Both the neoclassical direction in economic theory and neoliberalism are rooted in the economic views of A. Smith. It was his principle of the “invisible hand”, the belief that the realization of a person’s self-interest in the field of economic activity will lead to public welfare and the requirement for non-interference of the state in the economy arising from this point of view that formed the basis of the concepts of representatives of neoliberalism. The essence of the theoretical provisions of economic liberalism can be reduced to the fact that liberals recognize and emphasize the existence of an obvious connection between individual freedom, private property and the level of economic efficiency of a given society. They insist that no one has the right to violate someone else's freedom, including economic freedom. These ideas are based on the political philosophy of liberalism, the credo of which is the famous principle of “laissez faire”, which can be interpreted as the right of people to do what they want, to give them the right to be themselves in economic activity and religion, culture, everyday life and thoughts. And individualism, which became the basis of European civilization, according to one of the prominent representatives of the neoliberal trend, F. Hayek, is not selfishness and narcissism, it is, first of all, respect for the personality of one’s neighbor, it is the absolute priority of the right of every person to realize himself in this world.

According to representatives of the liberal trend in political economy, it is freedom in the sphere of economic activity that is the main and necessary condition for rapid economic growth, where for the balanced development of society, in principle, the operation of the free market mechanism and free competition, which automatically establish equality between supply and demand, is sufficient. The role of the state in the economy should be reduced to a minimum; they see the main and essentially the only task of state structures in creating and maintaining the conditions necessary for the favorable development of free competition, which means the creation of equal opportunities for everyone. Government intervention directly in economic processes is unacceptable; and if it happens, then it is done, according to representatives of both liberal and neoliberal movements, exclusively in the interests of the state apparatus.

1. Economic ideas of the founder of neoliberalism - L. Mises

At the origins of the revival of classical liberalism in the twentieth century was the famous economist and philosopher L. Mises (1881–1973), an Austrian by birth, who, however, spent a significant part of his life in the USA, where he taught a course in economic theory at New York University. Initially, the subject of Mises's economic interests were the problems of money circulation, but later his interests shifted to the sphere of analyzing the logic of individual human labor activity and considering the motives that prompt a person to work, in particular psychology, morality, and instincts. The influence of institutionalism is clearly visible in these issues.

Mises pays considerable attention to the analysis of the functioning of various economic systems, consistently considering three options for the economic structure of the modern world: a purely market economy, a “spoiled market” and a non-market economy. When analyzing the functioning of the market system, he studies the problems of the evolution, place and role of such an important institution for a market economy as private property. In his opinion, it is private property that is “a necessary requisite for civilization and material well-being,” and its social function is that it promotes the optimal use of resources and ensures consumer sovereignty. From Mises's point of view, only private property can be the basis of rational economic activity, since the individualistic incentives generated by it ensure the maximum use of resources. Mises comprehensively examines the role and functions of money in a market economy, its historical evolution, the problems of inflation and the gold standard, the problem of savings and investment, interest, and explores the problem of the relationship between wages and taxes. However, in this topic we are interested in Mises primarily as a prominent representative of the neoliberal trend, a defender of the idea of ​​economic freedom.

Analyzing non-market economic systems, by which he primarily means the socialist system, Mises confirms his conclusion about the “logical and practical impossibility of socialism,” denying it a rational organization of the economy. In his opinion, the establishment of a socialist system means the elimination of a rational economy. He defends this point of view in one of his most famous works, which is called “Socialism” (1936). Mises was criticized first of all by the central link of the economic system of socialism - planning. As is known, from representatives of utopian socialism to Marx, one of the main accusations of the capitalist system was that the anarchy of production, in which the producer only learns about the need for his products in the market, leads to a senseless waste of society's resources. And planning, in their opinion, excluding the anarchy of production, will prevent the waste of the productive forces of society. Of course, the popularity of the “idea of ​​planning” is associated with an understandable desire to solve general problems as rationally as possible, so that the consequences of the actions taken can be foreseen. However, Mises categorically opposed this thesis, since, in his opinion, it is under socialism, where there is no mechanism for competitive bidding for resources and where the buyer does not have to pay the cost of the best alternative to use them, that resources will be used inefficiently and thoughtlessly. Planned regulation of the economy excludes the possibility of market pricing principles, without which it is impossible to measure the contribution of various factors of production to the value of consumer goods. In turn, this makes it impossible to use resources efficiently. Under socialism, a system of arbitrary assessments dominates, which gave Mises grounds to call socialism “a system of planned chaos.”

