpersuasive on several grounds: First, it is not at all clear why researchers should use imprecise language just because their researched subjects are imprecise; one can (and, indeed, should) talk precisely even about imprecision. Second, Leoni and Frola’s argument seems to imply that economists should not describe human behavior by concepts which are not used by the acting individuals themselves. However, this requirement imposes unnecessary constraint on economic theories. For instance, economists would be barred from referring to the law of marginal utility merely because people are generally unaware of this law. Finally, Leoni and Frola neglect the fact that economics mostly deals with an order which emerges as an unintended consequence of human actions (Hudík 2011b) where their argument is inapplicable. Consider, for example, activities of speculators which inadvertently contribute to efficient allocation of resources. I assume that we want to be able to describe these consequences even though speculators themselves are unaware of them.

Mathematics as a More Efficient Language

Mathematics is often more efficient than verbal language for both “producers” and “consumers” of economic ideas. From the perspective of the “producers”, mathematics economizes on effort: laborious thought processes are “embodied” in simple rules for manipulation of mathematical symbols (Whitehead 1911, p. 41). In this context Duesenberry (1954) understands mathematics as a “capital good” increasing productivity of economist’s “labor.” On the one hand, Duesenberry admits that it may be true that one cannot do anything with mathematics which cannot be done with verbal language; on the other hand, however, he claims that verbal language is much less efficient; according to his analogy, “[o]ne probably cannot do anything with power shovels that cannot be done with picks and hand shovels” (Duesenberry 1954, p. 361). Analogously, Chiang (1984, p. 5) thinks of mathematics as a “mode of transportation.”8

Chiang (1984, p. 4) mentions another aspect of the efficiency of mathematization of economics: there exists a large number of mathematical theorems at economists’ disposal. Consequently, we do not have to rediscover these theorems whenever they arise in a new context (Dorfman 1954, p. 376). Thus, for instance, in order to prove his theorem of the existence of (“Nash”) equilibrium in strategic games, Nash applied first Brouwer’s and later Kakutani’s fixed point theorems (Kuhn and Nasar 2002). Half a century before Nash, Euler’s theorem was applied to address the “adding-up problem” in the theory of distribution (Stigler 1994).9

As for “consumers” of economic ideas, mathematics often allows them to economize on their time and attention: as Klein (1954, p. 360) puts it, “[t]here is a real merit in condensing wordy volumes or manuscripts into a few understandable pages.” Nash may again be used as an example here: his famous dissertation thesis that earned him the Nobel Prize has only twenty seven pages; his paper on the existence of Nash equilibrium takes up only one page (Nash 1950a), while his ground-breaking paper on the bargaining problem is eight pages long (Nash 1950b). It is safe to assume that without formalization Nash’s papers would have to be considerably longer.10

Costs of Mathematization

Mathematization does, naturally, have its costs. As pointed out by Morgenstern (1963, p. 2), when evaluating costs of mathematization, one has to distinguish among (i) criticism of inappropriate use of mathematics, (ii) criticism of the underlying economic model which happens to be analyzed mathematically, and (iii) criticism of mathematization.

In the first category we find criticisms of Bourbakism in economics (McCloskey 1994), of the use of calculus (Boulding 1948; Rothbard 1977), or of applying the mathematics of nineteenth-century mechanics to economics in general (Mirowski 1989). Likewise, criticisms of failed attempts to mathematize phenomena which seem to be impossible to address with known mathematics belong to this category (Beed and Kane 1991; Wutscher et al. 2010), as do also criticisms of misinterpreting quantitative economics (Mises 1996, pp. 55–56)11 and measurement (Rothbard 1977). None of these or similar criticisms, justifiable or not, represent arguments against the use of mathematics in economics as such.

Type (ii) criticisms are also not arguments against mathematization. They include criticism of unrealistic assumptions (e.g., Keynes 1964; Leontief 1971; Beed and Kane 1991; Wutscher et al. 2010) or criticism of particular concepts that happen to be used by mathematical economics, such as equilibrium (Wutscher et al. 2010). It is important to repeat that most mathematization is simply a translation of verbal statements into symbols; hence, the problem must be with theories themselves, not mathematics (Backhouse 1998; 2000). One may interject that the use of certain branches of mathematics (e.g., calculus) requires some additional assumptions such as continuity and differentiability (Menger 1973); but again, this criticism concerns only the application of a particular branch of mathematics to particular economic problem and is consequently not a general argument against mathematization. Furthermore, technical assumptions used by mathematical economics are often harmless: for instance, it is well-known that all important conclusions of standard demand theory can be obtained without the assumption of continuous and differentiable utility functions. Yet, continuous and differentiable functions are often used for the sake of convenience.

Actual costs of mathematization are identified by type (iii) criticisms. What are these costs? I identify three: first, tendency to downplay factors which are difficult to formalize; second, tendency to lose touch with reality; third, decrease of intelligibility for lay people. Note, that the first two costs are not inherent to mathematization per se; they are rather incidental to it and can perhaps be avoided. More importantly, though, none of these costs constitutes by its nature an argument for avoiding the use of mathematics altogether.

Downplaying Factors Not Amenable To Formalization

A tendency to neglect everything that cannot be easily formalized is a drawback of mathematization acknowledged by mathematical economists themselves (e.g., Debreu 1986). For instance, Krugman (1996; quoted in Backhouse 1998) argues that economists ignored important models for spatial economics just because these models could not be formalized.

Sometimes economists go so far as to demand that theories must refer only to quantifiable magnitudes. In his Nobel lecture Hayek (1975, p. 434) points out that

while in the physical sciences the investigator will be able to measure what, on the basis of a prima facie theory, he thinks important, in the social sciences often that is treated important which happens to be accessible to measurement.

He gives an example of quantifiable relationship between aggregate demand and total unemployment on one hand, and relationship between unemployment and the structure of relative prices and wages on the other. The former is accepted as “scientific,” while the latter is neglected as not testable because we never know what the equilibrium prices and wages are.

Other phenomena that are difficult to treat mathematically and are often mentioned by the Austrians are subjectivism and Knightian uncertainty. Again, these can be argued to receive insufficient attention by economists.12 Still, one may wonder if perhaps the limits of mathematization, whether in this particular case or in general, do not often coincide with the limits of scientific investigation: are currently non-mathematizable phenomena amenable to science at all?

