The Next Generation of Austrian Economics: Essays in Honor of Joseph T. Salerno

A* serious interest in the entrepreneur is often considered a defining characteristic of the Austrian school. This attention is evident in its prehistory, in the writings of Richard Cantillon, Jean-Baptiste Say, and others (Hébert 1985; Hébert and Link 1988), and also in Carl Menger’s foundational Principles of Economics (1871). Entrepreneurship plays a central role in the work of Ludwig von Mises as well, who often referred to it as the “driving force of the market.” However, despite the universal importance assigned to the entrepreneur among Austrian economists, there is still much discussion about what exactly entrepreneurs do, and their precise function in the market economy. The questions involved are often complex and cover a wide range of problems, such as the determination of profit and loss, the role of uncertainty and speculation in the market, and the equilibrating properties of arbitrage, to name only a few. As a result, the various theories of entrepreneurship that have appeared in the Austrian tradition, each of which has its own fundamental assumptions and goals, have been the source of disagreements about economic theory and policy.

One controversial problem that remains to be thoroughly examined is the relationship between entrepreneurial theory and public policy. The relevant questions are: does economic policy have a direct effect on entrepreneurial behavior, and if so, can the study of entrepreneurship inform economists regarding the welfare outcomes of intervention into the market process? Thus far, the conventional wisdom on this subject (and on entrepreneurship in general) has been largely informed by the writings of Israel Kirzner, which have proved quite influential among recent generations of Austrian economists. Kirzner argues that policy interventions remove the incentive provided by pure profits, thereby hampering entrepreneurs’ ability to discover beneficial opportunities in the market. This in turn implies that opportunities for mutually beneficial market exchange are passed over, and interference with entrepreneurial alertness therefore undermines the welfare-increasing properties of the market process, which normally encourages entrepreneurial alertness and discovery.

Given that Austrian economists are often critical of the various economic arguments in support of regulation, it should not come as a surprise that an entrepreneurial theory linking intervention to welfare losses would be readily accepted. However, I argue that the view of entrepreneurship advanced by Professor Kirzner faces serious difficulties when it tries to explain the effects of public policy on entrepreneurship. I suggest that more satisfactory answers to questions of policy can be found by considering intervention through the framework of entrepreneurial calculation and judgment. This approach was pioneered mainly by Ludwig von Mises, especially in his famous dispute over the feasibility of socialism. Mises’s work has in turn been expanded and elaborated by later economists, especially Joseph Salerno, whose contributions to our knowledge of the entrepreneur’s distinct role cannot be overstated (1990a, 1990b, 1993, 2008). The work of economists like Mises and Salerno clearly demonstrates that the calculation-judgment theory is applicable to a wide range of policy problems, and firmly establishes the dangers of economic intervention for the market process.

Entrepreneurial Incentives and Economic Policy

This section explores the relation between alertness theory and economic policy. The framework for Kirzner’s policy analysis is found in his theory of “entrepreneurial incentives,” developed primarily in his book Discovery and the Capitalist Process (1985).1 Entrepreneurial incentives are a way to explain the roots of alertness and their role in promoting opportunity discovery. This is necessary because for Kirzner discovery falls outside the conventional economic presentation of incentives, as I will now explain. A consistent theme in Kirzner’s writings is the contrast between what he calls “Robbinsian maximizing” and entrepreneurial alertness. Robbinsian maximizing is a textbook description of how individuals engage in the weighing of alternatives, perform cost-benefit analysis, and maximize utility.2 In other words, Robbinsian maximizing involves individuals perceiving and reacting to incentives in the usual economic sense. However, “ordinary” incentives cannot be used to explain entrepreneurs’ discovery of opportunities, Kirzner argues, because incentives must be known to an actor in order to be incorporated into standard utility calculus. But pure profit opportunities are unknown; they are waiting to be discovered, and therefore cannot consciously play into the cost-benefit analysis of individuals. Alertness to opportunities must therefore be explained by factors other than conventional economic incentives.

