Austrian school of marginalism

For non-specialists, it should be clarified that economic knowledge until the end of the 19th century, they constituted one direction, today called classical political economy, which, with the advent of Marxist political economy, began to be divided (in general) into TWO currents. The concept of class struggle and the prediction of the finiteness of capitalism proposed by Karl Marx did not suit many other political economists, but the attitude towards the theory of labor value became the final watershed. The success of Karl Marx stimulated many other economists to write their "Anti-Capital" (See A. Marshall), and the general anti-Marxist the current formed several different economic schools, however, which, due to a common platform and omnivorousness, formed modern economics, called neoclassical economic theory.

20.05.2017 Material Austrian school from - the free encyclopedia

Austrian school(Also viennese school, psychological school) is a theoretical direction of economic science within the framework of marginalism, emphasizing the role of the self-organizing force of the market price mechanism. The basis of this approach is the assertion that the complexity of human behavior and the constantly changing nature of markets makes mathematical modeling in the economy extremely difficult (if not impossible). In this situation in the area economic policy the principles of free economy (Laissez-faire), economic liberalism and libertarianism become the main ones. followers of the Austrian school stand for the protection of freedom of contracts concluded by market participants (economic agents), and non-interference in transactions (especially by the state).

Austrian School of Economics Doctrine

Features of the Austrian school

• refusal to use mathematical research methods;
• subjectivism as characteristic almost all representatives of the school;
• emphasis on the study of the psychological characteristics of consumer behavior;
• emphasis on the structure of capital and the temporal volatility of the latter in the study of macroeconomic problems.

Austrian school briefly

Austrian School Economists adhere to methodological individualism, which they describe as the analysis of human activity from the point of view of individuals. Representatives of the Austrian school argue that the only way to build a meaningful economic theory- logically derive it from the basic principles of human activity, calling such a method praxeological. In addition, although field experiments are often used by followers of the economic mainstream, " Austrians' indicate that experimental verification of economic models is nearly impossible, since the normal economic activity of people - the subject of economic research - cannot be reproduced under artificial conditions.

Austrian School of Economics definitely refers to the neoclassical bourgeois current of economic knowledge, which appeared due to the marginalist revolution of the 1970s associated with the "breakthrough" in the theory of value. That's why Austrian school also known as - Austrian school of marginal utility or Austrian school of marginalism. It was marginalism that laid new foundations Western economic theory, on which it has been developing ever since. Although Austrian school separates itself from the mainstream of Western economic knowledge, but stands on all the same foundations, the main of which is the assumption taken as an axiom that economic entities possess "reasonableness", by which self-interest is meant. As if every person has knowledge of the subjective value of each thing and starts any exchange or even production, only because of the desire to get the maximum benefit. , like all neoclassical economic thought, reduce all economic relations to exchange. It's obvious that Austrian School of Economics and all neoclassical economics the question of the finitude of capitalism and the class struggle were left out of the scope of the study, which provided them with support from the capitalist countries. Actually, the Western mainstream of economic knowledge considered and continues to consider today - the Austrian school for the blurring of the scientific foundations of marginalism and the denial of the use of the mathematical apparatus in analysis - side course, especially since its isolation is due to some of its provisions, which bring it closer to Marxism. Keynesianism as a new wave of enthusiasm in Western neoclassical economic thought in the 30s of the 20th century threw the Austrian school to the periphery for several decades. Only a cooling towards Keynesianism in the late 70s allowed the Austrian school to reassert itself, as interest in the theory and practice of the counter grew. Neo classical theory The market again drew attention to abstract models based more on the psychology of individual behavior, where the Austrian school already had significant developments.

The main representatives of the Austrian school

• ] first generation - Carl Menger (1840−1921) ( founder of the Austrian school), Theodor Herzka (1845-1924), and others.
• second generation - Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (1851−1914), Friedrich von Wieser (1851−1926), Eugen von Philippovich von Philippsberg (1858−1917), Emil Sachs (1845−1927);
• third generation - Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Karl Schlesinger (1889-1938), H. Mayer (1879-1955), Richard von Strigl (1891-1942), Leo Illy (nee Senfeld) (1888-1952) , Benjamin Anderson (1886-1949), Frank Fetter (1863-1949);
• fourth generation - Friedrich von Hayek (1899-1992), Oskar Morgenstern (1902-1977), Fritz Machlup (1902-1983), Paul Rosenstein-Rodan (1902-1985), Gottfried von Haberler (1900-1995), Henry Hazlitt ( 1894-1993), Friedrich Lutz (1901-1975), Felix Kaufmann (1895-1949);
• fifth generation - Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), Israel Kirzner (b. 1930), Ludwig Lachmann (1906-1990), George Shackle (G.L.S. Shackle) (1903-1992);
• sixth generation - Hans-Hermann Hoppe (born 1949), Jörg Guido Hulsman (born 1966), Jesus Huerta de Soto (born 1956), Peter Boettke (born 1960), Chris Coyne, Steven Horwitz (Steven Horwitz, b. 1964), Peter Leeson (Peter T. Leeson), Frederic Saute (Frederic Sautet), Roger Garrison (b. 1944) and others.

To some extent related in their views, but not fully related to the scientists of the Austrian school, are also well-known economists Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950), John Bates Clark (1847-1938) and Max Otte (born 1964).

School representatives in the CIS

In the Russian Empire, Orzhentsky Roman Mikhailovich can be noted.

In Russian federation:

• Boris Lvin
• Viktor Agroskin
• Yuri Antonovich
• Valery Kizilov
• Alexander Kuryaev
• Anatoly Levenchuk
• Vadim Novikov
• Grigory Sapov
• Pavel Valerievich Usanov.

In Belarus - Alexander Kovalev, Yaroslav Romanchuk.

History of the development of the Austrian school

Austrian school takes its name from the origins of its founders and early adopters, including Karl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, and Ludwig von Mises. Notable Austrian economists of the 20th century also include Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, and Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek.

Austrian school of marginal utility

At the end of the 19th century, Karl Marx became the undisputed authority among economists. However, the success of Karl Marx led not only to the emergence of a wave of imitators, but also to the emergence of numerous critical theories, the authors of which, in the first place, were not satisfied with the theory of class struggle, which followed from the principle of capitalism discovered by Marx - in the form of capitalist appropriation of surplus value. It was necessary to disengage from Marx at the level of philosophical foundations, therefore, at the end of the 19th century, in parallel with the establishment of Marxism, there was a revolution of marginalists who developed a theory of value based on the rarity and usefulness of consumer goods in the sphere of exchange for an individual. Marginalists reduced all economic relations to the exchange of things, in which each individual pursues the maximum benefit - the maximum satisfaction of his needs.

To give such an approach to the concept of cost the appearance of "scientific" - the majinalists had to "drag" into such as "the subjective attitude of an individual to a thing" (attributing to people from birth knowledge about the degree of usefulness of all goods), which in fact was a complete absurdity, but marginalists, through the invented concept of rationality, managed to form a completely logical theory of marginal utility. Representatives of the Austrian school of marginalism suggested the existence of objective rationality in the behavior of people, as if inherent in the entire human race in the sense - greed is a natural trait of any person. They accepted as an axiom the assumption that each person exchanges things, driven by a subjective desire for profitability, and even pursue this profitability as a goal in the organization of production. Since subjectivism correlates poorly with reality, economic relations are considered in abstract models with not very defined boundaries. At the same time, the "Austrians" have one answer to criticism about the artificiality of their models - in reality, everything is distorted by influence.

Today, marginalists en masse have entered neoclassical economics, which is a vague cloud of concepts under the general name (Economics) - a mix of countless inferences based on statistics.

Economics or otherwise - neoclassical, as the main stream of Western economic knowledge - is a set of private concepts based on statistics, more often at the level economics of a separate enterprise. The goal of economics is to study individual behavior in the process of acquiring goods and developing recommendations for efficient business conduct. An innumerable number of diverse articles have been written on the problems of microeconomics in neoclassicism.

But macroeconomics contains completely contradictory concepts. The question of the “finiteness of capitalism” is not raised at all in neoclassicism, and the phrase “collapse of capitalism” is generally banned in economics.

Austrian school theory

At the beginning of the 20th century, as a result of the next Keynesian revolution in Western economics representatives of the Austrian school of marginalism were relegated to the background for several decades. However, in the early 1970s, during the weakening of Keynesianism, interest in micro economic analysis of the behavior and preferences of an individual buyer when buying goods, which pulled the Austrian school out of oblivion, since all economic problems are considered and solved by the "Austrian" at the micro level - the enterprise and the individual.

The well-forgotten methodological individualism of the Austrian school, based on the exaggeration of the importance of the knowledge of an individual as a participant in the exchange, suddenly became in demand in Western economic science. That's why Austrian school resurfaced as a separate movement, and its representatives were retroactively awarded the Nobel Prize.

Another difference between the Austrian school and the economic mainstream is denial of the mathematical apparatus what was once thought a sign of backwardness this direction, and today allows it to maintain integrity and cover a wider range of phenomena, especially in microeconomics. Another dignity of the Austrian school is the creation within its framework of a consistent through the history of all mankind.

Oleg Grigoriev and the Austrian school

He was familiar with the Austrian school, since he worked in the USSR State Planning Committee. At that time, state planning theorists only declared their commitment to Marxist political economy, while on practice Soviet planners were guided the provisions of just the Austrian school. Initially, he considered his theory, called a word in the bosom of neoclassical economic theory, which in Russia replaced political economy. But it turned out that neoconomics is a completely separate science. His is a research program whose purpose is to study the history of the economy that led mankind to the current economic crisis.

At the same time, it is built as a historical theory open to refutation, for which the main provisions of Marxist political economy and neoclassical economic theory are specially considered. Austrian school of marginalism still cannot claim to be a full-fledged economic theory, although due to the breadth of its postulates like marxism managed to explain the cross-cutting history of mankind.

We need to understand the reason why Austrian school continues to be popular - especially among the townsfolk, and with the lowering of the level of scientists to the same level (it's just that the crisis showed all the inconsistency of the entire orthodox economics). The fact is that austrian school - normative theory- she represents theory about HOW IT SHOULD BE, therefore, it is always in an advantageous "position of criticism" - and other theories and actions of real economic authorities. herself Austrian school does not have any positive real proposals for a way out of the crisis, but representatives of the Austrian school how scientific populists are always ready to declare - what they know " HOW TO". Fortunately, no one has been using the services of the Austrian school for a long time, but it has already become customary that representatives of the Austrian school constantly make vociferous statements (usually in hindsight) about their supposedly come true predictions. Most of the economic sensations and predictions (for example, about the return of gold to the place of money) are just "stuffing" from scientists from the Austrian school.

see also

• Avtonomov V. S. The Austrian school and its representatives // Economic Literature. (Russian) - 24.08.2009.
• Klein P. Introduction // Hayek F. The fate of liberalism in the XX century. - M.: IRISEN, Thought; Chelyabinsk: Sotsium, 2009. - P. 11. This collection is a translation of the IV volume from the Collected Works of Hayek "The Fortunes of Liberalism: Essays on Austrian Economics and the Ideal of Freedom" (edited by Peter G. Klein. - Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. - 287 p.).
• Hayek F. Joseph Schumpeter (1883−1950) // Hayek F. op.cit., p. 195. A little later, F. Hayek indicates that the first [German-language] book was written in the Mengerian tradition, but the views of J. Schumpeter subsequently changed dramatically (“were discarded”) and the book was never translated into English.
• Hayek F. John Bates Clark (1847−1938) // Hayek F. Op. cit., p. 51.
• Boris Lvin - Moscow Libertarium
• Boris Levin's blog
• Viktor Agroskin - Moscow Libertarium
• Viktor Agroskin's blog
• Antonovich Yuri Nikolaevich. Southern Federal University, Department of Innovative and International Management.
• Valeriy Kizilov: National Research University Higher School of Economics
• Blog Valery Kizilov
• Yuri Kuznetsov
• Yury Kuznetsov's blog
• Kuryaev Alexander Viktorovich. Editor-in-chief of the Sotsium publishing house
• Blog of Alexander Kuryaev
• Levenchuk Anatoly - Moscow Libertarium
• Blog of Anatoly Levenchuk
• Novikov Vadim Vitalievich - Institute of Economic Policy. E. T. Gaidara
• Blog of Vadim Novikov
• Bureau of Grigory Sapov
• Grigory Sapov's blog
• Usanov Pavel Valerievich - Higher School of Economics - St. Petersburg
• SpringerLink - The Review of Austrian Economics
• Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
• Prague Conference on Political Economy
• Bukharin N. I. Foreword // Political Economy of Rentier. - Orbita, 1988. - 192