I suggest that the way to deal with the phenomena which are currently difficult to mathematize is not only a careful use of known mathematic tools but also development of new tools. For example, before von Neumann and Morgenstern (1953) mathematical economics (and, as a matter of fact, any branch of economics) was unable to deal with strategic decision problems. Hence, von Neumann and Morgenstern constructed a completely new branch of mathematics to deal with strategic issues. As this example illustrates, the limits of mathematization are not given but constantly evolve.

Losing Touch with Reality

It is often argued that mathematization leads to a loss of contact with reality (e.g., Boulding 1948; Champernowne 1954; Novick 1954; Šímová and Šíma 2012).13 This can have several reasons: In Debreu’s (1986, p. 1268) view, the power of mathematics is such that the “seductiveness of [mathematical] form becomes almost irresistible” and researchers thus tend to forget economic content. Still, Debreu argues that separation of models and reality can sometimes be an advantage. For instance, it is said to bring economics closer to the ideology-free ideal (see Düppe 2010).14

According to Duesenberry (1954, p. 362), loss of touch with the real world is simply given by the job description of an economic theorist: the aim of the theorist is not to explain a particular set of observations but to show general consequences of a set of premises. To this argument we may add that a theorist also aims at universalization: she also attempts to show that two or several seemingly separate theories are merely different manifestations of the same principle. Hence, theoretical research is necessarily often disconnected from reality as it focuses on logical consistency of theories. From this perspective, criticism of the separation of mathematical models from reality could be interpreted as a criticism of theoretical research as such and as a plea for focusing on applied research. I hasten to add that the debate on optimal allocation of resources between theoretical and applied research is extremely important (see e.g., Šťastný 2010); yet, it is a different debate than the one on costs and benefits of mathematization.

Intelligibility

It is probably true that the more formalized a model is, the less intelligible it is to lay people. Should economists worry about this trade-off? On the affirmative side stands the consideration that economic literacy is low which in turn has substantial negative externalities as citizens and voters are called upon to form opinions on many economic issues (e.g., Becker 2000; Šťastný 2010). On the other side stands the argument that, as in any other science, researchers should write primarily for other researchers and educating lay people should be left to popularizers: as individual economists differ in their skills and talents, there are benefits from specialization.15 Trading off benefits of formalization for intelligibility of academic writing to the general public thus seems inefficient. A different question is whether economists have sufficient incentives to be popularizers; but that is again for another debate.

Conclusion

Examination of benefits and costs of mathematization suggests that the issue is not whether to use mathematics in economics or not; instead, the issue is what kind of mathematics is appropriate and how it should be used (cf. Backhouse 2000; Rosser 2003). It should be stressed that mathematization by no means is in conflict with the Austrian methodology, although some aspects of Austrian economics may be difficult to formalize at the present state of knowledge. This limitation, however, does not imply that we should give up on pushing the limits of mathematization further. Given that spreading ideas among the bulk of modern economists requires the use of mathematical language, one may only hope to see more and more mathematized Austrian economics in the future. For as they say: b(m) - c(m) > 0, for some m > 0.

References

Backhouse, Roger E. 1998. “If Mathematics Is Informal, Then Perhaps We Should Accept That Economics Must Be Informal Too.” The Economic Journal 108(451): 1848–58.

——. 2000. “Austrian Economics and the Mainstream: View from the Boundary.” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 3(2): 31–43.

Becker, William. 2000. “Teaching Economics in the 21st Century.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(1): 109–19.

Beed, Clive, and Owen Kane. 1991. “What Is the Critique of the Mathematization of Economics?” Kyklos 44(4): 581–612.

Block, Walter E., and William Barnett II. 2012. “Transitivity and the Money Pump.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 15 (2): 237–51.

Boettke, Peter J. 1996. “What Is Wrong with Neoclassical Economics (And What Is Still Wrong With Austrian Economics).” In Fred E. Foldvary, ed., Beyond Neoclassical Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Boulding, Kenneth E. 1948. “Samuelson’s Foundations: The Role of Mathematics in Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 56(3): 187–99.

Brems, Hans. 1975. “Marshall on Mathematics.” Journal of Law & Economics 18(2): 583–85.

Caplan, Bryan. 1999. “The Austrian Search for Realistic Foundations.” Southern Economic Journal 65(4): 823–38.

Champernowne, David G. 1954. “V. On the Use and Misuse of Mathematics in Presenting Economic Theory.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 369–72.

Chiang, Alpha C. 1984. Fundamental Methods of Mathematical Economics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chipman, John S. 1954. “III. Empirical Testing and Mathematical Models.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 363–65.

Clark, John M. 1947. “Mathematical Economists and Others: A Plea for Communicability.” Econometrica 15(2): 75.

Clower, Robert W. 1995. “Axiomatics in Economics.” Southern Economic Journal 62(2): 307.

Cooke, Roger. 2005. The History of Mathematics. A Brief Course. New Jersey: Wiley.

Debreu, Gerard. 1984. “Economic Theory in the Mathematical Mode.” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 86(4): 393.

——. 1986. “Theoretic Models: Mathematical Form and Economic Content.” Econometrica 54(6): 1259.

Dennis, Ken. 1982a. “Economic Theory and the Problem of Translation.” Journal of Economic Issues 16(3): 691–712.

——. 1982b. “Economic Theory and the Problem of Translation: Part Two.” Journal of Economic Issues 16(4): 1039–62.

Dorfman, Robert. 1954. “VII. A Catechism: Mathematics in Social Science.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 374—77.

——. 1959. “A Graphical Exposition of Böhm-Bawerk’s Interest Theory.” Review of Economic Studies 26(2): 153–58.

——. 1995. “Austrian and American Capital Theories: A Contrast of Cultures.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 17(01): 21–34.

——. 2001. “Modernizing Böhm-Bawerk’s Theory of Interest.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 23(01): 37–54.

Duesenberry, James S. 1954. “II. The Methodological Basis of Economic Theory.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 361–63.