Kirzner calls these factors “entrepreneurial incentives.” Entrepreneurial incentives are contained in previously-unforeseen profit opportunities. Unlike ordinary incentives, pure profit opportunities attract the attention of entrepreneurs because it is in the entrepreneur’s interest to notice them (1985, pp. 28–29). Previously-unseen profit opportunities represent potential gains for entrepreneurs, who will be alert to them provided the opportunity is valuable enough. Entrepreneurial incentives are therefore another way of saying that opportunities cause their own discovery. Kirzner calls this conclusion a “paradox,” because it is unclear how such causation could occur:

How, one must surely ask, can an enhancement of the desirability of a particular course of action which by the very definition of this kind of incentive has not yet been noticed inspire its discovery? How can an unnoticed potential outcome, no matter how attractive, affect behavior? How can the attractiveness of an unknown opportunity that awaits one around the corner possibly inspire one to peer around that corner? (1985, pp. 108–09; emphasis in original)

Unfortunately, Kirzner does not resolve the paradox. Instead, he suggests that, although the foundations of alertness require serious investigation, the tendency of opportunities to cause their own discovery is a part of our basic factual knowledge of the economy (1985, p. 109).

Kirzner’s views on the foundations of alertness have already received critical attention (Hülsmann 1997; Foss and Klein 2010; Friedman and Evans 2011), and it has been argued that the opportunity paradox places the alertness theory on insufficient foundations (McCaffrey 2014). Because potential entrepreneurs are prevented by definition from knowing of the existence of an opportunity, and even of searching for it, the causal explanation of alertness must come from some other source, specifically the opportunity itself, and the “open-ended” environment it resides in. The problem pointed out by the critics is that it is logically unsatisfactory to think of unknown opportunities as causing alertness, or helping to “[switch] on the entrepreneurial antennae” (1985, p. 109). Opportunities are not acting agents, and without this key connection between opportunities and discovery, alertness theory runs into difficulty, almost anthropomorphizing opportunities in order to explain how they inspire discovery.

Consequently, this problem carries over to Kirzner’s analysis of economic policy as well, in that the alertness approach does not provide a framework for real-world analysis of the welfare effects of government intervention. Kirzner’s research in entrepreneurship is generally intended to demonstrate the equilibrating and welfare-enhancing properties of the market process, with policy considerations playing a secondary role. Nevertheless, thinking in terms of entrepreneurial incentives is supposed to shed new light on economic policy prescriptions too, explaining how hampering the market process produces inferior welfare outcomes, thus adding vital support to more conventional analysis.

Although economists have developed numerous ways to analyze public policy, many of these are framed in terms of the effects of regulation on ordinary incentives. Kirzner, however, argues that there is danger in thinking only in these terms, to the neglect of the welfare implications of entrepreneurial incentives (Kirzner 1984; 1985, pp. 132–33). This is because changes to entrepreneurial incentives affect the market process in a special way. Specifically, economic regulations hamper entrepreneurial alertness, and prevent the discovery of new opportunities, resulting in welfare losses. This assessment depends on the paradox of alertness discussed above.

Kirzner’s view of economic policy is a straightforward application of his incentive theory, and he describes the connection between regulation and entrepreneurial incentives as “intuitively obvious” (Kirzner 2009). Specifically, economic policy poses a threat to human welfare when it reduces or eliminates entrepreneurial incentives. When economic policy eliminates a profit opportunity or renders it less remunerative, it becomes less attractive to entrepreneurs. Because it is no longer in an entrepreneur’s interest to notice the opportunity, it tends not to be noticed. By reducing the rewards (in terms of pure profit) attached to alertness, regulation therefore decreases the likelihood that entrepreneurs will be successful discoverers:

[D]irect controls by government on prices, quantities, or qualities of output production or input employment may unintentionally block activities which have, as yet, not been specifically envisaged by anyone. Where these blocked activities turn out to be entrepreneurially profitable activities (perhaps as a result of unforeseen changes in data), the likelihood of their being discovered is then sharply diminished. Without necessarily intending it, the spontaneous discovery process of the free market has thus been, to some extent, stifled or distorted. (Kirzner 1982)

