Austrian school of economics

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Austrian school of economics was born in Vienna in 1871, when Carl Menger published a book that would quietly reshape how the world thought about value and price. Menger's Principles of Economics argued that the worth of any good is not fixed in the thing itself but in the mind of the person who wants it. That single idea set off a chain of thought that ran through a century of debate, political upheaval, and rival schools of thought.

  Who were the thinkers behind this tradition? What did they actually believe that made them different? And why, after decades of being sidelined by mainstream economists who favored mathematical modeling, did the school find a second life in the late 20th century? The answers involve a Nobel Prize, a feud over methodology, a critique of socialism, and a surprising connection to Bitcoin.

• 2. A Name Born of Insult

  ›

  Gustav von Schmoller, a leader of the German historical school, did not mean the label "Austrian school" as a compliment. In 1883, after Menger published Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences, Schmoller wrote an unfavorable review and coined the term as an attempt to brand the Viennese economists as provincial outsiders. The name stuck, and the Austrians adopted it themselves.

  The quarrel that produced this label was called the Methodenstreit, meaning "methodology struggle." At its core it was a fight over what economics was even supposed to be. The German historical school believed economic understanding had to be built from the study of historical circumstance and specific national conditions. The Austrians disagreed. They insisted that economic theory could be derived from universal principles of human action, not compiled from historical data.

  Böhm-Bawerk carried that fight further, writing extensive critiques of Karl Marx in the 1880s and 1890s, attacking Hegelian doctrines that the historical school relied on. The argument was not merely academic; it shaped what tools economists would reach for across the following century.

• 3. The Roots of Value

  ›

  Before Vienna, the question of why a diamond is worth more than water had no satisfying answer. Menger's contribution, along with the other currents of the marginalist revolution of the 1870s, was to argue that value is determined at the margin. It is not the total supply of water that sets its price but the significance of one more or one less unit to the person making a choice.

  The School of Salamanca in 16th-century Spain had gestured toward this idea. Scholars such as Francisco de Vitoria and Luis de Molina argued that the value of goods was determined by individual preferences rather than intrinsic factors, and they emphasized the role of supply and demand in setting prices. The French Liberal School of the 19th century also contributed to the groundwork. John Stuart Mill, in his 1848 Principles of Political Economy, observed that the usefulness of a good to the buyer sets the highest price anyone would rationally pay.

  But it was Menger's 1871 book, followed closely by the work of Böhm-Bawerk and Friedrich von Wieser, that turned these intuitions into a systematic school. Wieser formalized the concept of opportunity cost: whenever productive resources are committed to one purpose, every alternative use is sacrificed. Böhm-Bawerk developed a theory of capital and interest, arguing that interest rates and profits are determined by supply and demand in the market for final goods and by what he called time preference. These three economists became what historians refer to as the first wave of the Austrian school.

• 4. Praxeology and the Limits of Numbers

  ›

  Ludwig von Mises organized the Austrian subjectivist approach into a formal system he called praxeology, from the Greek word for action, and laid it out in a book published in English as Human Action in 1949. His argument was sweeping: economic truths could be deduced a priori, meaning before and independent of empirical observation, from basic axioms about how humans act purposefully. Statistical analysis could not, in his view, yield genuine economic laws.

  This put Mises at odds not only with mainstream economists but with some of his own students. Fritz Machlup, Friedrich Hayek, and others did not accept his strong a priori position. Ludwig Lachmann, a radical subjectivist, rejected Mises' formulation of praxeology entirely in favor of the verstehende Methode, the "interpretive method" articulated by the sociologist Max Weber.

  In 1944, Oskar Morgenstern, who had trained at the University of Vienna in the 1920s and attended Mises' private seminars, presented a rigorous mathematical schematization of an ordinal utility function, the Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theorem, in Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. That a student of Mises' circle would co-author one of the foundational texts of mathematical economics shows how wide the intellectual spread within the tradition had already become. In 1981, Fritz Machlup attempted to capture the shared core by listing six typical Austrian tenets, including methodological individualism, methodological subjectivism, marginalism, opportunity costs, time structure of production, and the role of subjective tastes in determining demand.