Düppe, Till. 2010. “Debreu’s Apologies for Mathematical Economics after 1983.” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy & Economics 3(1): 1–32.

Fetter, Frank A. 1915. Economics, Vol. 1: Economic Principles. New York: The Century Co.

Fisher, Irving. 2007. Mathematical Investigations in the Theory of Value and Prices, and Appreciation and Interest. Cosimo.

Garrison, Roger. 1978. Austrian Macroeconomics: A Diagrammatical Exposition. Menlo Park, Calif.: Institute for Humane Studies.

——. 2000. Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure. Routledge.

Haberler, Gottfried. 1950. “Some Problems in the Pure Theory of International Trade.” The Economic Journal 60(238): 223–40.

Harris, Seymour E. 1954. “A Postscript by Editor.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 382–86.

Hayek, F. A. 1941. The Pure Theory of Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——. 1952. The Counter-Revolution of Science. Glencoe: The Free Press.

——. 1975. “The Pretence of Knowledge.” The Swedish Journal of Economics 77(4): 433–42.

Hicks, J. R. 1937. “Mr. Keynes and the ‘Classics’; A Suggested Interpretation.” Econometrica 5(2): 147.

Hudík, Marek. 2011a. “Rothbardian Demand: A Critique.” Review of Austrian Economics 24(3): 311–18.

——. 2011b. “Why Economics Is Not a Science of Behaviour.” Journal of Economic Methodology 18(2): 147–162.

——. 2012. “Transitivity: A Comment on Block and Barnett.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 15(4): 456–62.

——. 2014a. “Reference-Dependence and Marginal Utility: Alt, Samuelson, and Bernardelli.” History of Political Economy, forthcoming.

——. 2014b. “A Preference Change or a Perception Change? A Comment on Dietrich and List.” International Journal of Game Theory, forthcoming.

Jaffé, William. 1976. “Menger, Jevons and Walras De-Homogenized.” Economic Inquiry 14(4): 511–24.

Keynes, John Maynard. 1964. The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Klein, Lawrence R. 1954. “I. The Contributions of Mathematics in Economics.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 359–61.

Krugman, Paul. 1996. “How to Be a Crazy Economist.” In S. G. Medema and W. J. Samuels, eds., Foundations of Research in Economics: How Do Economists Do Economics? Cheltenham, UK and Brookfield, Vt.: Edward Elgar.

Kuhn, Harold W., and Sylvia Nasar, eds. 2002. The Essential John Nash. Princeton, N.J. and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Leeson, Peter T. 2010. “Rational Choice, Round Robin, and Rebellion: An Institutional Solution to the Problems of Revolution.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 73(3): 297–307.

Leeson, Peter T., and Peter J. Boettke. 2006. “Was Mises Right?” Review of Social Economy 64(2): 247–65.

Leonard, Robert. 2010. Von Neumann, Morgenstern, and the Creation of Game Theory: From Chess to Social Science, 1900–1960. Cambridge University Press.

Leontief, Wassily. 1971. “Theoretical Assumptions and Nonobserved Facts.” American Economic Review 61(1): 1–7.

Machlup, Fritz. 1939. “The Theory of Foreign Exchanges.” Economica 6(24): 375–97.

——. 1982. “Austrian Economics.” In Douglas Greenwald, ed., Encyclopedia of Economics, pp. 38–43. New York: McGraw-Hill.

——. 1991. “Mathematics, Realism and a Time for Synthesis.” In Economic Semantics, pp. 329–34. New Brunswick, N.J. and London: Transaction Publishers.

Marshall, Alfred. 1982. Principles of Economics: An Introductory Volume. Philadelphia: Porcupine Press.

Mayer, Thomas. 1995. Doing Economic Research: Essays on the Applied Methodology of Economics. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

McCloskey, Deirdre N. 1994. Knowledge and Persuasion in Economics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

McCulloch, J. Huston. 1977. “The Austrian Theory of the Marginal Use and of Ordinal Marginal Utility.” Zeitschrift Für Nationalökonomie — Journal of Economics 37(3–4): 249–80.

Menger, Karl. 1973. “Austrian Marginalism and Mathematical Economics.” In John R. Hicks and Wilhelm Weber, eds., Carl Menger and the Austrian School of Economics, pp. 38–60. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

Mirowski, Philip. 1989. More Heat than Light. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mises, Ludwig von. 1977. “Comments about the Mathematical Treatment of Economic Problems.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 1(2): 97–100.

——. 1996. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. 4th rev. ed. San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes.

——. 2003. Epistemological Problems of Economics. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Modigliani, Franco. 1977. “The Monetarist Controversy Or, Should We Forsake Stabilization Policies?” American Economic Review 67(2): 1–19.

Moorhouse, John C. 1993. “A Critical Review of Mises on Mathematical Economics.” History of Economics Review 20.

Morgenstern, Oskar. 1963. Limits to the Uses of Mathematics in Economics. Research Memorandum 49. Econometric Research Program. Princeton: Princeton University.

Murphy, Robert P. 2005. “Dangers of the One-Good Model: Böhm-Bawerk’s Critique of the ‘Naïve Productivity Theory of Interest.’” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 27(4): 375–82.

Nash, John. 1950a. “Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 36(1): 48–49.

——. 1950b. “The Bargaining Problem.” Econometrica 18(2): 155–62.

Novick, David. 1954. “Mathematics: Logic, Quantity, and Method.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 357–58.

O’Driscoll, Jr., Gerald P., and Mario J. Rizzo. 2002. The Economics of Time and Ignorance: With a New Introduction. Taylor & Francis.

Pareto, Vilfredo. 1897. “The New Theories of Economics.” Journal of Political Economy 5(4): 485–502.

Potužák, Pavel. 2014. “The Austrian Theory of the Natural Rate of Interest: A Neoclassical Critique.” Mimeo.

Roemer, John E. 1982. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Harvard University Press.

——. 1988. Analytical Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Rosser, Barkley. 2003. “Weintraub on the Evolution of Mathematical Economics: A Review Essay.” Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 25(4): 575–89.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1977. Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics. New York: Center for Libertarian Studies.

——. 1987. The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult. Port Townsend, Wash.: Liberty Publishing.