Intervention eliminates new and unknown opportunities, preventing entrepreneurs from being drawn to them, and ultimately preventing welfare-enhancing market coordination. How precisely does regulation affect alertness? The answer seems to be that,

To announce in advance to potential entrepreneurs that [for example] “lucky” profits will be taxed away is to convert open-ended situations into situations more and more approximating those of a given, closed character. The complete taxing away of pure entrepreneurial profit can, it is clear, succeed only in removing from potential entrepreneurs all incentive for paying attention to anything but the already known. (Kirzner 1985, p. 111, emphasis in original)3

Kirzner seems to be arguing that entrepreneurs possess a general knowledge of “where to look,” such that if this general field becomes less profitable, they will be less likely to notice specific opportunities in it. Yet if opportunities are discovered without ordinary incentives (such as those involved in search efforts), it is not clear how giving entrepreneurs general information would aid or hamper discovery. Would not information about where to look simply affect ordinary, known incentives? If expressed in these terms, the thrust of Kirzner’s argument would be unobjectionable. It would imply that when government announces a certain kind of production is no longer profitable, entrepreneurs acknowledge this change, alter their calculations accordingly, and shift their resources to more remunerative forms of production. Yet this view of entrepreneurship and regulation relies on the conventional approach to incentives: the open-ended-vs.-closed distinction is most plausible if entrepreneurs can act and search for opportunities, or, even better, exercise judgment about how to use resources. But if we try to apply the specific notion of entrepreneurial incentives to policy analysis, the causal problem of alertness appears again.

Consider an example. Suppose there are two industries, auto manufacturing and software engineering. In each of these industries entrepreneurs are earning the same returns, and as far as all potential entrepreneurs are concerned, both industries are equally attractive. Let us then suppose the government announces that a new tax will be levied on the profits of the auto industry, while the software industry will be left unhampered. According to Kirzner, opportunities in auto production have been eliminated, and potential entrepreneurs will now perceive the industry as closed, which in turn means relatively few profit opportunities will be discovered there. There are two ways to explain this result. First, entrepreneurs might acknowledge the new policy, ignore the auto industry, and focus their attention elsewhere. This would involve action and search, however, and is not consistent with Kirzner’s theory of alertness. The second possibility is that entrepreneurs do not act differently in response to the new tax policy, but instead the lack of profitability in auto manufacturing unconsciously steers them away from that industry and toward others. This seems more in keeping with Kirzner’s theory, but it returns us once again to the question of causation.

A potential entrepreneur’s knowledge of the tax could certainly influence his deliberate search efforts and decisions about production. But how could it influence the passive state Kirzner uses as a starting point? If a profitable opportunity cannot, by itself, cause its own discovery, how can we be sure that an unprofitable opportunity will have the opposite effect, and tend to remain unnoticed? If an entrepreneur does not know that an opportunity exists, how can a policy that decreases the profitability of that opportunity change the likelihood of his noticing it? In order to answer these questions, it seems we must incorporate other kinds of behavior, such as search or judgment.

I will not add to this criticism other than to point out that if entrepreneurial incentives cannot be integrated into a theory of unhampered markets, then the implications for restricted markets are ambiguous. If one believes there is no necessary tendency for entrepreneurs to notice opportunities (or even that opportunity discovery is not the best basis for a theory of entrepreneurship), then the above policy analysis loses its force; regulation might just as well hamper erroneous incentives or errors as prevent entrepreneurial success.4 Based on the above discussion, it should be clear that policy analysis poses a problem for alertness theory.

In addition to typical policy questions, the opportunity-causation problem also has implications for the debate over the feasibility of central planning, a system of organization Kirzner argues is subject to a lack of proper entrepreneurial incentives (1982). Using the entrepreneurial-incentives approach, however, the case against central planning might actually be weakened:

It is true in a trivial sense that entrepreneurs can be defined as those who are “alert to profit opportunities,” but we wonder why agents of the central planning board could not be equally alert. The real issue is not alertness, but the magical property that Kirzner attributes to those who are alert: the property of thereby finding what they are looking for (a profit opportunity) and knowing what to do about it. If mere alertness — activated by “the profit motive” … — were all it took to produce the requisite knowledge, one could incentivize central planners with the same motive or an even stronger one, such as the death penalty … (Evans and Friedman 2011)