Mises also drew attention to the fact that strengthening the role of the state will inevitably lead to strengthening the role of the bureaucracy. In addition to the traditional negative consequences of bureaucratization (corruption, decreased efficiency of social production), Mises identifies the phenomenon as the emergence of a certain type of person for whom “following the familiar and outdated is the main of all virtues,” and the “suffocation” of innovators, who are the only carriers of economic progress. On this issue, his views are close to those of J. Schumpeter.

Mises repeatedly emphasized in his works that it is the free market that corresponds to democratic principles. He writes that only in a free market the consumer is the center of the economic system, “voting” with his monetary income for this or that product, thereby determining the structure of social production, and only in a free market do economic entities maximize their well-being having the freedom to choose alternative opportunities. Freedom of choice means respect for a person's taste preferences and, in a broader sense, demonstrates respect for the human person. On the other hand, the market system also presupposes high rates of economic growth, providing a level of well-being that could not have been dreamed of before. In this regard, Mises cannot help but be concerned about the reasons for the growing rejection of this socio-economic system among various segments of the population. Mises, like Schumpeter, sees the reason for this in unsatisfied ambition. He notes that in a society based on caste and class, it was common to attribute bad luck to circumstances beyond a person's control (God, fate). In a market economy, a person’s position is determined to a large extent not by his traditional status, but by his own efforts. And logically, a person should blame himself first of all for his failures. For most people this is unacceptable and therefore they look for the reason for their own unsatisfactory situation in the vices (true or imaginary) of a given economic system. And this seems, according to Mises, to be a breeding ground for various collectivist and socialist doctrines.

We can find the development of Mises's ideas in his student and follower F. Hayek.

2. Economic views of F. Hayek

F. Hayek (1899–1992), Austrian economist and sociologist, one of the most original representatives of economic thought of the twentieth century, whose range of research interests is unusually wide - economic theory, political science, scientific methodology, psychology, history of ideas. The breadth of his views was manifested, not least, in the original argumentation of long-familiar provisions of economic theory. As a representative of the neoliberal movement, Hayek naturally acts as a consistent supporter of a market economy, remaining faithful to the idea of ​​the high value of the principles of economic liberalism until the end of his life. However, he views the market not as a human invention, and not as a mechanism for realizing justice and optimal distribution of resources (he is generally opposed to goal setting and has always been an irreconcilable opponent of the reorganization of society according to pre-constructed ideal models), but as a spontaneous economic order. At the same time, Hayek very clearly distinguishes between the concepts of “market” and “economy”. The latter, in his opinion, presupposes a social structure in which someone allocates resources in accordance with a single scale of goals. This involves carrying out all economic activity according to a single plan, which clearly outlines how public resources will be “consciously” used to achieve certain goals.

The market, according to Hayek, functions fundamentally differently. It does not guarantee the obligatory satisfaction of the needs that are generally considered more important first, and then the less important ones. No one individually knows the needs and capabilities of everyone, but everyone, entering into a voluntary exchange, communicates information to everyone about their goals and capabilities and at the same time receives information about the readiness of others to contribute to the realization of these goals. According to Hayek, the market simply connects competing goals, but does not guarantee which of these goals will be achieved first. By the way, this is one of the main reasons why people object to the market.

Indeed, the economic models of both utopian socialism and scientific communism assumed the existence of a common scale of priorities, which determined which needs were to be satisfied and which were not. But this scale of priorities, and this is its significant and fatal drawback, would reflect the ideas only of the organizer of the system.

According to Hayek, spontaneous economic order has significant advantages. First of all, it uses the knowledge of all members of society. And the dissemination of this knowledge, much of which is embodied in prices, is the most important function of the market. According to Hayek, the price mechanism is a unique way of communication, where prices act both as evidence of a certain value of a product from the point of view of other people, and as a reward for effort. Prices act as signals that motivate individuals to make efforts. Mutual adaptation of plans occurs through prices, and therefore the price mechanism is one of the most important aspects of the market order. By observing the movement of a relatively small number of prices, the entrepreneur is able to coordinate his actions with the actions of others. By the way, the equilibrium price of A. Marshall is also, to a certain extent, the result of a compromise, a compromise between buyers and sellers. And precisely because the price mechanism is a mechanism for communication between people in economic processes, administrative control over prices is categorically contraindicated. Hayek repeatedly emphasizes that this function of the price system is realized only in conditions of competition, that is, only if the individual entrepreneur must take into account the movement of prices, but cannot control it. And the more complex the economic organism turns out to be, the greater the role played by this division of knowledge between individuals, whose independent actions are coordinated thanks to an impersonal mechanism for transmitting information known as the price system. Hayek draws attention to the fact that people who have the opportunity to freely react to a situation can assess the local situation better than any centralized body, that is, use the so-called local knowledge and are thereby able to ensure the inclusion of this knowledge in the general flow of knowledge circulating in society.