——. 1997a. “Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics.” In The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School, pp. 58–77. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

——. 1997b. “The Mantle of Science.” In The Logic of Action One: Method, Money, and the Austrian School, pp. 3–23. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

——. 2004. Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market: Government and Economy. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Salerno, Joseph T. 1993. “Mises and Hayek Dehomogenized.” Review of Austrian Economics 6(2): 113–46.

——. 2004. “Introduction to the Second Edition of Man, Economy and State with Power and Market.” In Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Samuelson, Paul A. 1952. “Economic Theory and Mathematics — An Appraisal.” American Economic Review 42(2): 56–66.

——. 1957. “Wages and Interest: A Modern Dissection of Marxian Economic Models.” American Economic Review 47(6): 884–912.

Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1994. History of Economic Analysis. London: Routledge.

Šímová, Tereza, and Josef Šíma. 2012. “In Search Of Empirical Content — The Austrian Way To Go Beyond Pure Theory.” Romanian Economic Business Review 7(1): 50–59.

Šťastný, Dan. 2010. The Economics of Economics: Why Economists Aren’t as Important as Garbagemen (but They Might Be). Prague: CEVRO Institute and Wolters Kluiwer.

Stigler, George J. 1950. Five Lectures on Economic Problems. New York: Macmillan.

——. 1994. Production and Distribution Theories. New Brunswick, N.J. and London: Transaction Publishers.

Tinbergen, Jan. 1954. “IV. The Functions of Mathematical Treatment.” Review of Economics and Statistics 36(4): 365–69.

Vaughn, Karen I. 1998. Austrian Economics in America: The Migration of a Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Von Neumann, John, and Oskar Morgenstern. 1953. Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Weintraub, E. Roy. 1998. “Axiomatisches Mißverständnis.” The Economic Journal 108(451): 1837–47.

Whitehead, Alfred North. 1911. An Introduction to Mathematics. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

• *Marek Hudík is postdoctoral fellow at the Center for Theoretical Study at Charles University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic. I was a summer research fellow at the Mises Institute in 2009. Throughout the fellowship, I greatly benefited from Professor Salerno’s kind help and constant encouragement.
• 1By “mathematization of economics” I mean the “use of mathematical techniques … in economic arguments” (Backhouse 1998, p. 1848). An alternative definition of the term can be found in Beed and Kane (1991, p. 581), who understand it as the “increasing emphasis given to mathematical economics.” For a discussion of the concepts of mathematization, formalization, axiomatization, and abstraction, see e.g., Weintraub (1998) and Backhouse (1998).
• 2This claim seems uncontroversial: it is put forward by both critics of mathematization (e.g., Novick 1954) and its advocates (e.g., Samuelson 1952). However, see Dennis (1982a; 1982b) for criticism of this view; see also Weintraub (1998, p. 1844) who posits the view of mathematics as an engine of discovery as an alternative to mathematics as a language.
• 3This Rothbard’s claim is problematic: if true, how would we explain that mathematics itself (or any other discipline) became formalized? Indeed, until the Renaissance, there was basically only “literary mathematics”: for instance the symbols “+” and “—” first appeared in the late fifteenth century and “=” was introduced only in the early sixteenth century (Cooke 2005, p. 432).
• 4For a discussion of different definitions of marginal utility, see Hudík (2014a). On the ambiguity of time preference definition, see Potužák (2014).
• 5Admittedly, there are also instances when mathematization contributed to ambiguity of economic concepts (Stigler 1950). In this context, it should also be noted that there usually is more than one way of formalizing a theory and this further complicates the issue (Beed and Kane 1991).
• 6Interestingly, until the first half of the twentieth century, i.e., before mathematical methods spread through the discipline, mathematical economics was considered to constitute such closed group. See e.g., Clark (1947).
• 7Similar attitude was adopted by many Austrians before and after Rothbard, including Böhm-Bawerk, Mises, and Hayek.
• 8This metaphor seems to have been used for the first time by Fisher (2007); for similar metaphors, see e.g., Pareto (1897), Champernowne (1954), Tinbergen (1954), Menger (1973) and McCloskey (1994).
• 9For more examples of mathematical theorems that were directly applied in economics, see Debreu (1984).
• 10As usual, there is a dissenting view, this time it is Marshall’s: The chief use of pure mathematics in economic questions seems to be in helping a person to write down quickly, shortly and exactly, some of his thoughts for his own use … It seems doubtful whether anyone spends his time well in reading lengthy translations of economic doctrines into mathematics, that have not been made by himself. (Marshall 1982, p. ix)
• 11It should be added that Mises criticized the use of quantitative methods to test theories; there is no argument in Mises’s writings against using quantitative methods in applied research. See also Leeson and Boettke (2006).
• 12For the debate on formalization of Knightian uncertainty, see Caplan (1999) and Wutscher et al. (2010); for an attempt to formalize subjectivism in games, see Hudík (2014b).
• 13On the other hand, Brems (1975) provides the following counter-example of verbal treatment leading to focus on imaginary problems: investment in the Keynesian theory was considered a function of the rate of interest instead of the change of the rate of interest, only because verbal economics was unable to handle difference or differential equations.
• 14Morgenstern praised mathematical economics for exactly the same reason. See Leonard (2010).
• 15Steven Levitt is an exception that may in fact prove the rule: his pop-economics books are co-authored with the journalist Stephen Dubner.

In* 2009, I had for the first time the opportunity of participating in the Mises Institute summer fellowship program under the guidance of Professor Salerno. On this occasion, I worked on an article touching upon the theme of monopoly price theory, a shared research interest of ours (Salerno 2003, 2004). My goal was to focus on how the pricing of factors of production is affected when their products are sold at monopoly prices (Méra 2010).

Now, the very nature of the issue at hand required to take a “long run” perspective since it concerns the production decision point, a decision which must be made by some capitalist-entrepreneur in anticipation of its future returns. Because of this focus, I noticed in the course of my research that Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard tend to emphasize the same requirement for a monopoly price to emerge, as far as the demand schedule for the monopolized good is concerned, in the long run and in the “immediate run” (when the good is already available).