There is then a difficulty in explaining how entrepreneurial alertness differs in market versus non-market (e.g., socialist) settings. If alertness is a universal phenomenon, as Kirzner believes, then it is unclear how or why government agencies do not also possess some degree of alertness — or why they could not be motivated to alertness. Once again, the necessary links between opportunity and alertness — and between decreased opportunity and non-alertness — are missing. Without them it does not seem possible to apply Kirzner’s alertness theory to economic policy, at least in the manner he suggests. The solution, I argue that we can solve this problem by relying on the concept of entrepreneurial calculation using money prices.

As mentioned above, Kirzner recognizes the problem involved in not explaining opportunity causation, yet still draws theoretical and policy conclusions as if the paradox had been resolved. It is difficult to escape the feeling that Kirzner accepts it as a matter of course that the market process produces beneficial welfare outcomes, and further, that this is the direct result of entrepreneurs tending to discover profitable opportunities. As he himself puts it, “there can be no doubt that such inspiration [i.e., entrepreneurial alertness] has been of enormous importance throughout recorded human history” (1985, p. 109). But this is a conclusion to be reached by careful reasoning, not a fundamental assumption. And until we clarify these assumptions and more clearly explain the foundations of entrepreneurial theory, economic policy is bound to remain a controversial subject. While this is far from an exhaustive discussion, I hope it is sufficient to demonstrate the need for careful scrutiny of the alertness hypothesis in economic policy, and moreover, to spark economists’ interest in alternative theories of entrepreneurship that more easily explain the effects of regulation on entrepreneurial behavior.

Entrepreneurial Calculation and Judgment

The problems of the alertness approach do not mean that entrepreneurial theory must give up any hope of policy relevance. However, they do require us to more carefully consider the basic elements of theory, and how they relate to real-world human behavior. To this end, I suggest that instead of a theory of entrepreneurial alertness, what is needed is a theory of entrepreneurial judgment. The judgment approach to entrepreneurship has a long history within the Austrian school, and can be traced back at least as far as Menger’s writings. Menger did not write extensively on the entrepreneur, but he did describe a number of different ways entrepreneurship can occur (1994, pp. 159–61). Two forms of entrepreneurship that are relevant for judgment are “the act of will by which goods of higher order … are assigned to a particular production process” and the “supervision of the particular production process” (Menger 1994, p. 160; emphases in original). Both of these aspects of entrepreneurship point to the idea of a capital-owning, decision-making entrepreneur (Salerno 2008).

The judgment approach flourished in the works of Menger’s disciples, especially in the writings of Böhm-Bawerk (McCaffrey and Salerno 2014), Frank Fetter (McCaffrey unpublished), and Ludwig von Mises. Of these economists, Mises’s writings have received the most attention, and are the subject of controversy. Yet a careful study of his writings shows that his work falls within the judgment tradition. This thread of Mises’s thought begins with early writings such as The Theory of Money and Credit (McCaffrey 2013), and continues on through his more systematic exposition of entrepreneurship in Human Action (Salerno 2008; Foss and Klein 2010). The judgment view was further elaborated by Murray Rothbard, who placed his own discussion in the midst of an extended treatment of production theory (2004, pp. 509–55).5 Among more recent generations of economists, the judgment theory has been developed by Joseph Salerno (2008) and has crystallized in such works as Foss and Klein (2012). This approach to entrepreneurship is therefore well-established within the Austrian school, and in fact represents a dominant trend in historical Austrian thinking on the subject.

The judgment approach views entrepreneurship as the function of residual decision making about the use of heterogeneous capital goods in production. In other words, the entrepreneur is the individual or group ultimately responsible for the direction of an enterprise, and this entails the ownership of capital and the direction of the factors of production. Because production takes time, arranging the structure of production implies that entrepreneurs make speculative judgments about the future state of the market. Eventually, consumer demand will reveal whether particular uses of capital were justified. If his initial judgments were correct, the entrepreneur earns profits, and if not, he incurs losses. The entrepreneur therefore bears the uncertainty of the future in exchange for the chance to reap profits. The key point, however, is that in order to do this entrepreneurs must exercise judgment about the allocation of resources.