But the mutual adaptation of plans is not the only achievement of the market. Although the market does not guarantee the production of goods in accordance with the scale of social priorities, it does guarantee that any product will be made by people who can do it at a lower cost than others.

Hayek pays great attention to the consideration of the mechanism of competition. As is known, within the framework of the Keynesian direction, competition is considered as an imperfect and extremely wasteful mechanism for achieving a balanced economic system, and within the framework of the neoclassical direction - as a fast and effective way of optimal allocation of resources. The originality of Hayek's position lies in the fact that he was the first to consider competition as a “discovery procedure”, as a way of discovering new products and technologies that would remain unknown without resorting to it. It is competition that forces an entrepreneur, in search of high profits, to look for new products, to use new markets for raw materials, to look for precisely those “Schumpeterian” new production combinations that ensure the dynamic development of the economic system. Having the opportunity to express themselves, people find fundamentally new ways to solve emerging problems, thereby a person is able to offer society something new.

Within the framework of the concept of “individualism of development”, Hayek is characterized by an emphasis on the creative aspiration of a person, the desire for something new, the desire to find or create needs that no one satisfies or does not fully satisfy. This is how Hayek makes the connection between freedom and progress. In this Hayekian belief lies another argument against central planning. Since the production of an unknown product cannot be included in the plan, the system of directive planning therefore involves the reproduction of the existing structure of social production. Thus, competition is valuable precisely because its results are unpredictable and generally different from those for which one consciously strives. But this is also the reason for the desire to destroy competition, since although in general the consequences of competition are beneficial (see the views of A. Smith - author's note), they inevitably imply disappointment or frustration of someone's expectations.

One of the issues that has been and is still the subject of debate is the question of whether the market ensures compliance with the principle of social justice. Economists with a socialist orientation argue in favor of planning that it allows production to be distributed more evenly and fairly. Hayek does not disagree with this, agreeing that if we really want to distribute goods in accordance with some predetermined standards of well-being, then there is no other choice but to plan the entire economic life. But the price for such achievements will be the destruction of freedom of choice - others will make the choice for us. And Hayek poses a very serious question: whether the price we pay for the implementation of someone’s ideals of justice will not be such oppression and humiliation that the “free play of economic forces” could never generate.

According to Hayek, it is wrong to associate the principles of social justice with the market order, which is ethically neutral. According to his views, justice should be assessed from the point of view of the process of behavior itself, and not from the point of view of the final result. It is not surprising that Hayek’s justice comes down to the universal equality of all before the law, which must be universal and specific. The demand for social justice, which Hayek views as equalizing justice, he explains by the ineradicable desire to “squeeze” the market mechanism into the schemes of the desired distribution of income. The program of distributive (equalizing) justice and state control over the economy, according to Hayek’s deep conviction, are incompatible with the “rule of law”, since they are inevitably selective, that is, discriminatory in nature.

According to both Mises and Hayek, the market performs an indispensable cognitive function in the process of social coordination, where it is a transmission device that allows the efficient use of information dispersed among countless economic actors. It is natural, therefore, that the market is not only necessary, but it must also be uncontrollable and cannot be an instrument of government manipulation to achieve certain results. But the market system, according to these representatives of the neoliberal trend, does not condemn the state to inaction and a wide field of activity opens up before it. First of all, this is the creation and improvement of legal norms - the “rules of the game” necessary for the effective functioning of the market system. In other words, creating conditions for the development of competition. But in addition to the conditions for the development of competition, in a number of cases the state is entrusted with the function of replacing it with other forms of regulation where necessary, in particular, in the provision of goods for collective use.