Literature

• The main works of representatives of the school[edit | edit wiki text]
• K. Menger. Foundations of political economy. In the book: The Austrian School in Political Economy: K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, F. Wieser: Per. with him. / Foreword, comments, comp. V. S. Avtonomov. - M.: Economics, 1992. - (Economic heritage.) - ISBN 5-282-01471-8.
• Vizer F. Theory of social economy (selected ch.) - In the book: The Austrian School in Political Economy: K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, F. Vizer: Per. with him. / Foreword, comments, comp. V. S. Avtonomov. - M.: Economics, 1992. - (Economic heritage.) - ISBN 5-282-01471-8.
• Mises L. Liberalism in the classical tradition. − M.: Sotsium; Economics, 2001. - 239 p.
• Mises L. Socialism. − M.: "Catallaxy", 1994.
• Mises L. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Socio-Economic Evolution. - M.: UNITI-DANA, 2001. - 295 p.
• Mises L. Human activity: Treatise on economic theory / 2nd rev. ed. - Chelyabinsk: Sotsium, 2005. - 878 s - ISBN 5-901901-29-0.
• Hayek F. Individualism and economic order. - M.: Izograph, 2000. - 256 p.

Works about the Austrian school

• Austrian school / Alter L. B. // A - Engob. - M .: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969. - (Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / editor-in-chief A. M. Prokhorov; 1969-1978, vol. 1).
• Avtonomov V.S. The Austrian school and its representatives. − In the book: The Austrian School in Political Economy: K. Menger, E. Böhm-Bawerk, F. Wieser: Per. with him. / Foreword, comments, comp. V. S. Avtonomov. - M.: Economics, 1992. - (Economic heritage.) - ISBN 5-282-01471-8.
• Antonovich Yu.N. Austrian theory of capital and capital goods // Post-crisis world: globalization, multipolarity, modernization, institutions: materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference (Rostov-on-Don, May 20-22, 2010): in 3 volumes. V.1 / under ed. A. Yu. Arkhipova, Yu. M. Osipova, V. A. Aleshina, V. N. Ovchinnikova. - ISBN 978-5-9502-0573-6.
• Blaug M. Austrian theory of capital and interest // Economic thought in retrospect = Economic Theory in Retrospect. - M.: Delo, 1994. - S. 461-526. - XVII, 627 p. - ISBN 5-86461-151-4.
• Blyumin I. G. Austrian school // Criticism of bourgeois political economy: In 3 volumes. - M.: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1962. - T. I. Subjective school in bourgeois political economy. - S. 70-151. - VIII, 872 p. - 3,200 copies.
• Bukharin N. The Political Economy of Rentier: The Theory of Value and Profit of the Austrian School
• Gene Callahan Economics for ordinary people: Fundamentals of the Austrian School of Economics. - Chelyabinsk: Sotsium, 2006.
• Tugan-Baranovsky M. I. The Austrian School // Essays on the Modern History of Political Economy: (Smith, Malthus, Ricardo, Sismondi, Historical School, Katheder-Socialists, Austrian School, Owen, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Proudhon, Rodbertus, Marx ). - St. Petersburg: Ed. magazine "God's World", 1903. - S. 206-224. - X, 434 p.
• Huerta de Soto H. Austrian School of Economics: The Market and Entrepreneurial Creativity. - Chelyabinsk: Sotsium, 2007. - 202 s - (Series "Austrian School". Issue 1). − ISBN 978-5-901901-69-4.

Period 60-70 years of the XIX century. considered a turning point in the development of economic science. It was then that at the same time in three schools, which are called Austrian, Lausanne and Cambridge at the place of origin, formed theoretical basis neoclassical approach. His starting point and the basis for the orientation of economic analysis was the subjective theory of value, developed on the basis of the principle of marginal utility.

The Austrian school received the greatest fame and international recognition. Its foundations were laid by Carl Menger (1840-1921), who published his work The Foundations of Political Economy in 1871. His theoretical views were developed in the works of two of his other students and collaborators - Friedrich Wieser (1851-1926) and Eugen Böhm-Bawerk (1851-1914).

Wieser's main works:

• "The Origin and Main Laws of Economic Value" (1884)
• "Natural Value" (1889)

The most important works of Böhm-Bawerk:

• "Fundamentals of the theory of the value of economic goods" (1886)
• "Capital and interest" (1884-1889)

The views of these scientists are similar and complement each other. Menger developed the foundations of the theory of marginal utility as applied to individual acts of exchange. Wieser, who introduced the term "marginal utility", used this theory to estimate the cost of production costs. Böhm-Bawerk developed further the views of his predecessors, creating a detailed theory of interest. Therefore, we can talk about the unified theory of marginal utility of the Austrian school.

The main feature of the methodology of the Austrian school is a logical-deductive qualitative analysis. It is aimed at studying the behavior of an economic entity in order to reveal through it the cause and essence of all economic phenomena. This is the so-called atomistic method or the Robinsonade method. The other side of the method is subjective psychological analysis, since the psychology of the economic individual in this theory determines all economic goals. Thus, K. Menger considered economic science to be an unfinished branch of psychology.

The Austrian school neglected quantitative analysis, i. did not address the issues of commensuration and comparison of utility. She used verbal presentation, which at that time made her popular in comparison with the works of W. Jevons and L. Walras.

The main feature of the approach proposed by the Austrian school is the following: the reduction of value to the costs of labor, land and capital is unacceptable. The cost (value) is determined by the degree of useful effect of a certain good. At the same time, the objective value (market prices) that exists independently of human consciousness and the subjective value differed. Subjective value shows how much a given person values ​​this or that thing in terms of his well-being. The value of a thing, Böhm-Bawerk argues, is measured by its marginal utility, i.e. value is determined not by the utility of each commodity, but by the utility of the last unit of a supply of a particular consumer good. Marginal utility depends, therefore, on the supply (rarity) of the good and on the intensity of the need for it. The higher the intensity of need for a given supply of goods, the higher the marginal utility for the individual. Conversely, the greater the supply of a good at a given intensity, the lower the marginal utility.

Böhm-Bawerk identifies three basic rules that participants in the process of social exchange should use:

• firstly, the exchange must be beneficial (i.e., the good received in exchange is of greater utility than the good given)
• secondly, everyone strives to make a deal with a greater benefit for themselves
• thirdly, it is better to make a deal with less profit than to refuse to exchange at all

The Austrians present this problem as follows. The market is the point where the interests (assessments) of sellers and buyers collide. (Recall that this stage of abstraction does not imply the presence of production, and none of the participants in the exchange compares the price offered to him with the cost of labor). Each of them has its own assessment of the goods sold. So the buyer of a horse proceeds from how much he needs the horse and what is its usefulness, and the seller from what damage to his economy the sale of the horse will bring. In other words, according to this theory, each participant in the exchange - the buyer and the seller - has already developed subjective assessments in advance. The Austrian school considers the market price as the resultant of the subjective assessments of sellers and buyers.

Suppose there is one buyer and one seller. The buyer values ​​the horse at 100 monetary units, and the seller - in 80. Böhm-Bawerk proves that the subjective assessment of the seller is the lower one. Prices are set within these boundaries. In the case of bilateral competition between sellers and buyers, the boundaries of price setting are determined by the super-subjective assessment of the last of the buyers who entered into the transaction and the subjective assessment of the strongest of the sellers eliminated from the market, and from below - by the subjective assessment of the last of the sellers who entered into the transaction and the subjective assessment of the strongest of the sellers eliminated from the market. buyers market. Since there are other buyers and sellers on the market, competition arises that “pushes” the price up and down, and if there are a significant number of participants in the exchange, the price will be within narrower boundaries than in an isolated exchange.

As a result, individual marginal utilities determine how much of good B its owners will offer in exchange for good A, and vice versa. As a result of the exchange, individual marginal utilities are spontaneously transformed in the market into the social marginal utility of goods B and A. This utility is measured by the price at which supply and demand mutually cover each other. By setting the public estimate of the marginal utility of a commodity at the level of the individual estimate of the "marginal buyer", all other buyers (whose estimates are higher) receive a tangible benefit. The same benefit is received by each buyer (except for the "marginal") if he purchases at the same market price several units of a product whose marginal utility for him decreases.

Some attention in the concept of the Austrian school is given to the evaluation of production goods. Their value (cost) is derived from the marginal utility of consumer goods. Thus, according to Böhm-Bawerk, it is not the cost of flour that determines the cost of bread, but, on the contrary, the cost of bread determines the cost of flour, which, in turn, determines the cost of wheat, rye, etc., i.e. production costs derive value from their products. The value of the factors involved in production is thus of a derivative, “imputed” nature.

Böhm-Bawerk's theory of interest can be considered the most original of the developments of the Austrian school. For example, imagine that the lender presents the borrower for one year cash in the amount of 1000 monetary units. Since the owner of money assumes a decrease in his estimates of marginal utility, receiving the same amount of 1000 monetary units from the debtor would lead to a decrease in his welfare. Therefore, the creditor, obeying the principle of rational behavior, does not intend to put up with such a prospect, and demands the return of not 1000 monetary units, but 1100. Thus, he compensates for the possible deterioration of his well-being in the coming year. The resulting difference (100) is regarded by Böhm-Bawerk as a percentage, and the exchange is represented as equivalent.

This theory is based on the original principle of the Austrian school, which boils down to the fact that objects of the present time are valued more than future goods. On its basis, the psychological law of underestimation of future benefits was established. The very formulation of the question of the role of the time factor in the evaluation of goods is also important. In the future, this idea received a deep development.

The ideas of the Austrian school had a serious impact on the methodology of economic science. This applies, first of all, to the subjective approach developed within the framework of the philosophical and ethical concept. It was the "human factor", the individual with his desire for the most complete satisfaction of needs, that was the starting point for the Austrian school.

The theory of marginal utility became the basis of the modern theory of consumer choice, made it possible to identify the motivation for the microeconomic behavior of individuals. It predetermined the approach not only to solving the problem of individual utility, but also the assessment of social utility and preferences.

Today, the Austrian School of Economics is in the backyard of economic academic thought. On the margins in the sense that representatives of the economic academic mainstream try to keep any original scientific trends and concepts out of the educational process. But the school itself does not become less interesting from this and has a large number of adherents around the world. Unfortunately, the school is partly discredited in the eyes of people of statist convictions. Such discrediting occurred for the reason that among the supporters of the Austrian school there are many representatives of the libertarian movement, who believe that a person should be left to himself, who cannot withstand competition in the market, has no right to count on the support of society. But it is quite clear that no politician (even very liberal convictions) can accept such a savage approach as a basis. First, it is politically unsafe. Secondly, everyone understands that not every person in a particular period of time can find himself in the market. For one reason or another, many of us sometimes need social support. In the economy, there are no only successful and wealthy people.

But what did the representatives of the Austrian school write, what conclusions did they come to, were they all as one supporters of complete non-intervention of the state in the economy? Few people know, but one of the founders of the Austrian school of economics, Baron Friedrich von Wieser (1851-1926) "tried to justify the need for state intervention and central planning ( he again used the term "planning" for the first time in Western economic theory - Ya.S.) in order to translate the principles of marginal utility into practice and ensure the optimal functioning of the economy."