However, when making decisions entrepreneurs first require some method of comparing the costs and benefits of each alternative use of scarce resources in order to determine which combinations of the factors will serve the most urgent needs of consumers. Entrepreneurs find this means of evaluation in monetary calculation. Calculation consists in entrepreneurs appraising the future prices of the factors of production through their “‘experience’ of past prices and … their ‘understanding’ of what transformations will take place in the present configuration of the qualitative economic data” (Salerno 1990a, p. 60). Once these mental estimates have been formed, entrepreneurs are in a position to gauge the relative merits of alternative arrangements of the factors. But their experience and understanding must be expressed in terms of a common denominator, namely money prices:

[A]s Mises points out, economic calculation involves arithmetic computation and … it is for this reason that economic calculation can only be calculation in terms of money prices. … As the only possible tool of calculable action, money prices do not merely permit people to utilize their individual “knowledge of particular circumstances of time and place” to enhance the efficiency with which goods are produced in society, prices render possible the very existence of social production processes. (Salerno 1990b)

Calculation therefore provides the “indispensable mental tool for choosing the optimum among the vast array of intricately-related production plans that are available for employing the factors of production within the framework of the social division of labor” (Salerno 1990a, p. 52). In other words, calculation provides, among other things, a basis for entrepreneurs’ judgment regarding the direction of the factors. More profoundly, calculation is actually the fundamental characteristic of a rational economic system, which is simply impossible in its absence, as in the case of socialist societies (Mises 1998 [1949]; Salerno 1990a; 1990b; 1993).

The distinct traits of calculation and judgment are all absent in the alertness view. This is a necessary result of Kirzner’s distinction between Robbinsian maximizing and entrepreneurial discovery, which excludes capital ownership, uncertainty bearing, and monetary losses from the start. Yet this exclusion is precisely why alertness theory stumbles when it confronts policy analysis. Because Kirzner cannot incorporate ordinary economic decision making into entrepreneurship, he instead explains it by appealing to variables outside the sphere of action, i.e., the existence of pure profit opportunities, which in turn leads to the problems discussed above. However, a capital-owning, uncertainty-bearing entrepreneur who earns monetary profits or losses can play an integral role in policy analysis.

The Policy Implications of Entrepreneurship

With the ideas of entrepreneurial calculation and judgment in mind, we can now make sense of the link between public policy and entrepreneurial theory. One distinct advantage of the calculation-judgment theory is that it is easily integrated into policy analysis; the causal connections between policy and entrepreneurship are not metaphorical or paradoxical, but can be analyzed using fairly straightforward economic tools. What is more, by showing how policy interventions interfere with the process of economic calculation and judgment, we can more clearly determine the welfare implications of such interference.

Ownership and Political Entrepreneurship

The application of judgment theory begins with the idea of ultimate or residual control over an enterprise. By determining where the locus of control and decision making lies, we can determine the scope and extent of entrepreneurial calculation, and also see how it might be hampered. More importantly, by discovering which individuals ultimately own and allocate resources, we can see how entrepreneurial behavior is different across institutional and policy contexts. The most obvious examples to contrast are entrepreneurial behavior in the market and in the political realm.

We have already said something about entrepreneurial calculation in the market. In sharp contrast is the element of “entrepreneurship” that occurs within government. Although decision making within government is often complex, it is clear that within any given state there is some form of ultimate authority over resource allocation. The exercise of this control may be termed “political entrepreneurship” (McCaffrey and Salerno 2011). Political entrepreneurship is distinct from market entrepreneurship in at least two important ways: first, it occurs outside the sphere of economic calculation, and second, it is financed through coercive redistribution as opposed to voluntary exchange.6 The non-voluntary nature of public finance means that no matter how decisions are made, they will conflict with the current preferences of the public at large, while the absence of calculation means decisions lack rational direction. Political entrepreneurship — i.e., government decisions about the allocation of resources—therefore diverts the stream of spending away from the path it would have taken in an unregulated market, and also distorts the structure of production (Rothbard 2004, pp. 1151–55, 1167–68; McCaffrey 2011). Political entrepreneurship cannot therefore produce the same welfare-enhancing effects as market entrepreneurship, and the absence of entrepreneurial calculation within government means that it never could.