This is problematic because, as I intend to explain below, their criterion of a seller or a cartel of sellers facing an “inelastic demand” above the “competitive price” (Mises) or the “free-market price” (Rothbard) is only required in the immediate run. This has consequences in regard to the question of the limits to monopoly pricing, a question that Rothbard (1962, pp. 680–81) briefly but explicitly deals with in his “A World of Monopoly Prices?” section when he asks “Can all selling prices be monopoly prices?” He also provides insights outside of this section which also have direct implications for that question. Most notably, he explains that the very concept of a monopoly price makes sense only as a byproduct of interventionism, arguably an improvement over Mises’s theory. Nonetheless, Rothbard’s take, as well as Mises’s, suffers from this issue of the inelastic demand criterion and related weaknesses that I intend to highlight and repair below. Since these shortcomings happened not to be decisive for the article I worked on under Professor Salerno’s supervision, I had left them at that.1 It seems appropriate then to deal with them here.

I begin with a brief summary of Rothbard’s view of monopoly prices as a hampered market phenomenon only. I interpret this modification of Mises’s monopoly price theory in the following way: the limits to monopoly pricing are shown to be narrower than what Mises thought. In other words, there is less room for monopoly prices to emerge in a market economy than Rothbard’s mentor considered.

Then I explain how, on the other hand, the ambiguous treatment of the inelasticity of demand criterion in Mises and Rothbard’s analysis leaves less room for monopoly prices than there really is. Although in contrast the modern neoclassical theory’s treatment of monopoly avoids the same ambiguity and its consequences, I show that the reason is accidental and that this should not be mistaken as a sign that it provides a superior alternative.

Finally, the main theory and policy implications of our findings are stressed: if there can be monopoly prices without inelastic demand schedules above free market prices, the price distortion potential of monopolistic privileges is more important than what Rothbard envisages. It becomes then all the more urgent to refrain from granting them if one wants to spare the bulk of consumers from the effects of factor misallocation.

Re-Thinking the Limits to Monopoly Pricing: Rothbard’s Contribution

In relation to Mises’s exposition of monopoly price theory, Rothbard’s central contribution is to show that the dichotomy between a competitive and a monopoly price is illusory in a free market framework. The movement from a competitive price to a monopoly price and the movement from a sub-competitive price to a competitive price are indistinguishable, for instance. The most fundamental reason is that the seller is in the same position vis-à-vis the demand schedule, whatever case one considers. All that we know based on Mises’s praxeology is that, nonmonetary factors aside, the seller will try to obtain a price above which the demand schedule is elastic. This is true when he can obtain a monopoly price. But this is true as well as when he can only charge a competitive price. Otherwise, he would charge a higher price. In other words, both prices appear to be distinguishable only if one arbitrarily postulates that a certain price is competitive so that a higher price can be considered as a monopoly price if the seller can increase his monetary income or net revenue by selling the good at this higher price. Absent an independent criterion to conceive of this competitive price, the whole dichotomy fades away (Rothbard 1962, pp. 687–98). If one cannot distinguish between two things, they are essentially the same.2

On the contrary, there is an identifiable criterion providing the basis for such a distinction once one contrasts actions occurring in a free market framework with actions occurring while some potential sellers are excluded from the market under threats of or outright aggression. As Rothbard (1962, p. 904) puts it:

We have seen above that on the free market, every demand curve to a firm is elastic above the free-market price; otherwise the firm would have an incentive to raise its price and increase its revenue. But the grant of monopoly privilege renders the consumer demand curve less elastic, for the consumer is deprived of substitute products from other potential competitors. Whether this lowering of elasticity will be sufficient to make the demand curve to the firm inelastic (so that gross revenue will be greater at a price higher than the free market price) depends on the concrete historical data of the case and is not for economic analysis to determine.

In other words, one can conceive of a monopoly price, as compared to a free market price, because the demand schedules that remaining sellers face are altered. These sellers are then not in the same position vis-à-vis these demand schedules than they would be when anyone has the right to compete with them. They will then be able to charge a monopoly price if the demand schedules they now face, independently or together as a cartel, are inelastic above the free market price, which is only possible if the market demand schedule is inelastic above the free market price (Rothbard 1962, p. 674).3

Now, these simple yet profound insights mean the following, in relation to the question of the limits to monopoly pricing. If Mises and all the writers who have claimed that monopoly prices could arise in a free market framework have been mistaken here about their nature, they have underestimated the limits to monopoly pricing in society. Rothbard’s contribution — recasting the theory of monopoly price as part of a theory of interventionism — implies the claim that the scope for monopoly prices is narrower than what Mises thought.4

The Overlooked Case of Monopoly Prices with Elastic Demand Schedules

Even if one endorses Rothbard’s contribution, one might nevertheless argue that there is more room for monopoly prices than he thought. To understand this, one must focus on some condition required for a monopoly price to emerge that both Rothbard and Mises have repeatedly stressed in their writings on the topic. The above quote displays this condition. The demand schedule that the holder of a monopolistic privilege faces must be such that above the free market price (or the competitive price, for Mises), one or several prices bring in more revenue. This is the “inelasticity of demand” criterion. The implication is that monopoly pricing in society is limited to the extent that demand schedules are elastic in the relevant ranges. For Rothbard then, the less goods there are for which people are eager to increase their expenses on above their free market prices, the less room there is for monopoly pricing, no matter how effective the grants of privilege are at hampering competition.

There can be no quarrel with this as long as one takes an immediate run perspective in which the goods to be sold or withheld from the market are readily available. Matters are different however once one focuses on the production decision points, when people try to maximize net income and not necessarily gross income. Increasing one’s net income by restricting one’s production of a good is possible even if one faces an elastic demand schedule above the free market price, provided that one’s average production expenses fall at a high enough pace (or rise slowly enough). All that is really required is that total expenses fall more than total income. The decisive consideration is not inelasticity of demand. If it remains of course a factor of emergence of monopoly prices, it is not a necessary criterion anymore. The limits to monopoly pricing are not as narrow as what Rothbard suggests.