True, for this, many modern Austrians are trying to attribute Wieser's legacy to the German historical school. But this is unlikely to be done, since it was Wieser who "wrote the first systematic treatise-textbook of the Austrian school -" The Theory of Social Economy "(1914). Wieser's contribution to Austrian theory is very peculiar ... he became famous for giving bright names and memorable formulations of many ideas of marginalism.It was he who first used the terms "marginal utility" (Grenznutzen), "imputation" (Zurechnung), "Gossen's laws".

Many modern Austrians are also trying to disown Joseph Schumpeter, arguing that he has gone too far from the ideals of the Austrian school. The main reproach against him is as follows: "Schumpeter's originality and independence, his desire and ability to go against the current manifested themselves in other moments. As you know, the Austrian school fundamentally rejected the use of mathematics in economic analysis. But, while studying at the University of Vienna, Schumpeter independently (without listening to a single special lecture) studied mathematics and the works of economists and mathematicians from O. Cournot to K. Wicksell so much that in the year of defending his dissertation for the title of Doctor of Law (1906) he published a profound article " On the Mathematical Method in Theoretical Economics", in which, to the great displeasure of his teachers, he concluded that mathematical economics is promising, on which the future of economic science will be based. Love for mathematics remained for life: Schumpeter considered lost every day when he did not read books on mathematics and ancient Greek authors. "At the same time, Schumpeter was not at all a mathematician author. already repulsed.

According to libertarians, the use of mathematics in economics contributes to the formation of an unfree, regulated economic system, in which politicians get the opportunity to use various formulas to control society. At the same time, it is completely ignored that mathematics entered the economy firmly at the moment when economic life itself began to become more complicated, it became difficult to get by with speculative reasoning alone. For this reason, many economists began to come to the conclusion that the role of mathematics will grow.

Schumpeter also made a significant contribution to debunking the myth of monopolies: "From Schumpeter's reasoning about the role of large corporations, the special significance of monopolies as subjects of innovative activity, many of his followers deduced

position on the relationship between market structure, the presence of monopolies and the level of innovation, which is often called the "Schumpeter hypothesis": "the monopoly position of the firm is a key condition for successful innovation."

Indeed, Schumpeter proves that a monopoly is by no means always a pure economic evil. On the contrary, in terms of dynamic efficiency, creating conditions for major innovations, a large monopoly business has great advantages over a company operating in conditions of perfect competition.

At the same time, he emphasizes that in the trend it is innovation that destroys monopolies: "... the impact of innovations, for example, new technologies, on existing industry structures in the long term prevents the strategy of limiting production, maintaining dominant positions to maximize profits." The economic history of innovation, patterns of emergence and change of industries - the leaders of technological progress show that each new product that forms the industry, as a rule, is associated with the activities of one or another large corporation. Automobiles are Ford, nylon is DuPont, semiconductors are Bell, computers are IBM, software is Microsoft, processors are Intel, and they form a far from complete series of examples from the history of the 20th century.

Today in Russia they often talk about the dominance of monopolies in the economy, which reduces its efficiency as a whole. They propose to do something with Gazprom, Russian Railways, Rosneft, etc. But at the same time, they do not take into account that when the time comes, these monopoly structures will change themselves. Even if they are controlled by the state.

Not a single structure can be constant in time, not change its appearance, not lose its position in the market. Joseph Schumpeter showed the nature of monopolies very well. This is a completely objective market phenomenon. Very often, monopolies are much more effective in implementing the so-called. "complementary" innovations than do disparate market agents.

I wonder if any private passenger railway company (one of many) could implement the Sapsan project? Frankly, there are big doubts about this. But the organization of high-speed traffic in Russia is the very "complementary" innovation in the field of organizing passenger transportation in Russia. And, despite all the criticism that fell on Russian Railways in connection with the acquisition and launch of Sapsan, the project took place and turned out to be profitable.

The railroad in this case acts as one of the most illustrative examples. But we can recall the gas pipe, for access to which there is an active struggle.

Supporters of reform in the gas industry cannot give a comprehensive answer to the question of who will be responsible for managing such a complex facility as the gas transmission system, from whose pocket will it be paid for its maintenance, what financial burden will certain companies bear? And the financial burden in the event of "demonopolization" of the pipe should increase significantly, since access to it by independent gas producers will be significantly simplified. This means that capacities will operate at a higher load, which will require large financial injections to maintain the system.

With all the questions to Gazprom, the efficiency of its work, which are objectively fair, the solution of such problems must be approached with great caution. And even if "a thorough check of the" Schumpeter's hypothesis "on the statistical materials of a large number of industries and markets (American statistics, for example, regularly publish indicators of the share of production for the four largest companies in the industry) did not unequivocally confirm or refute the high efficiency of innovation in large monopoly corporations," In practice, we can still see that many issues can only be solved by large companies.

It would seem that there are specific practical issues. And what about the Austrian school? But if you delve into many aspects of theory, you can see their close relationship with practice, our daily life. If we discard the ideological component, identify the most useful and interesting in a particular school, then it will be much easier to explain what is happening in the economy.

Of course, the Austrian school is not limited to Wieser and Schumpeter. But it was on them that I wanted to focus attention, since they make a huge contribution to the development of economic science in general and the Austrian school in particular. But they are the ones least often referred to by libertarians. On Ludwig von Mises all the time. But not on Wieser and Schumpeter. The latter is generally denied the right to be considered an Austrian economist. But they are interesting because they made a huge contribution to science, while being remembered for their originality and dissimilarity to others.

When determining the characteristic of Utility and Good, Menger receives two items in one shell. It seems to me more familiar and corresponding to the meaning of the perception of these words is their meaning:
Benefit - an object or relation - a carrier of utility as a property to satisfy a person's need, both directly and through the processes of natural development, social and economic interaction. This shows that not all goods can come into direct and immediate contact with an individual, but at the same time, in their meaning, they act as a blessing.

The Law of Cause and Effect is usually considered in sequence from cause to effect, and life shows that the effect is the search for the cause. If we take into account that human life itself is created and built from the micro level and that this happens spontaneously to a certain extent, then not everything will look unambiguously certain. The mass of causes can be established only when there is some event, action, result, and the name of the cause becomes a formalized explanation of the effect. She will always be there. If we take any event or state as a Consequence, then everything that preceded it - a lot of conditions, circumstances and states, and so it is proposed, as a Cause, then wouldn't such an approach be too "indiscriminate"?
The very process of interaction with the good or its use allows you to discover and accept its usefulness. Not the simultaneous occurrence of the conditions listed by Menger allows the object to act as a blessing, but the process of its use causes the emergence of accompanying meanings and circumstances.

About the time.
Time is a process of transformation, and the perception of this process acts as a sense of time. In Menger, the opposite is true: "Each process of transformation consists of emergence and development and is conceivable only in time."

If we take into account the nature of the establishment of the relationship between persons and goods, then we can expand the above classification by introducing definitions of captured (power and organizational types) and law-produced goods.

I believe that it is completely meaningless to link the value of goods with their quantity available for disposal. And it can also be said that there are no goods that could be obtained without labor. Of course, for some time it can be assumed that these include air, sometimes warm, like habitat and sunlight. It is possible to argue about the basic conditions for the existence of life and to assert that these benefits are not valuable, unless one takes into account the will and work of the creator of this world. These are the products of "another economy", to the level of understanding of which our consciousness has not risen. But air has already turned into a natural material, the consumption of which has already begun to be deliberately limited, since the limit of use is already visible. It is better not to talk about water and fruits in the same sense. This is one argument for decoupling the question of the relationship between the value of goods and their scarcity.

In order to better understand this issue, it is necessary, initially, to proceed from the conditions and circumstances of the preservation and reproduction (extended in qualitative and qualitative terms) of life, a separate life, because value acts as a subjective relation and an incommensurable value for different people. Value is a manifestation of an individual attitude to a particular good in their overall structure. It has no direct connection with the need and its satisfaction, as well as with use and exchange value, price and value. Value is manifested only in the formed structure of consumption. Many newly emerging goods have a high value compared to others in the overall structure of goods, they often become the subject of imaginative and psychologically enhanced demand, but they do not have a corresponding value proportional to the cost.

A high concentration of a certain good in an individual is for him the basis of trade interaction with other persons and obtaining material rights. In fact, any excess of the quantity of goods over the immediate physical need always turns into material rights (sometimes even into the loss of them). Apparently, at first, there was a spontaneous deviation, and then its place is taken by a specialization in deviation for the production of material rights as an economic type of need.

Having written the above, I did not at all expect to find such a definition in Menger:
"Utility is the suitability of an object to serve the satisfaction of human needs, and therefore (precisely as known utility) is general condition the nature of the benefits. And non-economic goods are useful to the same extent as economic ones, due to their ability to satisfy human needs, and this suitability of them must also be known by people, since otherwise they could not become goods at all.
I can't help but agree with this definition.

Menger is looking for stable relationships between value and cost, but these are categories of a completely different plan: value is a more psychological category, cost is an economic one. There is only one connection here - everything, one way or another, closes on the subject of these relations. He tries to deduce and show the relationship between value and price, but these are just similar words, besides, the latter is an economic declaration.

Initially, economic exchange was based on the deviation of the actual availability of goods from physical need and the transformation of this deviation into material rights, followed by specialization in this deviation. In the future, the life of the subjects economic relations was planned and implemented on the basis of the intention of obtaining material rights on the basis of specialization in deviation.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the basis of economic interaction is not just an exchange, but a set of acts of purchase and sale, presented separately on the market. Always in each of these acts, on the one hand, material rights appear.

Using the category "Utility" to find reasons for economic interaction does not seem to me to make any sense. It's subjective economic characteristic. Value and utility are manifested in economic interaction not directly, but as figurative foundations of demand and as one of the engines of socio-economic progress.

Price is just a declaration of value. It is rather difficult to deduce economic laws from declarations. For some designation of the procedure and environment for setting prices, one could start from several influencing circumstances:
1 - Prices are set and exist only in the economic environment;
2 - Prices are set by the subjects of relations;
3 - Comprehension of the position of the subject in relation to setting the price is carried out by a person .. (Example of this chapter)
4 -Setting a price is one of the manifestations of economic freedom;
5 - Setting a price acts as an intention to create value.

>Menger is looking for stable relationships between value and cost, but
> these are categories of a completely different plan: value is more
ironically, the terms "value" and
"cost" came into Russian as translations
the same English word - value
When translating "Capital" into Russian, value was intentionally and for ideological reasons translated as "cost", because "cost" in Russian has a somewhat more objectivist coloration. Thus, the objective nature of value was emphasized, which is in full agreement with the labor theory of value, with which Marx's materialism is consistent.
If you don't take my word for it, refer to any classic English text on the theory of value. You will not find a distinction (at least at the level of designation in different words) of value and cost. Only the word value is used. Even in "Capital".

As a matter of fact, I will not object to the remark. I will only note that no matter how the terms "value" and "cost" are related to each other for an economic good, none of these characteristics is given objectively, i.e. regardless of the evaluator.
Many authors have already criticized the objective (including labor) theory of value and have come to a subjective theory. The latest (and one of the best) exposition you will find in Mises in "Human Action".

>Price is just a declaration of value.
Prices are ratios of values ​​of economic goods, expressed in money, according to which really there is an exchange of these goods. Whether they are declarative or not (I don't understand what this means) - the exchange is going on, which means that prices determine the conditions of human activity. And then, whether we like it or not, we are obliged to determine the patterns of exchange, taking into account prices.

>Setting a price acts as an intention to create value.
Senseless nonsense.

>material rights
And I, naive, for some reason have always been convinced that rights are intangible by definition ...

>is not just an exchange, but a set of acts
>buying and selling, presented on the market separately
...which economists call exchange in the general sense of the word
The expression "an exchange takes place in the market" means that a certain number of "acts of purchase and sale, presented separately on the market," take place.

In the market there is not an exchange, but an exchange. Superobjection by God!

In Menger, indeed, the relationship between the utility of a good and the good itself is rather vaguely defined. Therefore, misunderstandings are possible here.