Entrepreneurship and the Institutional Framework

The judgment approach also allows us to see how policy shifts the entrepreneurial function from one individual or group to another, and how this shift affects welfare outcomes. Changes in the entrepreneurial function are most relevant in a system of economic intervention. Under interventionism, ownership is systematically shared between government and private individuals, or in other words, there is a forcible separation of the ownership and control of the means of production. One way to describe this situation is “institutionalised uninvited co-ownership” (Hülsmann 2006; emphasis in original). For instance, when a government nationalizes an auto manufacturer or even the auto industry, entrepreneurs in these firms surrender their decision making ability, and the entrepreneurial function is shifted from the market to the political sphere. Even if entrepreneurs nominally retain ownership of the firm, they are little more than the managers of the enterprise — they can ultimately be replaced by the political entrepreneurs, who retain residual control. A system of government intervention, because it alters the pattern of ownership of the factors, also involves a systematic transfer of decision-making authority over them. Intervention therefore changes the pattern of entrepreneurship in society, by shifting the entrepreneurial function from some individuals to other more favored groups, be they rent-seeking firms or political entrepreneurs themselves.

“Institutionalized uninvited co-ownership,” is also closely tied to the incentive problem known as “moral hazard,” defined as, “the incentive of a person A to use more resources than he otherwise would have used, because he knows, or believes he knows, that someone else B will provide some or all of these resources” (Hülsmann 2006). When ownership and control are forcibly separated, a wide range of “perverse” incentives — such as moral hazard, adverse selection, and the tragedy of the commons — are brought into play. Under a system of free contracting, entrepreneurs (principals) must use judgment to arrange incentives within the firm, thereby mitigating moral hazard. However, when ownership is forcibly shared, the scope for calculation and judgment are reduced, prolonging or even institutionalizing incentive problems.

Moral hazard is not the only aspect of government intervention that can be viewed in an entrepreneurial light though. A closely related subject is the problem of “regime uncertainty.” This term was coined by Higgs (1997) as a way to explain the conditions which led to the long-term decline in private investment during the Great Depression. Higgs argues that entrepreneurs were reluctant to invest in a political environment hostile to their profit-seeking interests. In particular, widespread fear existed among businessmen that under the New Deal regime, industries would be nationalized, while taxes and other regulations would severely curtail profitability. What is more, the ideological stance of the Roosevelt administration was decidedly anti-business, creating an environment in which the viability of the fundamental institutions of the market economy was thrown into question. The uncertainty produced by the regime thus resulted in depressed investment and significantly delayed recovery.

Yet if the task of the entrepreneur is to allocate resources in the face of uncertainty, why would regime uncertainty pose a special problem? Regime uncertainty is relevant for judgment because it represents uncertainty about the institutional environment in which entrepreneurs make decisions; in a way, it tears the canvas on which entrepreneurs are trying to paint. One way to express this idea is to say that regime uncertainty occurs at a different institutional “level” than entrepreneurs are used to dealing with (Bylund and McCaffrey unpublished). That is, when regimes create fear about the security of the very system of private enterprise — in practice, the security of property rights and profits — they throw the “rules of the game” into question. Entrepreneurial judgment, on the other hand, usually takes place at the level of the “play of the game,” with certain institutional constraints taken for granted.

One result is that regime uncertainty undermines judgment by threatening its raison d’être. In a regime that is considered friendly to private enterprise, entrepreneurs constantly strive to earn profits and avoid losses. When regime uncertainty appears, however, entrepreneurs cannot be sure of the link between successful judgment and monetary rewards, and they therefore restrict their profit-seeking behavior (Bylund and McCaffrey unpublished). Reduced activity by entrepreneurs implies reduced effort to calculate in the economy, and ultimately, decreases in consumer satisfaction. There is then a reasonable chain of causation running from policy (actual or threatened), to entrepreneurs’ perceptions of monetary incentives, to a decline in entrepreneurial activity, and finally, to resulting welfare losses.7 Judgment therefore provides a substantive connection between regime uncertainty and welfare.