Mises and Rothbard’s Conflation of the Immediate Run and the Long Run

Now the reader familiar with Mises and Rothbard’s writings might ponder. These authors did not forget to take production expenses into account in their discussions of monopoly prices, did they? To be sure, they did not. The point is however that Mises (1944), Mises (1949) and Rothbard (1962) never explicitly recognize that the inelasticity of demand criterion needs to be qualified once production is taken into account. In these expositions, they tend to jump from an immediate run to a long run perspective and vice versa without saying so. As a consequence, inelasticity of demand for the product appears to be a required criterion even when the analysis focuses on the production decision point.

For instance, in the paragraph following the above quote, Rothbard (1962, p. 904) mentions the restriction on production and the inelasticity criterion in the same breath, as if maximizing gross income still was the relevant consideration for the monopolist at the production decision point:

When the demand curve to the firm remains elastic (so that gross revenue will be lower at a higher-than-free-market price), the monopolist will not reap any monopoly gain from his grant. Consumers and competitors will still be injured because their trade is prevented, but the monopolist will not gain, because his price and income will be no higher than before. On the other hand, if his demand curve is inelastic, then he institutes a monopoly price so as to maximize his revenue. His production has to be restricted in order to command the higher price. The restriction of production and higher price for the product both injure the consumers.

Here the restriction of production comes as an afterthought, once one has considered which price would maximize gross income. Or, earlier, Rothbard (1962, p. 672) introduces the theory of monopoly price by quoting a passage of Human Action in which Mises focuses on the production decision point:

If conditions are such that the monopolist can secure higher net proceeds by selling a smaller quantity of his product at a higher price than by selling a greater quantity of his supply at a lower price, there emerges a monopoly price higher than the potential market price would have been in the absence of monopoly.

This is compatible with an elastic demand. And yet, Rothbard immediately adds, as if it was no different:

The monopoly price doctrine may be summed up as follows: A certain quantity of a good, when produced and sold, yields a competitive price on the market. A monopolist or a cartel of firms can, if the demand curve is inelastic at the competitive-price point, restrict sales and raise the price, to arrive at the point of maximum returns. If, on the other hand, the demand curve as it presents itself to the monopolist or cartel is elastic at the competitive-price point, the monopolist will not restrict sales to attain a higher price. [Emphasis in the original]5

Similarly, in Human Action, the required condition of the inelastic demand for a monopoly price to emerge is defended, and then production considerations are added with no qualification of the criterion. The initial requirement reads as follows:

The reaction of the buying public to the rise in prices beyond the potential competitive price, the fall in demand, is not such-as to render the proceeds resulting from total sales at any price exceeding the competitive price smaller than total proceeds resulting from total sales at the competitive price. (Mises 1949, p. 355)

Then he starts discussing the problem of resource allocation and production expenses. As a consequence, “net proceeds” (Mises 1949, pp. 357, 358, 359, 374) now become the relevant consideration, as they should. And yet, no mention is made of the fact that the previously stated requirement is not strictly valid anymore when he later refers to a “propitious configuration of demand” (Mises 1949, p. 370).

In Mises (1944), the same ambiguity is to be found in an even more pronounced way because Mises shifts back and forth from the immediate run to the long run perspective. First, Mises (1944, p. 2) posits the inelasticity of demand criterion with a numerical example. Given an existing stock of a good, the monopolist does not restrict his sales because demand is such that the total proceeds diminish at any higher price than the competitive one: “If a rise of the price above the competitive price results in a more-than-proportional restriction of the quantity bought by the public, the total proceeds of the seller would drop.” In the next paragraph, he switches to the long run perspective by considering the problem of the allocation of factors and then explains that,

… if some special barriers prevent other people from competing with the monopolistic sellers, a restriction of the production of copper or shoes that does not comply with the demands of the consumers becomes possible. Although the consumers are ready to pay for additional quantities of copper or shoes at prices which would render an expansion of production profitable on a competitive market, the sellers, sheltered by monopoly, do not expand production if they are better off under a state of affairs which results in a higher income for them with curtailment of production. (Mises 1944, p. 2)

Notice how Mises speaks here of mere “income” and not “net proceeds,” despite the fact that he is considering the production decision point. And on the next page, he comes back to the immediate run inelasticity of demand requirement. Both the immediate and long run perspectives are in effect conflated.6 As one consequently fails to consider the case of a monopoly price with an elastic demand schedule, one narrows the limits to monopoly pricing too much (beyond Rothbard’s reduction to cases of interventions).

Surprisingly enough, given the evidence of conflation that we have shown, it turns out that in one instance Mises has implicitly considered the case of a monopoly price with an elastic demand. Mises (1944, p. 7) draws a table with hypothetical figures showing slightly decreasing average expenses as production expands. There are four prices considered, 5, 6, 7 and 8 monetary units per unit of product and a higher price always implies lower proceeds: the demand is elastic on whatever range we consider above 5, which Mises declares to be the competitive price. According to the inelasticity criterion, there is therefore no room for a monopoly price. But Mises writes that “the monopoly price most favorable to the monopolist is 7” (6, 7 and 8 are monopoly prices)! The reason of course is that, given the figures he chooses, the expenses required diminish more than the proceeds when one reduces the scale of production. Nevertheless, he does not mention explicitly that this is a case of a monopoly price with an elastic demand while, as shown above, he conflates the relevant required criteria for the immediate and the long run perspectives in the same article.

Rothbard too implicitly recognizes the case of a monopoly price with an elastic demand somewhere. In Power & Market, he reproduces an extract from Man, Economy, and State which claimed that an inelastic demand schedule is required for a monopoly price to arise. It is repeated word for word except for one added qualification: “The monopolist, as a receiver of a monopoly privilege, will be able to achieve a monopoly price for the product if his demand curve is inelastic, or sufficiently less elastic, above the free-market price” (Rothbard 1970, p. 44, emphasis added). Inelasticity is not a necessary requirement anymore. He does not explain the addition of the “sufficiently less elastic” criterion but one can certainly see that it makes perfect sense, in light of Mises’ example above and our comments.