I would advise you to start studying the foundations of subjectivist theory from a different interpretation - from Mises' work "Human Activity" - there is basically the same thing, but there is much less room for confusion in the head. And judging by your subsequent comments, there is confusion and quite serious.

Incidentally, in expounding the doctrine of the economic good, Mises does not refer to the term "utility" at all.

I do not see any basis for presenting value as use and exchange value, as well as the transition from these phrases to the concept of price. I think that, in this case, in fact, the development of concepts is not from value to price, but a rather unconvincing justification adapts to the latter. Such a justification is similar to a systemic delusion, the use of which distorts the structure of economic interaction.




A commodity is a (material) carrier of value intended for sale.
It can be said that the starting point in the appearance and existence of a product is the intention to obtain material rights in monetary form as a result of the sale of an existing or manufactured product. And not vice versa, as often seems to be the case.

I really like the trick with the substitution of the history of money for the history of the monetary device, which for some reason is usually called money circulation. The entire history of money consists of the facts of their creation (production) and use. Money always has a complete cycle: production - use. Therefore, it is possible to speak of money circulation only as a non-existent phenomenon .. But on the other hand, something can always be said about the circulation of money carriers - about their transfer from account to account or from pocket to pocket along with the emergence and use of money. What passes for history monetary circulation, obviously, is the history of the monetary device.

I think that such a widespread fairy tale "about a white bull" is not able to explain the nature of the origin of money. "Bull" gave value to the bearer of money, not to money. When moving, "Bull" could gain weight and lose weight. And it does not matter at all whether he acted in this case either in the role of cattle, or in the role of precious metal. Not a single commodity, regardless of its value, has ever been money, but, of course, some of them were carriers of money.

Yes, you are driving yourself into a terrible jungle. And metaphysicians never dreamed of separating the concepts from themselves "money was never money", congratulations.
I'm stupid to understand this, to return from a simple Spinoza.

Sergey, hello!
Personally, you can write off everything that has been said to my eccentricity, but, in the meantime, pay attention to the fact that we are talking in the margins of a work called "The Foundations of Political Economy." In addition, it is presented as the basis of political economy. To me, these foundations appear as a parachute of political economy, which began to take shape in flight. It is no longer possible to ignore this. I must also say that I attach due importance to this work and the role of the author in highlighting the issue.
Actually, what did I say? It may be that a certain slate in political economy is clean again.

Speaking of Ludwig von Mises, here are his words:
"The struggle for freedom, in the final analysis, is not resistance to despots or oligarchs, but resistance to the despotism of public opinion. It is not a struggle of many against a few, but a struggle of a minority - sometimes a minority consisting of one person - against the majority"

"The dissenting minority is undemocratic because it refuses to accept the opinion of the majority as truth. All means of "liquidating" these rebellious scoundrels are "democratic" and therefore moral"

The words are simple, but the idea is wonderful. It's Mises! ("Theory and History")

Start
70s of the XIX century. in the history of the world
economic thought was marked as
called the marginalist revolution. IN
there is a large proportion of such dating
conventions; for example, the basics
marginal utility theories
formulated by G. G. Gossen for a long time
the forgotten work of 1844, and the beginning
massive penetration
marginalist ideas into the economic
literature should only be
mid 1880s. It went differently
marginalist revolution in different countries.
But the fact remains: publications in 1871.
"Theories of Political Economy" W. St.
Jevons and "Foundations of political
economy" by K. Menger, and in 1874 "Elements
pure political economy" L.
Walras laid new foundations for Western
economic theory, on which she has since
time and develops. Relevance
offered to the reader of the book is,
therefore, in that for the first time [neither
one of the founders
marginalism (L. Walras, W. St. Jevons, K.
Menger) was not published in the USSR. From works
published in this collection were published
only "Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic benefits "E. Böhm-Bawerk (1929)]
given the opportunity to get to know
one of the origins of modern Western
economic thought - the Austrian school
political economy.

IN
in this introductory article, we
Let's try to look at the characteristics
distinguishing the Austrian school as a whole from
other areas of marginalism:
Lausanne school (L. Walras, V. Pareto),
works of W. St. Jevons and A. Marshall, as well as
give an individual description
to each of its three founders,
presented by their work in this
book. But first, it must be said
a few words about the marginalist revolution
generally. That three people (Jevons,
Menger and Walras), working independently each
from each other and relying on completely different
national scientific traditions, - and in the XIX century.
national features of English,
German and French political
savings were very bright [Blyumin I. G.
Subjective school in political economy.
T. I. M .: Publishing house Kom. Academy, 1931], - came to
very close conclusions, could not be
random coincidence. Revolution like us
we know that a revolutionary situation gives rise.
What was the pre-marginalist
situation in Western economic theory, and
more precisely in the theory of value (value), times
did the revolution take place here?

dominating
in this area, the paradigm was based on
achievements of the English classical school in
interpretations of J. S. Mill, who in 1848
inadvertently stated that "fortunately, in
laws of value there is nothing left
to find out modern or any
future author; theory of the subject
is complete" [Mill J.S. Fundamentals
political economy. T. 2. M.: Progress, 1986.
S. 172].

These
immutable "laws of value"
boiled down to the following:

1. value of a thing
   There is temporary (market) and permanent (natural).
   The latter is the center around
   which he vacillates and strives for
   first;
2. market value is determined by demand and
   offer. At the same time, demand in turn
   depends on the market value;
3. natural value in different ways
   determined for non-reproducible and
   freely reproduced goods. In the first
   case (this also includes monopoly
   situations) it depends on the rarity of the thing, in
   second (predominant) - on the amount of costs
   production of goods and their delivery to the market;
4. production costs are made up of
   wages and return on capital and
   ultimately determined by the number
   labor expended [Mill J.S., Decree. op. T.
   2. S. 222--224].

So
Thus, in the classical model, the average
price level (natural value)
determined in the field of production and
set by costs. The offer of the same product
is determined by the demand that develops at
given price.

Takova
objective production theory
value in its most concise form. Should
note that on the European continent this
theory existed in a slightly different form.
On the one hand, there was a strong tradition
ascending to Galiani and Condillac and
relating the value of a thing to its usefulness.
On the other hand, the German economic
literature influenced by powerful
German philosophy of that time, gave
much attention to the meaning of the word "value"
(Wert), correlated it with other human
values, etc. However, the theory of value on
continent usually included those described by J.
S. Mill "laws", although this is how
rule led to contradictions [Example
can serve as the famous "Textbook
political economy" A. Wagner (Wagner A.,
Nasse A. Lehrbuch der Politischen Okonomie. 2. Aufl. Leipzig, 1875)]. But from
shortcomings was not free and itself
classical theory in its Millevian
option. First, for anyone, even the most
highly developed and wealthy society (and for
him in particular) the possibility
unlimited increase in production
from which the "theory of costs" originates,
is the exception rather than the rule.
Secondly, the objective theory interpreted
demand for goods as a "black box". That
little has been said about the determinants
its factors, came down to the banal
logical circle: demand affects prices, and
prices affect demand. Third, dualism
classical theory of value (completely
different explanations for free
reproducible and non-reproducible goods)
gave no rest to scientists seeking to create
coherent and comprehensive theory,
revealing the essence of value (value).
(Namely, such goals were set before any
science in those pre-positivist times.) ["We
we need just such a theory, which all
phenomena of value would be deduced from one and
the same beginning, and, moreover, would give them
exhaustive explanation," Böhm-Bawerk wrote].

All
these weaknesses have provoked criticism of the classical
theories from a variety of perspectives. If
the German historical school criticized her
for overly abstract, unhistorical
character, then K. Marx, on the contrary, resolutely
cleared the labor cost hypothesis of
hesitations and reservations that arose from A. Smith,
D. Ricardo and J. S. Mill, because they
wanted to reconcile this abstraction with
the realities of life.

Third
the path chosen by the marginalists. They tried
create a monistic general theory
values ​​based on presuppositions, completely
contrary to the premises of the classical
schools.

IN
as the initial elementary phenomenon
economic life they chose the attitude
person to thing, manifested in the field
personal consumption [classical school is not
included personal consumption in the subject
political economy, since the influence
habits, traditions, prejudices and other
manifestations of irrationality prevails
here over the impact of competition and
economic calculation and makes
human behavior in a given area
unpredictable. Therefore, in order to
create a theory of value based on
relation of man to thing, marginalists
it took to make this attitude
rational. Man in the theory of the ultimate
utility knows the hierarchy of its
needs and by satisfying them
to get the most
welfare]. As K. Menger wrote, "man
with their needs and their power over
means of satisfying the latter
constitutes the starting and ending point
every human economy" (p. 89).
From this relationship between needs and
means of satisfaction, or, speaking
more familiar language, between usefulness and
a rarity, marginalists just deduce
the phenomenon of the value of economic goods.

Armed
knowledge of the subjective value of goods,
economic entities start if they
it is profitable, exchange or even production.
Moreover, if for the classical school
the essence of exchange is to be found in the realm
production, then for marginalists,
on the contrary, production itself is
peculiar indirect view exchange . The purpose of production and exchange for
each of their members is the best
satisfying one's needs directly
or mediated.

So
Thus, the marginalists radically
reframed the cost problem:
contents of the "black box" (consumer
estimates and consumer choice) has become
the main subject of analysis, and causal
links between production, exchange and
consumption changed their direction to
the opposite - the basis of value was not
past costs, but future utility, etc.

Of course
marginalists' alleged motivation
any economic activity- maximum satisfaction
individual needs -- looks
extreme anachronism in the conditions of a developed
capitalism at the end of the 19th century. However, from our point of view
view, this premise, taken by itself,
no more artificial than the postulate
classical (and Marxist) theory
the cost of limitless possibilities
production expansion. How fair
emphasizes Yu. B. Kochevrin, "the fruitfulness
abstractions should be defined not in terms of
the absence of certain realities in it, not according to
some psychological or
behavioral assumptions, but from the explanation
real economic process or its
essential side" [Kochevrin Yu. B.
Neoclassical production theory and
distribution//World economy and
international relationships. 1987. "10. S. 45].
The question of the applicability of the classical and
marginalist abstractions to various
areas of modern pricing,
definitely deserves a separate
conversation and goes beyond this
introductions.

Long
time the Austrian school was considered in
Western economic literature only as
one of the driving forces of the marginalist
a revolution that reached smaller
success than others, because not
mastered mathematics. Such
assessment was formed in the mid-30s of the XX century,
when different directions of marginalism,
seemed to be forever merged into a single
neoclassical current and, moreover, were
relegated to the background as a result
the next revolution in economics --
Keynesian. But in the early 1970s, during
the weakening of Keynesianism and the revival
keen interest in microeconomics
analysis revealed that the Mohicans
Austrian school L. Mises and F. Hayek (the last
received the Nobel Prize in 1974) carried
through all these years, some of the most important
features of the Austrian school, which did not give it
merge completely with the neoclassical
paradigm.

So
way, compared with Lausanne and
Cambridge (Anglo-American) schools
marginalism, the Austrian school turned out to be
most clearly defined and durable.
It is possible with a high degree of certainty
name famous economists,
belonging to different generations
Austrian school, including our
contemporaries. This is its founder K.
Menger, his students E. Böhm-Bawerk and F. Wieser (although
listen to lectures by K. Menger in the Vienna
they didn’t have a chance to go to university, both of them graduated
him shortly before the author of The Foundations
political economy" got there
professorship), students of E. Böhm-Bawerk
L. Mises and J. Schumpeter, student of L. Mises F.
Hayek and his peers G. Haberler, F. Machlup,
O. Morgenstern (one of the founders of the theory
games), followers of L. Mises and F. Hayek I.
Kirzner, L. Lachmann, E. Streisler and others.

strong
the influence of various ideas of the Austrian school
had on the British L. Robbins, J. Hicks and
J. Shackle, Swede C. Wicksell, Dutchman
Pearson, Italian M. Pantaleoni,
Americans R. Ely, S. Patten and others.
Of course, the Austrian research
tradition among its various representatives
manifested itself in various forms and
degree, but in all cases trace it
influence is possible.