• 5. The Calculation Problem

  ›

  In 1920, Mises published an essay titled "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" that became one of the most consequential attacks on central planning ever written. His argument was precise: without price signals arising from the free exchange of privately owned capital goods, a socialist government could not know how to allocate resources efficiently. Capital goods in a socialist system are merely internal transfers, not objects of exchange, so they carry no prices and therefore no information.

  Mises discussed this with his student Friedrich Hayek, who expanded the argument in several works including The Road to Serfdom. Hayek recast the problem in terms of knowledge. Market prices, he argued, reflect information that is dispersed across millions of individuals and is not known to any single mind. Socialist planners, lacking the price discovery process, lack the knowledge required to make optimal decisions.

  Max Weber reached a related conclusion independently, discussing the impossibility of centralized planning of a complex economic system in his magnum opus Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, which was published posthumously in 1921. The debate over socialist calculation rose to prominence in the 1920s and 1930s, a period historians of economic thought now call the socialist calculation debate. Leland Yeager later argued that this body of work by Mises and Hayek formed a coherent account of why Eastern European communism collapsed, and that driving a wedge between the two men's contributions was, in his words, "unfair to these two great men."

• 6. Boom, Bust, and Business Cycles

  ›

  Mises was the first to set out the Austrian theory of the business cycle. His account begins with fractional reserve banks extending credit at artificially low interest rates. Businesses, seeing cheap borrowing costs, invest in more roundabout production processes than the underlying savings in the economy actually support. An artificial boom follows, bringing with it what Mises called "malinvestment." Eventually the unsustainable projects are revealed for what they are, and the economy must pass through a corrective recession to rebalance itself.

  Hayek added a further observation about inflation. He argued that inflationary stimulus exploits the lag between an increase in money supply and the eventual rise in prices of goods and services. A mild, steady inflation cannot sustain employment because any stimulative effect depends on the inflation accelerating. Once it stabilizes, the economy is left with a backlog of delayed adjustments.

  The Austrian definition of inflation itself became a source of terminological confusion that even prominent Austrian economists acknowledged: for Austrians, inflation means an increase in the money supply; for most economists and for the general public, it means rising prices. Fritz Machlup captured the Austrian view of cycles in a single sentence: monetary factors cause the cycle, but real phenomena constitute it. On the question of central banks, Mises and Hayek diverged. Mises argued for a gold standard to constrain growth in fiduciary media. Hayek did not focus on gold but on regulation of the banking sector via strong central banking.

• 7. Revival, Rupture, and Bitcoin

  ›

  By the mid-1930s, the core Austrian contributions to marginal utility, opportunity cost, and capital theory had been absorbed so thoroughly into mainstream economics that Hayek could remark, approvingly, that the greatest success of a school is that it stops existing because its fundamental teachings have become parts of commonly accepted thought. Then, sometime in the middle of the 20th century, the school was largely sidelined as economics became dominated by mathematical modeling and statistical methods. Israel Kirzner recalled that in 1954, when he was pursuing his PhD, there was no separate Austrian school as such. Mises advised him to accept an offer at Johns Hopkins, a prestigious university where Fritz Machlup taught.

  The revival came partly from Hayek winning the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which he shared with Gunnar Myrdal. Kirzner and Ludwig Lachmann at New York University also contributed to renewed interest. But the revival carried within it a fracture. One camp, exemplified by Mises, considered neoclassical methodology irredeemably flawed. The other camp, exemplified by Hayek, accepted much of neoclassical methodology and was more accepting of government intervention. In a 1999 book published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Hans-Hermann Hoppe identified Murray Rothbard as the leader of the "mainstream within Austrian Economics" and called Hayek an opponent of the tradition running from Menger and Böhm-Bawerk through Mises.

  Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the founders of the Austrian school "reached far into the future" and had a profound, and in his judgment probably irreversible, effect on how mainstream economists in the United States think. In the 21st century, the school found an unlikely new audience among advocates of Bitcoin, who pointed to Austrian ideas about sound money, decentralization, and resistance to currency debasement. Saifedean Ammous and Nick Szabo used Austrian principles to explain the failure of the Rai stones of Yap as a currency: when colonists arrived in the 1870s and could bring in new stones with far less effort, the supply inflated and the currency lost its value. They argue that Bitcoin's fixed cap of 21 million coins prevents exactly that kind of debasement.