To avoid conflation, one can explicitly refer to the two decisions points and thereby disentangle the two required criteria. Kirzner’s exposition comes closer to this than Mises’ and Rothbard’s (Kirzner 1963, pp. 265–96) and is arguably superior in this regard. Another is to call the immediate run and the long run monopoly prices differently. This is, as Salerno (2003, p. 31) notices, what Fetter (1915, pp. 80–81) does, writing of a “crude monopoly price” when the sale of an already produced stock of a good is considered, and of a mere “monopoly price” for a good when its production is considered. Then it can be easily grasped that a crude monopoly price requires an inelastic demand schedule above the free market price, whereas a mere monopoly price does not.

The Trouble with Rothbard’s Falling Costs Proviso

The lack of a clear-cut explicit distinction in Mises and Rothbard’s analysis between the immediate run and the long run can lead to some further confusion. If one ignores the case of a monopoly price with an elastic demand, it is difficult to make sense of Rothbard’s proviso, according to which a monopoly price will arise when one is striving for maximum net proceeds, “whatever the actual configuration of money costs, unless, indeed, average money costs are falling rapidly enough in this region to make the “competitive point” the most remunerative after all” (Rothbard 1962, p. 674).

The reason is the following. For the “competitive point”7 to yield a higher net return than the restrictive alternative with an inelastic demand, it would be necessary that expenses fall in absolute terms when one increases production, not merely on average, since gross income falls when one expands until the free market point (by definition of the inelasticity of the relevant range of the demand schedule). But this is impossible. Average expenses might fall when production is increased, because of the indivisibility of some factors of production. Total expenses cannot. If the producer-seller will face an inelastic demand for his product in the future, restriction must pay whatever the configuration of expenses is. And believing that a proviso is required here amounts once again to an unjustifiably narrow view of the limits to monopoly pricing.

The proviso makes sense only once one recognizes the possibility of a monopoly price with an elastic demand. In general, the higher the average expenses become as production expands, the more likely it is that cutting production below the free market level pays. Hence the case of a monopoly price with an elastic demand, provided that average expenses become low enough when one reduces production below the free market level (“low enough” meaning that total expenses fall at a faster pace than total receipts in order for net proceeds to rise). In other words, the more they rise instead, or fall at a slow pace, the less likely it is that net proceeds will be higher at a lower level of production, the more chances there are that the free market level of production is the most remunerative. But this possibility arises only when the demand is elastic above the free market price. When doing less brings in more gross revenue, restriction in the monopolized industry always pays. Any other conclusion unduly narrows down the limits to monopoly pricing.

The Current Textbook Treatment as a Superior Alternative?

It could be argued that the orthodox take on monopoly as found in Arnold (pp. 223–58) or any microeconomics textbook is superior to Mises and Rothbard’s in at least one respect: there is no risk of the sort of conflation we have pointed out here because there is no immediate run analysis to conflate with a long run perspective in its treatment of the issue. In that neoclassical approach, the sellers are producers too, even in the short run. There is no question of what to do with an available stock of a good. There is no reason then for inelasticity of demand to be a distinguishing criterion since monetary profit maximization — and therefore money costs — are relevant considerations in all cases.

Apart from the fact that getting rid of the immediate run is per se problematic since the useful and realistic concept of a crude monopoly price disappears from the picture, the most fundamental reason why inelasticity has no decisive role in that approach is that it is based on different categories with different criteria than the older monopoly price theory. As Caplan (1997) puts it, in modern neoclassical theory,

there is always some degree of monopolistic distortion unless firms face a horizontal demand curve. For unless firms face a horizontal demand curve, a profit-maximizing firm sets its price above its marginal cost. In the absence of perfect price discrimination, this means that there is a “deadweight loss” — or unrealized gains to trade.

In other words, the fundamental distinction here is between “pure and perfect competition” with perfectly elastic demand schedules and “imperfect” or “monopolistic competition” with downward sloping demand curves (“monopoly” being the extreme case in which only one seller would face the market demand schedule).

Turning toward this approach as an apparently more rigorous alternative brings in its whole theoretical apparatus with its weaknesses that Mises and Rothbard have identified. For although Caplan (1997) claims that he affords “all too little attention to the modern neoclassical theory,” Rothbard (1962, pp. 720–22) actually demonstrates that perfect elasticity is impossible since it is not compatible with the always holding law of marginal utility. As a consequence downward sloping demand curves for individual sellers and the corresponding “failure” to equate price and marginal cost are no signs of monopolistic distortion and the marginal cost pricing criterion cannot serve as a realistic criterion to conceive of a competitive price.

It should be kept in mind that the older monopoly price theory does not depend on the benchmark of “pure and perfect competition,” which explains why Mises and Rothbard found something of value in it whereas they entirely dismissed the newer view (Mises 1949, pp. 356–57; Rothbard 1962, pp. 720–38).

Conclusion: Theory and Policy

Is there more to say about the maximum limits to monopoly pricing than the fact that in the immediate run, elastic demand schedules deprive monopolistic privilege holders of opportunities to charge “crude” monopoly prices? Or that demand schedules which are too elastic in relation to average production expenses deprive monopolistic privilege holders of opportunities to charge monopoly prices for their products? According to Rothbard (1962, p. 681), in the aforementioned “A World of Monopoly Prices?” section of Man, Economy, and State, “monopoly prices could not be established in more than approximately half of the economy’s industries,” among other reasons because it is impossible for every industry to face an inelastic demand schedule since buyers cannot spend more in every industry.

Now, as explained above, the inelasticity of demand criterion is only required in the immediate run perspective of deciding what to do with an available stock of a good. As a consequence, if at most half of the economy’s industries could face inelastic demands above their free market prices, there could still be other monopolized industries able to charge monopoly prices provided that their total expenses fall at a rapid enough pace when they reduce production. More than half of an economy’s industries might then charge monopoly prices. The limits to monopoly pricing are then larger when one focuses on the production decision points. In light of our explanations, Rothbard’s neglect of this insight is attributable to his and Mises’s tendency to conflate the immediate and long run perspectives in their expositions.

The implications are straightforward. As far as pure theory is concerned, Rothbard underestimated the impact of granting monopoly privileges on price formation. If monopoly prices can arise without inelastic demand schedules, factor allocation is correspondingly altered to the detriment of the bulk of consumers, beyond the already recognized alteration occurring under the condition of inelastic demand schedules. As far as policy is concerned, it becomes all the more urgent to abolish monopoly privileges, or to refrain from enacting them in the first place, if one wants to minimize factor misallocation.