What are
same characteristic features of the Austrian
schools of political economy? First of all, this
consistent monistic
subjectivism: all categories of economic
science, the Austrians seek to deduce only

from the relation to the thing of economic
subject, his preferences, expectations,
knowledge. How emphatically emphasizes
Menger, any good in itself, from the point
economist's point of view, devoid of any
objective properties, and above all
values. These properties give them only
corresponding relation of one or the other
subject.

So,
the essence of interest lies with them in different
assessment by the subject of present and future benefits,
production costs - in lost use,
which is expected to be productive
good could bring if they were
used not as it really is, but
otherwise, etc. At the same time, the subject of the Austrians
not guaranteed against errors (he may, to
example, to misjudge one's future
needs and means of satisfying them)
and these mistakes of his will not be "discarded"
market, but will play their part by participating
along with more correct estimates, in
determining the price of a given good.

Special
the emphasis that the Austrians place on
future uncertainties and opportunities
mistakes, the great importance attached to them,
especially Menger, knowledge of economic
subject at his disposal
information, sharply distinguish them from the background
other marginalists and make their theories
especially important today, when the problem
information search and processing is
front of economic research.

Can
boldly assert that the degree
rationality required of
business entity located in
the theories of the Austrians are an order of magnitude lower than in
Jevons and Walras models. This
manifests itself, in particular, in
features of the Austrian school, namely in
that the Austrians do not use not only
mathematical research methods, but
even geometric illustrations of their
theoretical positions (like Jevons and
Marshall). This feature of the Austrian school
catches the eye of everyone who flips through
this book - you will not find in it not only
differential equations, but also the usual
diagrams with supply and demand curves.
Of course, this can also be explained by the fact that
founders of the Austrian school,
educated in law, just
did not master the technique of mathematics
analysis [although the same K. Menger, if desired
could well acquire the necessary skills from
his brother, an eminent mathematician].
However, the main reason is completely different.
The fact is that the application in the theory of value
differential calculus requires,
for the researcher to take some
additional assumptions. Firstly,
valued good must be infinite
divisible, or, what is the same, the function
utility should be continuous, not
discrete. This function should be, secondly,
differentiable, that is, have a tangent in
every point, and, thirdly, convex, for
so that the derivative at each point is
final [See interesting article son
Menger -- Carl Menger Jr., mathematics
profession: Menger K. Austrian marginalism and mathematical
economics. In: Carl Menger and the Austrian School... P. 38--44].

All
three additional conditions are introduced for
convenience of calculation and narrow the range of phenomena,
explained by marginalist theory. What
As for infinite divisibility, then this
property is so uncharacteristic for
most of the blessings that Jevons and Marshall
it is necessary to make a reservation that the function
usefulness refers rather to all of them
aggregate, and not to one subject (for example,
to residents of Liverpool or Manchester). But
for the totality of consumers lose their meaning

subjective assessments and preferences! Except
addition, the mathematical version of the theory
marginal utility means that
business entity unmistakably finds
the best option for you
contrary to the above
Austrians (primarily Menger) about
uncertainties and mistakes. Because the
Austrians avoid drinking
mathematical analysis, it allows them
not only cover with your theory more
a wide range of phenomena, but also to keep it
consistency and stay within
somewhat more realistic model
human behavior [according to the exact
remark by E. Streisler, for the Austrian
schools (as opposed to math) in
the phrase "marginal utility"
more important noun than adjective
(Streissler E. What Extent was the Austrian School marginalist? History of
political economy. Vol.. 4. N 2. P. 426--461)].

Here
we come to the next distinctive
feature of the Austrian school - methodological individualism. All
economic problems Austrians
considered and decided at the micro level, at
individual level. They do not take into account that the whole,
i.e. society is always greater than the sum of its
parts, do not recognize specific
macroeconomic phenomena, irreducible
to a simple resultant of individual
preferences and decisions. From our point
view, this is due to the desire
Austrians to reveal the essence of phenomena,
causal relationships and their
distrust of functional dependencies [cf.
the very first phrase that Menger begins
his "Foundations ..." (p. 38). To that
it should be added that the German term
"Grenznutzen" can be more accurately translated as "boundary"
utility, i.e. assessment of the value of a thing
buyer located at the "border"
between those who manage to acquire the thing, and
those who will be forced out of the market; no
hint at "limit" in mathematical
there is no sense of the word here. In this sense
the Austrians are closer to K. Marx than to
most economists and mathematicians
who adhered to positivist
views.

IN
connections with methodological individualism
is also a remarkable absence in
works of Austrian marginalists
developed ideas of balance. It is clear that
Walrasian concept of general equilibrium
was too much for the Austrians
supra-individual, requiring excessive
rationality and optimality of solutions.
Much more interesting is that in Menger's theory
the concepts of partial
equilibrium, the only equilibrium price.

important
role in the Austrian theory is occupied by the factor
time. Less than all other marginalists
the Austrians deserved a reproach for purely
static point of view. They didn't forget
emphasize that value judgments
people are directly dependent on
what time period they can calculate
satisfaction of their needs ("period
prudence"). It is the factor
time and associated uncertainty
lead to errors of exchange participants and not
allow the general balance to be established,
inherent in the timeless system of Walras,
where all prices and quantities of goods are determined
simultaneously.

Now
we have to give a group portrait of three
founders of the Austrian school, works
which are presented in this book. In their
biographies have a lot in common: all three
come from noble families, studied at
Faculty of Law, Vienna
university, entered the state
service, then alternated teaching in
university with important positions in
Austrian state (Böhm-Bawerk three times
was finance minister
Supreme Court of Appeal and
President of the Academy of Sciences, Vizer - Minister of Commerce), were
life members of the upper house
parliament. They were connected by friends, and Böhm-Bawerka
and Vizer - even family relations.

IN
areas of economic theory are all the same,
certainly were close ideological
associates. However, history has
each of them has its own role, and it is precisely this "specialization" that
in our opinion, the Austrian school is obliged
early flowering and noticeable influence.

Group
Austrian limit theorists
usefulness deserves the name of the school
primarily because she had a teacher with
unquestioned scientific authority - Karl
Menger (1840-1921). When being unknown
young (31 years old) civil servants and
journalist, he decided to become a Privatdozent
University of Vienna and as
just made recommendations
published book "Foundations of political
economy", no one, of course, could think
that this work for more than a hundred years
will be the main source of ideas for economists
Austrian school. Menger has practically no
there were teachers, although there were predecessors:
based mainly on German literature,
he was not, however, familiar with the writings
Gossen and Thunen, in which the ideas of the limit
utility and marginal
performance have found their most
early incarnation. At the same time almost
unable to find any idea or
concept of Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and their
followers that were not anticipated
separate provisions and even footnotes from the "Foundations
political economy". Actually
saying everything that was said above about
characteristic features of the Austrian
schools as a whole, especially in
most related to the masterpiece
Menger. It is all the more surprising that this
books had a very difficult fate. First
publication went virtually unnoticed [if,
of course, not to consider such attentive
readers like Böhm-Bawerk, Wieser and Marshall!].
The second edition of "Foundations ..." is out
only in 1923, after the death of the author, when
the main ideas of the Austrian school have already become
widely known in a more accessible
interpretations of Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser. On
the international language of economists is English
- the book has been translated
80 years after it was written.

IN
result for almost a century after
publication of "Foundations ..." Menger
remained more revered than read
author. Resurgence of widespread interest
economists since the 1970s. to ideas
Menger we owe to F. Hayek, who did not
only gave many of them further
development, but also did extremely much for
their propaganda and memorialization
founder of the Austrian school.

Eugene
(correct Eugen) von Böhm-Bawerk (1851--1914)
played a different role in the history of the Austrian school
role. Unlike Menger, he was at first
the turn of a statesman of the highest
rank (a list of his positions is given above),
giving away the remaining free time
teaching. As for deep and
leisurely research work, then on
She had almost no time left. Not
by chance all significant works of Böhm-Bawerk
were written by him for the first, relatively
quiet ten years of his career (1880--1889),
when he taught at Innsbruck
university: in 1881 his dissertation was published
"Rights and relations from the point of view of the doctrine
about national economic benefits"; in 1884 - the first part of the main work "Capital and
profit", which criticized
previous theories of capital and
percent; in 1886 -- published in our
collection of work "Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic benefits "; in 1889 - the second part
"Capital and profits" -- "Positive
theory of capital"; in 1890 - the book "K
completion of the Marxist system,
to which Böhm-Bawerk was one of the first to subject
criticism of Marx's theory of value, citing
on the contradiction between the I and III volumes of "Capital".
The pace taken by Böhm-Bawerk during these years,
impressive, but he certainly should have
badly affect the depth, thoughtfulness and
completion of his work. Not
by chance it was Böhm-Bawerk, and not Menger
was (and still is) the main
the target of criticism of the Austrian school in general.
But insufficient finishing of their own
theoretical research (especially tangible
in "Capital and profit") did not prevent Böhm-Bawerk
perform another important function:
eloquent promoter of ideas
Austrian school (primarily Menger),
as well as skillful and temperamental
polemicist who defends them in the fight against
competing theories. It is in this
as Böhm-Bawerk acquired a wide
fame in the scientific world (it is no coincidence that
in our literature, beginning with the "Political
economy of rentier" by N. I. Bukharin, it was he who
was proclaimed the head of the Austrian school [see.
See also: Economic Encyclopedia.
Political Economy. T. 1. M.: Soviet
encyclopedia, 1972, p. 152]). Selected for
publications in our collection of work
allows the reader to compose the most
a complete picture of Böhm-Bawerk as
popularizer and polemicist [most
Böhm-Bawerk's significant research in
areas of theory ("Capital and Profit")
currently being prepared for release in
one of the publishers]. Böhm-Bawerk was
a lawyer not only by education, but also by
way of thinking and style of presentation. He
striving for clarity, persuasiveness and
intelligibility of the argument and was not inclined
to careful and comprehensive consideration
each definition in the spirit of Menger, who
brought laconicism and elegance of style to
sacrifice of meaning. This distinction is good
transmitted in Russian translation. Reader,
who wants to make an initial
introduction to the main ideas
Austrian school, can in principle start
precisely from the work of Böhm-Bawerk.

Third
from the authors presented in our collection
is Baron Friedrich von Wieser (1851--1926). He
more than two of his colleagues contributed
the design of the Austrian school in
school - being the most capable of them
teacher, he devoted 42 years of his life
exposition of the Austrian theory with
professorship (first in Prague in 1884-1902, and then in Vienna, where he inherited
Menger's pulpit), and also wrote the first
systematized treatise-textbook
Austrian school - "Theory
public economy" (1914). Contribution
Wieser into the Austrian theory is very
peculiar. First, he became famous for
that gave bright names and memorable
formulations of many of the ideas of marginalism.
It was he who first used the terms "limiting
utility" (Grenznutzen), "imputation"
(Zurechnung), "Gossen's laws".

Secondly,
it was Wieser who was the first to succeed [in the works
"On the origin and fundamental laws
economic value" (1884) and "Natural
value" (1889)] to formulate the principle
lost profits, giving purely
subjective explanation of costs, and
elaborate the theory
imputation inferring value
productive goods from their value
consumable product, and for the first time
state the central principle
equality of marginal products,
produced by this productive
good in all its applications [as B.
Seligman, Wieser's task was
extending Menger's ideas to spheres
production and distribution. (Seligman B.
The main currents of modern
economic thought. M.: Progress, 1968. S. 168)].

Third,
from the early representatives of the Austrian school
only Wieser tried to connect ideas
marginal utility with capabilities
the most appropriate organization
society as a whole. Wieser can be called
least "analytical" and most
prone to synthesis, descriptive and
sociological approach
Austrian school. In this sense, he
closest to the German historical
school. Unlike Menger and Böhm-Bawerk,
former staunch liberals, Wieser
tried to justify the need
government intervention and
central planning (the term "planning"
he again used for the first time in Western
economic theory) in order to
implement the principles of marginal utility in
life and ensure optimal
the functioning of the economy (his youthful
adherence to the ideas of socialism, as well as
passion for fascism in old age,
obviously not a coincidence).

let's move on
to a more detailed description
published in the collection of works.