This is one way the conventional effects of regime uncertainty can be expressed in entrepreneurial terms. We can also imagine the reverse of regime uncertainty, when entrepreneurs believe returns will be guaranteed no matter the quality of their judgment. Of course, guarantees of profitability and security are not found in the market; they are, however, often made by government in its negotiations with rent-seeking firms. When guarantees are made, profit-seeking activities increase because entrepreneurs believe they will be protected (e.g., through grants of monopoly privilege or bailouts), whether their investments are wise or not. Entrepreneurs are more likely to engage in risky and unprofitable production when convinced they will not ultimately bear the uncertainty of their decisions. This again hints at moral hazard.

Conclusion

The theory of the entrepreneur is one of the most important components of economic science. But although it is vital for economists to understand the driving force of the market, it is equally important know how public policy hampers this force. The most obvious obstacle to economic progress is government intervention in the market economy, which inevitably involves interference with the decisions of the entrepreneur. Yet how we think of the entrepreneurial function matters greatly for our conclusions about exactly how economic policy changes the entrepreneurial process and the welfare outcomes of the market economy. If, following Kirzner, we view the entrepreneur as a resource-less and inactive agent awaiting the serendipitous discovery of profit opportunities, policy analysis becomes effectively impossible. Because the existence of profit opportunities does not explain a tendency toward entrepreneurial success, it likewise does not show how changes to the policy environment tend negatively to impact discovery and the welfare of market participants. The alertness theory does not then provide a substantial foundation on which to build a distinctly entrepreneurial approach to policy analysis.

However, once we take into account the vital roles of calculation and judgment, it is easy to see that economic policy distorts and changes entrepreneurs’ behavior. Judgment theory relies on the concrete notions of capital ownership, calculation in terms of money prices, and decision making about the use of the factors, all of which can be seen at work in the real world. Intervention shifts the pattern of ownership and therefore also falsifies the money prices entrepreneurs use to appraise the factors of production. Intervention also directly abrogates the judgment of entrepreneurs by diverting the structure of production from the course it would have taken in an unregulated market. The direction and scope of entrepreneurial decision making are thus altered, and consumer welfare is reduced. Moreover, public policy can drastically affect the business environment in which entrepreneurs act, threatening the fundamental institutions of the market economy on which entrepreneurs rely. This depresses entrepreneurial activity, resulting in a general loss of welfare.

Judgment, through its connections to economic calculation, provides a concrete reference point from which to analyze the effects of policy. Calculation is mass to judgment’s velocity, and together they form the driving force of the market. This view of the entrepreneur not only has a long history within the Austrian school, but has already been applied to numerous problems in theory and policy, and will no doubt serve as a useful tool for analyzing many more. It therefore represents a positive way forward for scholars in economics and public policy.

As a final thought, let me add that while the future is bright, so too is the past; in other words, it is vital to recognize that many of the most important advances in Austrian economics have emerged from careful reflection on the foundations laid by the giants of the tradition, whose insights must never be taken for granted. As our thinking on entrepreneurship moves forward, it too should be mindful of its roots in the Austrian school, and always take care to appreciate the contributions of previous generations. With that in mind, it is safe to say that as this tradition grows and thrives in the coming years, it will owe no small debt to Joseph Salerno.

References

Bylund, Per L, and Matthew McCaffrey. “Entrepreneurs and Regime Uncertainty: A New Institutional Approach.” Unpublished Manuscript.

Evans, Anthony J., and Jeffrey Friedman. 2011. “Search” vs. “Browse”: A Theory of Error Grounded in Radical (Not Rational) Ignorance.” Critical Review 23 (1–2): 73–104.

Foss, Nicolai J., and Peter G. Klein. 2012. Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——. 2010. “Alertness, Action, and the Antecedents of Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Private Enterprise 25(2): 145–64.

Hébert, Robert F. 1985. “Was Richard Cantillon an Austrian Economist?” Journal of Libertarian Studies 7(2): 269–79.