References

Armentano, Dominick T. 1978. “Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Theory.” In Louis M. Spadaro, ed., New Directions in Austrian Economics, pp. 94–110. Kansas City, Mo.: Sheed Andrews and McMeel.

——. 1988. “Rothbardian Monopoly Theory and Antitrust Policy.” In Walter Block and Llewellyn H. Rockwell, eds., Man, Economy and Liberty, pp. 3–11. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

——. 1999. Antitrust: The Case for Repeal. Revised 2nd edition. Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute.

Arnold, Roger A. 2008. Microeconomics. 9th ed. Mason, Ohio: South Western Cengage Learning.

Caplan, Bryan. 1997. “Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist.” Unpublished Manuscript. Available at http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

Costea, Diana. 2003. “A Critique of Mises’s Theory of Monopoly Prices.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6 (3): 47–62.

——. 2006. “Economic Calculation and Welfare Considerations in Monopoly and Firm Theory.” Romanian Economic Business Review 1(2): 43–53.

Fetter, Frank A. 1915. Economic Principles. New York: The Century Co.

Kirzner, Israel M. 1963. Market Theory and the Price System. New York: D. van Nostrand.

Klein, Peter G. 2008. “The Mundane Economics of the Austrian School.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 11(3-4): 165–87.

Méra, Xavier. 2010. “Factor Prices under Monopoly.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 13(1): 48–70.

Mises, Ludwig von. 1944. “Monopoly Prices.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1(2): 1–28.

——. 1998 [1949]. Human Action. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

O’Driscoll, Gerald P. 1982. “Monopoly in Theory and Practice.” In Israel M. Kirzner, ed., Method, Process, and Austrian Economics, pp. 189–223. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath and Company.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1993 [1962]. Man, Economy, and State. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

——. 1970. Power and Market. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2006.

Salerno, Joseph T. 1994. “Ludwig von Mises’s Monetary Theory in Light of Modern Monetary Thought.” Review of Austrian Economics 8(1): 71–115.

——. 2003. “The Development of the Theory of Monopoly Price: From Carl Menger to Vernon Mund.” Pace University, N.Y.: Working Paper. Available at https://www.qjae.org/journals/scholar/salerno5.pdf

——. 2004. “Menger’s Theory of Monopoly Price in the Years of High Theory: The Contribution of Vernon A. Mund.” Managerial Finance 30(2): 72–92.

• *Xavier Méra holds a PhD in economics from the University of Angers and teaches at IÉSEG School of Management in Paris, France. I was a Mises Institute research fellow in 2009, 2010 and 2011, and would like to thank Professor Salerno, my fellow research fellows and the Institute staff and faculty for making these experiences enjoyable and intellectually rich. I am especially indebted to the Institute’s and research program’s donors, without whom none of this would have been possible. This chapter is an extension of a paper originally developed with the help and encouragement of Professor Salerno while a summer fellow. Thanks to Simon Bilo and Per Bylund for their thoughtful comments on a previous version.
• 1In Méra (2010), my remarks in relation to the issue of the inelastic demand criterion are confined to footnotes. The present article essentially elaborates on these remarks.
• 2O’Driscoll (1982, pp. 190–91) argues that “a distinctively Austrian theory of monopoly remains to be written” and more specifically that “Murray Rothbard and Dominic Armentano, present a distinctive theory with roots deep in the history of economics and with strong affinity to the common-law treatment of monopoly. Their theory is not, however, the outcome or development of any particular Austrian insight.” However one might argue that Rothbard’s take is distinctly Austrian in its realization that the usual dichotomy of a competitive and a monopoly price in a free market is an anomaly in the context of Mengerian price theory (as developed by Mises). After all, Rothbard’s point is that the competitive price benchmark in a free market cannot be derived from the fundamentals of action. As a consequence, it appears as a foreign element forced into the theoretical edifice.
• 3If the grant of privilege is given to one seller only, then the demand schedule he now faces is the market demand schedule.
• 4It was quite narrow already as compared to the views of some of Mises’ predecessors (Salerno 2003, pp. 60–62). Indeed there was no doubt for Mises that government is by far the main source of monopoly prices (Mises 1949, p. 363).
• 5It is not without justification then, that Armentano’s summary of Rothbard’s position conflates the immediate run and the long run: “It has been common, of course, to speak of monopoly price as that price accomplished when output is restricted under conditions of inelastic demand, thus increasing the net income of the supplier.” (Armentano 1978, p. 103). See also Armentano (1999, p. 48) and Armentano (1988, p. 8). See also Costea (2003, pp. 47–48) and Costea (2006, p. 45) describing Mises’s position in the same way.
• 6Klein (2008, p. 177) has noticed that in his general discussion of price determination, “Rothbard (1962) is somewhat imprecise in distinguishing among equilibrium constructs.” We might add that this is true of Mises too, at least in the context of monopoly price theory, as illustrated above. On the distinctions between a “plain state of rest” (PSR), a “final state of rest” (FSR), the intermediate “Wicksteedian state of rest” (WSR) coined by Salerno (1994), and an “evenly rotating economy,” as a complete set of precise equilibrium constructs, see Klein (2008, pp. 172–83). Rothbard’s “immediate run” (PSR) and “long run” equilibriums (FSR) that we have been using here are sufficient for our present purpose however. It does not fundamentally alter Rothbard’s discussion and our analysis here if one interprets them in terms of WSR and FSR instead, since the PSR and the WSR are both about decisions to be made regarding some already produced goods.
• 7Rothbard speaks of a competitive point instead of a “free market point” because the context is his discussion of Mises’ theory. The reader must not get confused by this. This discussion is relevant in Rothbard’s framework once the theory is fixed and depicts how a monopoly price actually contrasts with a free market price instead of a “competitive” price. As Rothbard (1962, p. 903) puts it in his chapter on interventionism and socialism: “In chapter 10 we buried the theory of monopoly price; we must now resurrect it. The theory of monopoly price, as developed there, is illusory when applied to the free market, but it applies fully in the case of monopoly and quasi-monopoly grants.”