TO.
Menger. Foundations of Political Economy
(Grundsatze der Volkswirtschaftslehre) [this title, as we
seems to be more accurate
conveys the content of the book than literal
translation: "Fundamentals of the doctrine of folk
economy"].

Mentioned
above the "revered-unreadable" paradox
this book, in our opinion, is not accidental, its
reasons are rooted in some features
Menger's work for which you want
draw the attention of the reader.

Before
In general, it should be noted that the book has
subtitle: "General part". This
means that we are dealing with an introductory part
to a much larger work, Menger, so
just like Marx, was essentially a man
one book, which was supposed to contain
a coherent and comprehensive system of categories
economy. Working on it (and not
written) treatise, he devoted a large
part of his life (since 1903 he even left for
this his professorial chair in
university). Menger did not agree to
reprint and translation of "Foundations ..." to
as long as they are carefully recycled
and supplemented, will not take their place in his
general theoretical system.

Except
in addition, faced with misunderstanding and
by the hostile reaction of German economists,
which at that time were under strong
influence of anti-theoretical
neohistorical school and its head Schmoller,
Menger was forced to join him in
martial arts on the methodological front.
His second major work "Research
on the method of the social sciences and political
economy in particular" (1833) not only
contained a polemic with the inductive
methodology of the historical school, but also
disclosed the main methodological
principles of Menger himself [chief among them
is that economics
should identify the simplest, typical
elements of reality and ascend from them to
more complex phenomena, where the action of precise
the laws of the theory are difficult to recognize due to
influence of non-economic motives]. unfolded after that
fierce polemic with Schmoller,
entered the history of economics as
"method dispute" [cf. about this controversy and
various assessments: Bostaph S. The Methodological Debate
Between Carl Menger and the German Historicists (Atlantic Economic Journal.
1978.V.VI. N 3. P. 3--16)], Menger gave enough
a lot of strength meant to write
proposed treatise.

All
the foregoing does not allow for
"Grounds..." Menger's requirements,
which the completed
theoretical system, for example
criticize them for a very narrow circle
issues raised: values, prices,
origin and essence of money. Besides,
the style itself is important, in which
written "Foundations ...". Trying
state the most general principles of
theory, Menger studiously avoids
excessive detail and categorization,
leaving an explanation of many specific
questions for later [judging by the preparatory
materials, Menger was going to dedicate
the second part of his treatise on research
interest, wages, rent, credit and
paper money; the third part is "applied"
theories industrial production And
trade; fourth - criticism of modern
him an economic system and proposals
for her reform. (Hayek F. von Carl Menger. In: Menger C. Principles of
economics. N. Y.-L., 1981. P. 16)]. This creates
the impression that he foresaw those
contradictions that can confuse
his theory in a more crude, popular
interpretation. It's somewhere deep
thoughtful, and somewhere, maybe
intuitive foresight combined with
impressive internal logic and
sequence of presentation led to
to what is against the "Foundations ..." Menger
it is impossible to put forward a majority
critical arguments that are usually
speak out against his "inconsistent
followers "- Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser. Not
accidentally building a new austrian theory
Mises, Hayek and others built the main
way on Menger's foundation,
abandoning many concepts of his
students. We will now make a short
journey through the Foundations of Political
savings", focusing only on those
moments that distinguish Menger from his
predecessors or contemporaries or
had a significant impact on his
followers. As for the
logical connection of arguments, then it
stated by the author so clearly and clearly,
which does not need, in our opinion, special
comments.

"Foundations..."
consist of three major sections. First of
them (chapters one - three) is devoted
cornerstone of Austrian theory - the doctrine of subjective value. But
I wonder what the third chapter is where,
in fact, it contains the theory of value,
the author prefaces two preparatory
chapters (about 1/4 of the entire book!), devoted to
the doctrine of goods in general, and economic
blessings in particular. In defining the first
Menger stresses the importance of cognition
man of their useful properties.
The characteristic of the latter is their
rare but curious what Menger avoids
pronounce this term because
economic good does not absolute
rare, and exceeding the planned
need for a good or "necessary
quantities" (specifically Menger's
category denoting quantitatively
specific need of the individual
some foreseeable period) over
the amount of this good, which, as
the individual expects will be available to him. So,
already in the first definitions one can see
Menger's general style of research: rejection
use of short but meaningful
terms, the desire to give as much as possible
adequate, albeit wordy, presentation
thoughts. Some of the most famous ideas
the first section concern the division of all goods
for the benefits of higher and lower orders, as well as
the principle of complementarity (additionality)
productive goods. Consistently
climbing up the river of time from my own
starting point -- satisfaction
needs, Menger first explained
value of productive goods
produced with their help consumer
good, and not vice versa, as it was with the authors,
explaining value in terms of cost
production. For Menger, costs are valuable only
in the event that with their help
produced a product of value.
Recall, by the way, that the same problem
consumer evaluation of produced
costs through the cost of the product - socially necessary costs
- saw and
tried to solve K. Marx in the third volume of "Capital",
in the chapter on market price and market
cost. (An interesting example of how
authors coming from completely different
prerequisites often come to very
similar conclusions!) Principle
complementarity enriches the picture
with new colors: it turns out that
productive goods may depreciate
and even cease to be good if
missing at least one required "accessory"
element from that set of performance
goods that are necessary for a certain
production process (output,
unthinkable for cost theory). Development
Menger problems of complementarity, and
also (later) changing proportions, in
which can be connected
productive goods, testifies to
that the founder of the Austrian school
much deeper than Jevons and Walras reflected
in his theory, the sphere of production and,
therefore, his theory does not
deserved the title of "political economy
rentier", for which "production,
labor involved in obtaining
material wealth lies out of sight"
[Bukharin N.I. Political economy of rentier.
M.: Orbita, 1988. S. 19--20].

Draws
attention to yourself" 4 of the first chapter, in its entirety
dedicated to the importance of the time factor and
the uncertainty it causes for
economic activity of people.
Focused in this paragraph, as well as
statements scattered throughout the book
leaves no doubt that the approach
Menger to the economy can not be called
static and timeless (as opposed to
approach of Jevons or Walras). If
conceived Menger's treatise was written, we
most likely would have received a non-static
equilibrium model, and the theory of economic
activity as a process taking place in
time and space.

In
the second chapter we want to pay attention
reader to a vivid example of Menger's
methodological monism: from
relative rarity of goods (see explanation
above) Menger deduced human egoism, and
also a property phenomenon! (See pp. 78, 82).
The analysis of the transfer of goods from
economic to non-economic, and
vice versa (pp. 82--87). Here, as in some
subsequent places, there is a noticeable tendency
Menger to historical research
economic institutions. Really,
uncompromising struggle against "vices"
historicism", absolutization of descriptive
and inductive methods did not exclude either
Menger, nor his followers
respect for economic
history (about this, in particular,
bear witness to the dedication of the "Foundations..."
V. Roscher - the head of the German historical
schools). This also distinguishes the Austrian
school from other areas of marginalism (for
except for Marshall).

Chapter
the third is central in the whole book, it
contains the theory of subjective value. IN
difference from other marginalists Menger
determined the value of goods not by quantity
the benefits they bring, and in importance
the needs they satisfy. This,
seemingly insignificant difference in
actually plays an important role. It
indicates that Menger: 1)
develops a theory that later
called the ordinal version
marginalism: the need for each good is not
has an absolute value, and is expressed
only in comparison with the usefulness of another
goods (the figures in his tables are conditional
character and express not magnitude, but hierarchy
needs -- see note. us. 156); 2) not
connects, unlike Jevons, his theory
values ​​with a hedonistic interpretation
human nature, going back to Bentham (for
this to the marginalists who claimed to
explanation of "psychology"
business entity, got a lot
from contemporaries-psychologists [See. details:
Avtonomov V. S. Search for new ways//Origins.
1990. "2. S. 187--188]). It must be said that Menger
did not use at all when building my own
theory of the term "utility".

Along the way
Menger decides for a long time existed in
economic theory paradox: the most
beneficial to human life
are not always the most
valuable. He does this by pointing out that
value is given by people only
economic, i.e. relatively rare,
blessings.

Draws
attention to the categoricalness with which
Menger advocates a purely subjective
the nature of value (p. 101) that does not exist outside
people (recall that for supporters
objective theories, including those of Marx,
"values" or "values" are often
used as a synonym for goods
regardless of the presence of the needy
subject).

Outlining
his formulation of the principles of diminishing
the importance of gratified utilities and
equal importance of all satisfied
needs (corresponding to I and II laws
Gossen), Menger places the second of them in
footnote as a special case of the first (p. 109). For
of all general equilibrium theorists this
principle, on the contrary, is decisive.

Most
Menger's argument looks strained,
consistently coming from satisfaction
needs, where this motive is obviously
does not play a dominant role. Indicative in
In this sense, the paragraph "On Productivity
capital", where Menger passes
abstract as from the motive of accumulation
capital, and from specifically
entrepreneurial motives,
later investigated by I. Schumpeter in "Theory
economic development"[Schumpeter J.
Theory of economic development. M.:
Progress, 1982. S. 193].

IN
this chapter Menger for the first time in the economic
literature assumes that
that a certain amount of product can
be produced using various
combinations of productive goods (pp. 139--140).
This idea of ​​substitution of productive goods
(which was abandoned by Menger's successors
Böhm-Bawerk and Wieser) later received in
Western economic thought significant
development, and in particular underlies the theory
production functions.

IN
his theory of the value of productive
blessings Menger takes another bold step - he refuses to distinguish between three
main factors of production: land,
labor and capital. This long tradition
violates on the grounds that the value
all kinds of goods, including land and labor,
determined on the basis of the same
the principle he formulated - the value of their
products. At the same time, Menger again shows
its anti-hedonistic orientation and
criticizes a common theory (for example,
Jevons), according to which a person,
laborer is compensated for
discomfort associated with it (p. 146).

But,
perhaps the most important in terms of
further development of Western
economic theory was the following contribution
Menger. Talking about the factors that determine
the value of goods of higher orders, Menger (on. p.
140--141) sets out an idea that later
most thoroughly developed Wieser. This
principle of "lost profits" ("opportunity
cost"), which entered the arsenal of the most
important tools of modern
microeconomic theory. According to
Menger the value of a productive good
determined by the difference between the value
product, which is planned with its help
produce, and the value of others,
satisfying less important needs
goods that could be produced
alternative use of this
productive good.

Second
section "Foundations ..." includes chapters
fourth and fifth. Its content is a transition
from subjective value to price, i.e. to
exchange proportion of goods. Relationship between
the second and first sections are the relation
phenomena to essence ["Prices are the only
sensible elements of everything
process..." (p. 163)]. Menger
consistently displays prices from
individual, subjective values, but
takes into account the objective influence
environment -- various types of exchange. First step,
which he demands from Menger
subjectivist approach,
preconditions for an equivalent exchange. After all
this premise implies equality
good for some objectively inherent in them
the indicator itself. Menger takes this step
stating that the exchange cannot be
equivalent because it is always beneficial
to both of its participants: after him their
needs are better met
than before him (pp. 150-151). Note that this conclusion
absolutely inevitably follows from the chosen
the author of the prerequisites:
meet the needs of both
sole motive of any economic
activities. (In Marx's "Capital" in
exchange analysis is implicitly laid down
prerequisite for the existence of capital and
the dominant role of the accumulation motive
capital, which breaks out into
chapter 4 of the first volume. One for all capitalists
hoarding motive by its very nature
presupposes the commensurability of goods. At
Menger, the benefits are objectively incommensurable:
how many people, so many values
given quantity of goods.)