Hébert, Robert, and Albert Link. 1988. The Entrepreneur: Mainstream Views and Radical Critiques. 2nd ed. New York: Praeger.

Higgs, Robert. 1997. “Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and WhyProsperity Resumed after the War.” The Independent Review 1(4): 561–90.

Hülsmann, Jörg Guido. 2006. “The Political Economy of Moral Hazard.” Politická ekonomie 1: 35–47.

——. 1997. “Knowledge, Judgment, and the Use of Property.” Review of Austrian Economics 10(1): 23–48.

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

——. 1985. Discovery and the Capitalist Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——. 1984. “Incentives for Discovery.” Economic Affairs 4(2): 3–4.

——. 1982. “Competition, Regulation, and the Market Process: An “Austrian Perspective.” Cato Policy Analysis 18. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

McCaffrey, Matthew. “Good Judgment, Good Luck: Frank Fetter on the Theory of Entrepreneurship.” Unpublished Manuscript.

——. 2014. “On the Theory of Entrepreneurial Incentives and Alertness.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38(4): 891–911.

——. 2013. “Conflicting Views of the Entrepreneur in Turn-of-the-Century Vienna.” History of Economics Review 58 (2): 27–43.

——. 2011. “On Government Investment and Consumption.” New Perspectives on Political Economy 7(2): 163–76.

McCaffrey, Matthew, and Joseph T. Salerno. 2014. “Böhm-Bawerk’s Approach to Entrepreneurship.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 36(4): 435–54.

——. 2011. “A Theory of Political Entrepreneurship.” Modern Economy 2(4): 552–60.

Menger, Carl. 1994. Principles of Economics. Trans. James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz. Grove City, PA: Libertarian Press.

Mises, Ludwig von. 1998 [1949]. Human Action. Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

Rothbard, Murray N. 2004. Man, Economy, & State. Scholar’s Edition. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

——. 1987. “Breaking Out of the Walrasian Box: The Cases of Schumpeter and Hansen.” Review of Austrian Economics 1(1): 97–108.

——. 1985. “Professor Hébert on Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Libertarian Studies 7(2): 281–86.

Salerno, Joseph T. 2009. “Lionel Robbins: Neoclassical Maximizer or Proto-Praxeologist?” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 12(4): 98–108.

——. 2008. “The Entrepreneur: Real and Imagined.” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 11(3): 188–207.

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

——. 1990a. “Postscript: Why a Socialist Economy is ‘Impossible’.” In Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth. Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute.

——. 1990b. “Ludwig von Mises as Social Rationalist.” Review of Austrian Economics 4(1): 26–54.

• *Matthew McCaffrey is an assistant professor of enterprise at the University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. I was a summer research fellow from 2008–2013. Professor Salerno served on my master’s thesis committee in 2010, and we have since collaborated on several research projects. This essay was inspired by our work on the history and theory of entrepreneurship, for which Professor Salerno was an invaluable mentor.
• 1A thorough review of the theory of entrepreneurial incentives is beyond the scope of this paper, which deals only with its application to economic policy. For a more complete exposition, cf. McCaffrey (2014).
• 2It has been argued that Kirzner interprets Lionel Robbins too narrowly, mistakenly concluding that he is simply an early proponent of the conventional economic approach to utility maximization (Salerno 2009).
• 3The last sentence seems to imply that entrepreneurs can pay attention to the unknown. Unfortunately, Kirzner does not explain exactly what this might entail.
• 4Also, regulation need not simply inhibit the discovery of profitable opportunities: it might also produce new opportunities for rent-seeking or other forms of destructive entrepreneurship (Foss and Klein 2010).
• 5Rothbard also drew attention to the Austrian heritage in entrepreneurship and pointed out several confusions about this legacy (1985; 1987).
• 6Note that Kirzner’s entrepreneur does not possess resources in either a political or a market setting. Therefore, market entrepreneurship cannot easily be distinguished from political entrepreneurship based on this difference or on considerations of the entrepreneur’s methods of finance.
• 7Note that these links would be absent if entrepreneurs were unaware of the existence of monetary incentives.