Action
This prerequisite is also manifested in
determining the boundaries of the exchange: if further
exchange will no longer improve satisfaction
the needs of its members,
will cease (see pp. 155-156). (For comparison:
Marx, the boundaries of exchange are the boundaries
production, and not vice versa, but the latter in
in turn are established only by the possibility
continuation and acceleration of the process
accumulation, the very same motive for accumulation
nature is limitless. As for
accumulation possibilities, they are given
solvent demand, and
the only factor affecting
the last one is income.) It's easy
note that the "needs-based" approach
fully rehabilitates such an important area
economic activities such as trade.
Classics and Marxists, as you know,
denied the productive nature of labor in
this industry, leaving behind only
redistribution of what is produced.
Some provisions read today as
a hot-button argument in defense of trade
intermediaries appropriate in our current
parliamentary debates.

I want to
also note two modest in scope, but not
by value, fragment. The first is about "economic
sacrifices required by barter transactions"
(p. 161). Here, if you wish, you can see
the beginnings of the concept of "transactional
costs "playing in modern
Western neo-institutionalist
literature an outstanding role [Kapelyushnikov R.
I. Economic theory of property rights.
M.: IMEMO, 1990. S. 28--37]. The other is the first
theoretical economic literature
distinction between demand prices and prices
proposal (20 years before Marshall) which,
no doubt was prompted to Menger by his
the practice of a stock observer.

Main
part of chapter five is devoted to education
prices in various conditions - at
isolated exchange, monopoly of the seller and
buyer competition and, finally, with
bilateral competition. Draws on itself
attention to the order of analysis in which
logical transition does not come from free
competition to monopoly (as in all
modern Western textbooks), but vice versa.
This, of course, did not mean that Menger
proceeded from the existence of real
giant capitalist monopolies
late XIX - early XX century. This
the sequence is dictated to the author: 1)
the methodology of research chosen by him - from
simplest cases to more and more complex ones; 2)
penchant for historical parallels (and
historically relatively free
competition is definitely
late stage product
commodity exchange) (see pp. 183-184) and 3) the same
pervasive subjectivism: the simplest
for Menger is the case when we have
dealing with value judgments of one
buyer and one seller; harder if
several buyers participate in the exchange;
even harder if sellers too
several, because the theorist needs
"get into the soul" of each of the participants
exchange and ferret out its subjective
preferences. Interestingly, the price
are determined according to Menger in both monopoly and
competitive situation, the same laws
subjective value, but these laws
appear under monopoly and under
competition in completely different
the seller's policy: in case of competition, he
it is unprofitable to keep the goods and resort to
price discrimination of buyers.
Menger's theory of price from all others
options for marginalism distinguishes
the absence of a clear concept
determined equilibrium price: market
Menger's price can fluctuate between
estimates of the unit of the good the least strong of
competitors who have entered into an exchange and the most
strong of those who could not do it
do (pp. 175--176). The more competitors, the
already room for price fluctuations, but all
equals some part of the price in each case
explained not by the factor of subjective
values, but the ability to bargain.

Important
mediating link in the transition from
original abstraction of the individual
economy, aimed at direct
consumption, to a developed exchange
economy, typical of
capitalist economy, is
Menger's doctrine of consumer and exchange
the value of the good. Both the one and the other are pure for him
subjective quantities (exchange value
good is the value of other goods that
can be obtained in return). If exchange
the value of a person's wealth
more consumer, exchange can
happen if the opposite is not the case. Ratio
same use and exchange value
determined by the quantity of the good,
at the disposal of that person.
Thus, for large owners,
such as manufacturers, prevailing, or
"economic", in the words of Menger,
should invariably be exchangeable, and not
the use value of their
goods. So, Menger corrects the accepted
them for the predominant consumer motive
economic activity without violating
same time of their original premises.

Finally,
the last section of the book (chapters seven and
eighth) is devoted to the essence of money and their
origin. These questions are always
worried Menger both in theory (among his
few works included two
articles (1892 and 1900) on money for the Handbook
in state sciences", and for
second edition of the handbook article was
completely revised), and in practice
(in the same 1892, Menger was a member of the Imperial
commission on monetary reform and played in it
main role). Menger's approach to essence
money is also peculiar - it takes her out of
various "ability of goods to be sold"
(Absatzfahigkeit). Here we are dealing with purely
Menger category, which can be
it would be most accurate to translate into
modern language as "liquidity".
Menger means the ability of a product
always find a sale in any quantity, in
extreme case with a slight loss in value (p.
213). The most liquid commodity becomes
money.

Factor
sales ability has such a large
meaning that the exchange can not be started
in order to better meet the needs,
but for the sake of obtaining a more exchangeable good.
It is easy to see that Menger is here
rises to the next level
specifying the motives of economic
activities, taking into account the realities of monetary
economy.

Job
E. Böhm-Bawerka "Fundamentals of the Theory of Value
economic benefits" for the first time was
published in 1886 in a German magazine
"Conrads Jahrbucher für Nationalokonomie und Statistik". This
first contact of the representative
Austrian school directly to
German readers (recall that it is in
this time the "dispute about the method" raged,
which ended with "organizational conclusions" - the supporters of the Austrian school had
prohibited from holding professorships in
Germany). In this work, as noted
Soviet researcher I. G. Blyumin, "Bohm-Bawerk
made it very clear
an exposition of the theory of value of the Austrians ... C
with good reason, the "Austrians" could
say: "Die, but it is better not to Böhm-Bawerk
about the theory of marginal utility
[Bohm-Bawerk E. Fundamentals of the theory of value
economic benefits. M.-L. 1929. S. IV].

To
avoid repeats, we'll stop here
only at those moments where Böhm-Bawerk contributes
something new compared to Menger's theory.

WITH
the first pages are clearly visible
Böhm-Bawerk's desire to bring more
strong bridges between the theory of subjective
Menger-Wiser values ​​and objective
price proportions, developing on
market. For this, Böhm-Bawerk calls
exchange value objective value,
inherent in material goods themselves (p. 249).
Recall that Menger did not consider the exchange
value is an objective property of goods themselves:
in his interpretation, exchange value is
subjective value of goods that can be
get in exchange for what you already have. Rigid
separation of subjective and objective
values ​​will affect Böhm-Bawerk and
later. It suffices to point to the structure
book in which the author distinguishes two parts:
the theory of subjective value and the theory
objective exchange value.

IN
the first part of the innovations introduced by Böhm-Bawerk,
are. Thinking about a hierarchical scale
needs (p. 274), he strengthens her
realism in what makes the table
omissions as some needs
can only be fully satisfied, not
parts (this is the next step after Menger,
removing the Austrian theory of value from
mathematical version of marginalism). Böhm-Bawerk
gives a clear definition of subjective
the value of goods through its marginal utility (p.
285). It should be noted that this translation
conveys the meaning more precisely than the conventional
teachings of the Austrian school. usefulness
(Nutzlichkeit) the Austrians call the characteristic
of this kind of goods in general, benefit (Nutzen)
- a characteristic of a certain amount

this good.

own
Böhm-Bawerk's contribution is also his attempt
find the proportion between
the total value of these goods and the marginal
usefulness (pp. 286--287). Böhm-Bawerk believes that
marginal utilities of individual units
of this good have the property
additivity, but not multiplicativity.
The marginal utility of units of a given
stock (of the same quality) in case
summation will not be the same, since
they are designed to satisfy
needs of varying importance. (Happening,
when goods are originally intended for
sales, Böhm-Bawerk considers separately
and multiplicativity is allowed there.)
It should be noted that the provisional
Menger avoided this problem altogether.
He understands the concepts of wealth and property
before determining the value of goods and not
returns to them later. Wherein
Menger insisted on relative, not on
the absolute nature of value and not
assumed the possibility of its measurement in
any units. Böhm-Bawerk, trying
quantify the overall value,
compelled, without proper reason, to proceed from
measurability of value, i.e. move to
more vulnerable to criticism of the cardinal
versions of marginalism [deep criticism
Böhm-Bawerk's teachings on measurability
value was given by an outstanding Russian economist
Slutsky E. Zur Kritik des Bohm-Baverkschen Wertbegriffs
und seiner Lehre von der Messbarkeit des Wertes//Schmollers Jahrbuch. V.LI. N
4. S. 37--52)].

Most
this is clearly stated in chapter three,
where Böhm-Bawerk asks himself the question: "We can
whether we determine the magnitude of this difference (between
sensations) more precisely, can we express it in
numbers?" (p. 303) and gives him
affirmative answer.

At
he refers to the fact that we have to
countless times to choose between
one large and many small
pleasures, although this is obviously not at all
proves the measurability of value in
absolute values. Postulating such
way "digital determination of the value
pleasures and hardships" (p. 304), Böhm-Bawerk
turns out to be much closer to Jevons and even
Bentham with his "arithmetic of happiness",
than to Menger [Avtonomov V. S. Model
man in the bourgeois political
savings from Smith to Marshall // Origins. 1989."
1. S. 204--219. This is also evidenced by
Böhm-Bawerk's use of the hedonistic
terminology that Menger avoided].

Trying
bring the theory of subjective value closer to
conditions of "developed exchange relations",
Böhm-Bawerk draws to explain
individual difficult cases concept
substitutional marginal utility. Author
concludes that the value
man's lost winter coat
in most cases, it is not measured
marginal utility, and marginal
the usefulness of other goods that will have to
do not buy or sell to buy
coat to replace the lost one. She is in her
turn depends on the price of the coat on the market (than
it is more expensive, the greater the loss of other benefits).
So ultimately
the subjective value of the product
determined by its price. This logical
the circle has long been
main target for Marxist critics
Austrian theory (starting with Hilferding
and Bukharin). To Menger, a similar criticism
inapplicable, since it has the value of goods
determined only by the intensity
need and the presence of the good, and in no way
depends on the price.

That
the same can be said about Böhm-Bawerk's addiction
values ​​from "the relationship between demand and
supply", wealth or poverty
human (pp. 294--295).

Main
Böhm-Bawerk's contribution to world science is the idea of
that the ever-existing difference
between the value of a product and its determinants
the total cost of production (ie.
e. profit) depends on the duration
production period (pp. 327--328). On this
thesis, Böhm-Bawerk built the theory
capital, profit and interest in his work
"Capital and profit" (part II).

Big
of interest is also the attempt by Böhm-Bawerk
combine the law of subjective value with
the law of production costs (p. 333). Author
recognizes the status of the law of costs
rules by which in private
case of unlimited possibilities
actual increase in production
it is possible to measure the value of "highly useful"
product, although the costs themselves are ultimately
account are determined by the value of the least
useful (marginal) product.

big
significance for substantiating not only the Böhm-Bawerk theory,
but of the whole marginalist theory of value
has a small seventh chapter. Here Böhm-Bawerk
responds to accusations of unrealism
marginalist model of man,
doing a huge amount
cumbersome calculations to
determine the value of goods (especially "remote
order"). The author's counterarguments (which
repeated with slight variations
supporters of the marginalist - neoclassical theory to this day)
are:

1. by habit and skill most
   calculations of this kind are done almost
   instantly, albeit approximately.
   Excessive prudence is even unprofitable
   - it takes too much time and effort
   [at this point it is clearly manifested
   superiority of the Austrian school, not
   requiring absolute rationality and
   optimal choice, over mathematical
   version of marginalism. Representatives
   the latter were able to build this conclusion into their
   theory only more than 70 years after
   this work of Böhm-Bawerk (Stigler G. The economics of
   information//Journal of Political Economy. 1961. V. 69. P. 213--245)];
2. in most cases, a new calculation at all
   do not have to do, because the information
   about the value of this thing is already laid
   in our memory [curiously, exactly like
   the same considerations Marx in the third volume of "Capital"
   explained the determination of prices by producers with
   taking into account compensation for the conditions of production,
   different from the average (Marx K., Engels F.
   Op. 2nd ed. T. 25. Part I. S. 221--236)];
3. finally, a developed system of division of labor
   allows the producer or owner of goods
   distant order, take into account only the exchange

the value of your good, leaving everything
other stages of production and evaluation on
share of the following entrepreneurs.

Second
part of the book -- "The Theory of Objective Exchange
cost" differs from the presentation of those
the same questions by Menger as follows.
Above all Böhm-Bawerk from the very beginning
brings theoretical analysis closer to
modern reality and expresses
subjective values ​​of goods in terms of money (he
has the right to do so because he previously declared
about the measurability of value). Problems
monopolies and imperfect competition at
teachers are much deeper than
student: buyers, according to Menger, can
buy yourself not one horse, but several:
examines the impact of change
proposals not only on price, but also on
the number of those who bought (from Böhm-Bawerk
the last one is fixed), etc.

IN
the same time the case is bilateral
competition at Böhm-Bawerk dismantled
much deeper (chapter four
second part).

Before
of all it should be noted that since Böhm-Bawerk
unlike Menger considers
a situation of developed commodity exchange,
mediated by money, it includes
considering the subjective value of money
for buyers of different levels
solvency (relative to the available
them needs). Interestingly, with
This argument he tries to refute (p.
388--391) optimality of the competitive
equilibrium from the point of view of the whole society (this
the idea is central to the theory
general equilibrium since Walras).
So we have every right
call Böhm-Bawerk a fighter against the "bourgeois
apologetics!

largest
theoretical interest, from our point of view,
represents a logical circle analysis,
arising from the explanation of the price
subjective value, while
the latter "if there is an open
market" is determined by the market price (pp. 394-400). Here we see that Böhm-Bawerk
aware of the existence of this
problems and tried to solve them. He thought,
that the market price is the price at which
the buyer only hopes to purchase the goods
in the future, but since it is the future
rather vaguely, the evaluation of the good is still
may be revised. At the same time, in all
cases, the boundary of its price will still be "immediate
the ultimate utility of a given thing" (p. 397).
It cannot be said that the Böhm-Bawerk solution
really unleashed this Gordian
node. After all, the market price turns into "hope"
only in very specific markets.
For example, on commodity or stock exchanges,
where there are constant price fluctuations,
or in the market for productive goods,
whose value really depends on
how much demand there will be
use produced with their help
product. (We argue here in terms of
the Austrian theory of value itself.) On those
same consumer "open" markets,
where the price at any given moment can be
quite a stable guideline for
consumer, marginal utility theory
really "slips", with this
it's nothing you can do.

Two
final chapters of Böhm-Bawerk's work
devoted to highly inventive attempts
built into the Austrian theory of the subjective
values ​​are different, alternative explanations
of the same phenomenon: "the law of supply and
demand" and "the law of production costs".
From our point of view, Böhm-Bawerk contributes
useful clarifications in the concepts of demand and
sentences: classical theory understood
them as simple quantities of commodities, he
considers it necessary to correct these
quantities, given the intensity of desire
buy a product even at a high price and desire

sell it even at a low price.

We advise
The reader should also note that
theory of subjective value as opposed to
"objective" theories explains such
phenomena like markdowns, cheap
sales, etc., in which the goods
are sold below production costs (p.
412--413).

"Theory
public economy" F. von Wieser
(1914) ranks in the history of the Austrian school
about the same place as "The Basics
political economy" by J. S. Mill in
history of the English classical
political economy. This is the "end of the system",
ordering different ideas of different
authors, an eclectic desire for
compromises, maximum expansion
object of study, sometimes at the expense of
less depth of research (especially for
compared with Menger's Foundations).

For
of this collection, we have chosen two fragments
from Wieser's voluminous treatise. First of
them continues and develops the theory of value
Menger-Böhm-Bawerk and allows the reader
get a complete picture of
Austrian theory of value in general. Second
the fragment, on the other hand, does not find any
parallels in Menger and Böhm-Bawerk and
introduces Wieser to us as a thinker,
the most intense
institutional and sociological
questions.

IN
the first fragment we published (" 16--25)
contains all the main
improvements that Wieser made to
Austrian theory of value. Wherein
draws attention to the fact that all
Wieser's achievements are on the line
approximations of the abstract Mengerian
analysis to economic practice. So,
It is for these reasons that Wieser
strongly rejects the additive method
determining the total utility of a given
stock of goods when each unit has it
different marginal utility, and
advocates a multiplicative way when
marginal utility is simply multiplied by
number of similar goods. Next, draws
attention to detail
ratio between own limit
the usefulness of the product and the cost of
production (understood as the largest
utility of other goods that could be
made with these tools.
production). Wieser proves that
in most cases these values
quite close and interchangeable,
however, there are times when
change in the stock of goods or
need for them can lead to their
sharp divergence. In these cases
value is determined not by cost, but by
own marginal utility of the good. .

next,
and perhaps the most important contribution
Wieser in Austrian economic theory
school is his solution to the problem
income distribution. In order to
solve this problem, Vizer creates
theory of imputation set forth in "20-23. Menger
trying to determine the contribution of each of
means of production into final income
through a thought experiment:
estimated how income would decrease due to
loss of this productive good,
when other complementary goods will
other uses have been found. Vizer believes
this technique is artificial and ns
relevant economic practice (to
In addition, in this case, the total income,
pertaining to all factors of production,
will be less than the value of the product). His
the solution is perhaps closer to Walrasian: we
must find a few relatives
products (i.e. produced with
the same productive goods)
valued on the market at marginal
utility, and construct a system of equations
values ​​in which the number of equations (products)
will equal the number of unknowns
production factors. Solving this system
the observer theoretically (and the producer --
practically) will be able to determine
comparative marginal
productivity of production factors.

big
Wieser also pays attention to the division
productive goods for common and
specific and different rules
imputation in each of these cases:
a specific productive good
income is imputed on a residual basis.

This
Wieser's idea was further developed in
modern theories of property rights, in
which the concept of ownership of
enterprise and, accordingly, the rights to
residual income is associated with
the right to dispose of specific
means of production.

Not
only in the section devoted to Wieser, but also
stands apart in our entire collection
the last fragment ("75, 76). We have entered
habit of blaming marginalists for being too
abstractness of analysis, its abstractness
from such important public institutions,
as property, power, etc. Meanwhile
representatives of the Austrian school
certainly showed great interest in
historical and sociological issues.
The tradition goes back to Menger and his
analysis of the history of money, but also here
It was Wieser who contributed the most. His
ideas about the origin, evolution and
contradictions between private economic and
economic order, perhaps especially
interesting at the present stage of development
our society.

Vizer
far from the optimism of the English
classics, and above all Smith,
suggesting harmonic
harmonization of private and public
interests through the "invisible hand"
free competition and
unconditional condemnation
private property egoism
socialist and communist
literature. He emphasizes that private
property is inextricably linked to
economic activity. But private
property is unthinkable without the powerful
relationships, dominance and submission.
Ownership and power are concentrated in
the hands of economic leaders, in which
you can easily recognize the prototype of the "entrepreneur" figure
- the main character of the famous theory
economic development of I. Schumpeter,
Wieser's student [see Schumpeter J. A. Theory
economic development. Moscow: Progress, 1982].

But
expansion of private capital, of course,
pushes capitalist domination beyond
the limits of economic feasibility and
entails undesirable public
contradictions.

Even
from such a short passage, the reader can
get an idea of ​​balance and
depth of Wieser's analysis not only
economic, but also social phenomena.

relevance

Is there any inconsistency in Menger's reasoning about the order of goods? Perhaps the point is not that goods of different orders satisfy some finite need (for example, the need to eat), but that different goods satisfy fundamentally different, albeit interconnected, needs? The presence of flour, water, fire, etc. satisfies the need to bake bread, which arose as a result of the realization that it is possible to satisfy hunger with bread. The arguments about sowing wheat, for growing crops and obtaining flour are similar. Then the final conclusion should consist in recognizing the object (phenomenon) as a blessing, only if it is directly connected with the satisfaction of needs.

Characteristic features of the Austrian school of economics

Definition 1

The Austrian school is a direction of economic theory in which the concept of "marginal utility" is considered the basis of pricing, but the theory of labor costs is ignored. The emergence of this trend occurred in the 80s of the 19th century in Austria. At the beginning of the 20th century, the most famous representatives of the Austrian school included: G. Gossen, F. Wieser, K. Menger and others. In the 20th century, the direction under consideration was developed by L. Mises, F. Hayek, G. Haberlen.

The goal of the Austrian school of economics was to establish the general types of phenomena of economic activity and to discover the exact laws of economics that ideally characterize economic processes.

Adherents of the Austrian school denied socially necessary expenditures, i.e. the objective basis of pricing, and considered as such a basis the subjective utility of the “limiting copy”, which satisfies the marginal need for a certain product. The valuation of goods depends on the ratio of the stocks of these goods and the needs for them, with an increase in stocks at a certain level of needs, the marginal utility and cost of goods decrease, and with an increase in stocks they increase. Consequently, the value of goods depends on the intensity of needs.

For a long time, the Austrian direction of economic theory was considered in Western economic literature as the driving force of the marginalist revolution, which achieved less success than the others, since it did not have a mathematical apparatus. This understanding of it took shape in the mid-1930s, during the formation of a new Keynesian revolution. However, with the weakening of Keynesianism in the early 1970s and the growing interest in macroeconomic analysis, it turned out that the Austrian school has some significant features that distinguish it from the neoclassical paradigm.

Thus, the Lausanne and Cambridge schools of marginalism proved to be less durable than the Austrian school, which has the most clearly defined appearance.

Methods and basic provisions

Remark 1

The methodological basis of the Austrian school is the abstract-deductive methods of research in political economy, which provide for abstraction from circumstances of a complicating nature.

In the works of K.Menger, the methodological principles of the Austrian direction of economic theory were formulated.

In the Austrian school, the main subject of political economy was considered not the study of the economic relations of people, but the phenomena of economic activity from the standpoint of the minds of economic entities. It was believed that the entire society of the capitalist type is a mechanical set of business entities that are connected only by market relations. The task of political economy, according to theorists of the Austrian trend, was to study the relations of sale and purchase and discover on their basis the eternal, natural laws of social economic development.

The main provisions of the Austrian current:

• Refusal to use mathematical methods in research;
• A characteristic feature of most representatives of the school was subjectivism;
• Focusing on the study of the psychological characteristics of consumer behavior;
• Emphasis on the structure of capital and variability over time in the study of problems of a macroeconomic nature.

The Austrian school developed the theory of marginal utility. The marginal utility in this case is the value of goods, which depends on the ratio of the stocks of these goods and the needs for it.

The "Menger scale" refers to the main model of marginal utility, which is expressed in an attempt to explain the place of each good on the utility scale and the degree of need for it.

The bourgeois apologetic theory of interest and profit put forward by the Austrian school was in opposition to the Marxist doctrine in the field of surplus value. In this situation, the source of interest was seen in the difference that arises between the highest subjective assessment of a good as a present good and a lower estimate of production means as future goods. According to this theory, labor activity is considered as a future good, which means that at every moment it must be paid below the value of the product produced. Capitalist exploitation is also categorically denied.

The conclusions and theories of the Austrian school served as the beginning of the application of the theory of marginal utility in the development of the bourgeois concept of the socialist type of economy.

Advantages and disadvantages of the Austrian school

Positive aspects of the Austrian School of Economics:

• Attempts to determine the value of goods and services by their degree of usefulness.
• Determination of the need to take into account the scarcity of goods when determining their value. This idea was borrowed by representatives of the Austrian school from D. Ricardo.
• Böhm-Bawerk singled out abstract utility, which is the possible general utility of some goods, independent of their stocks, and specific utility. Specific utility is understood as the real utility of these goods, which, when the need for them is saturated for other subsequent units, will be lower than the previous one.
• The influence on the cost of goods of fluctuations in supply and demand was determined in connection with the saturation of needs for these goods.
• Wieser and Jevons substantiated the term "marginal utility", its value.
• The influence of subjective assessments of individuals on the formation of prices was determined.

The disadvantage of the Austrian direction is the notion that the marginal utility equalization mechanism is carried out only at existing prices and consumer incomes. This indicates that the thesis about calculating prices using the marginal utility of goods, based on subjective estimates dependent on prices, is doubtful.