But Hayek was concerned not only with general questions of the philosophy of a market economy. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1974, among other things, for his work in the field of money, market fluctuations and analysis of the interdependence of economic and structural phenomena. On these issues, Hayek acts as an opponent of Keynes, believing that the policy of cheap money and creating jobs through the budget only aggravates economic problems. He writes quite sharply, referring to Keynes, that “... we again succumbed to the admonition of the golden-mouthed seducer and were captivated by another inflationary soap bubble.” Hayek acknowledges that Keynesian governments did succeed in maintaining full employment through credit expansion and stimulating aggregate demand based on the Keynesian formula in which unemployment is a direct function of aggregate demand. But the price of these achievements was open inflation. In addition to the generally accepted conclusions regarding the negative consequences of inflation, Hayek draws attention to the fact that inflation generates much greater unemployment than that which was originally intended to be prevented. And he expresses disagreement with the thesis according to which inflation entails a simple redistribution of the social product, while unemployment reduces the latter, thus representing the worst evil. According to Hayek, inflation itself becomes the cause of increasing unemployment, since it leads to disorientation of labor resources. There is nothing easier, he writes, than to temporarily provide additional jobs by occupying workers with activities that temporarily become attractive - attractive due to the additional expenses allocated for this. But the corresponding jobs will disappear as soon as inflation is stopped. As for artificially spurred economic growth, in many ways it means a waste of resources.

This topic examined the views of representatives of one of the directions of neoliberalism, continuers of the traditions of the Austrian economic school. However, the neoliberal direction was also developed in the works of economists in the USA, Great Britain and Germany. The most famous of them is W. Eucken (1891–1950), who played a significant role in the formation of the neoliberal direction in German economic thought. Eucken's economic ideal is a socially oriented free market economy, whose main principles are freedom of the individual, trade, entrepreneurship, free pricing, free competition. In other words, a developed commodity-money economy in the absence of monopolies. The role of the state comes down to monitoring compliance with ensuring that all members of society conduct their economic activities in accordance with existing rules and laws. The economic ideas of neoliberalism were recognized and further developed by representatives of monetarism and supporters of the theory of rational expectations.

Neoliberalism as an independent system of views on the problem of state regulation of the economy, alternative to Keynesianism, was formed in the 1930s. Both in theoretical developments and in practical application, the neoliberal concept is based on the idea of ​​​​the priority of conditions for unlimited free competition due to a certain intervention of the state in economic processes. However, unlike J. Keynes and the followers of his theory - supporters of active state intervention in the economy, neoliberals believed that state regulation should be limited, relatively passive and concern mainly the institutional structure influencing economic processes.

They advocate liberalization of the economy, the use of the principles of free pricing, the leading role in the economy of private property and non-state economic structures, and limiting government intervention in economic processes. Supporters of the neoliberal concept of state regulation of the economy, following L. Erhard, believe that competition should exist wherever possible, and regulation only where necessary.

Already in the 1930s. in some countries with a developed liberal tradition, and as a counterbalance to the dominant statist economic ideology - Keynesianism or fascism, centers began to be created to develop alternative measures of government intervention in the economy, which contributed to the revival and practical implementation of the ideas of economic liberalism. The largest and most famous centers of neoliberalism were formed in Great Britain: London school, whose representatives are F. Hayek and L. Robbins; Germany – Freiburg, or ordoliberal, school, whose leaders were W. Eucken and F. Böhm, and a group of supporters concept of social market economy – A. Müller-Armack, W. Röpke, A. Rüstow, L. Erhard; in USA - Chicago, or monetary, school, whose leaders were L. Mises, M. Friedman, A. Schwartz and others. In France, prominent adherents of neoliberal ideas included M. Allais, J. Rueff and others.

Since the early 1930s. supporters of the neoliberal direction made attempts to formulate a single platform. They succeeded in this in 1938 at an international conference held in Paris, which was called the “Lippmann colloquium” because of the consonance of the principles of neoliberalism approved at it with the provisions of the book “The Free City” published in the same year by the American economist W. Lippmann. The essence of the general principles of the neoliberal movement adopted in Paris boiled down to the declaration of the need for state assistance in returning the rules of free competition and ensuring their implementation by all economic entities. The condition of the priority of private property, freedom of transactions and free markets could be revised by the actions of the state only in extreme cases, such as war, catastrophe, natural disaster, etc.

12.2. Neo-Austrian school

The most prominent representative of the Austrian tradition, a thinker who opposed the intellectual current of his time, an ardent defender of liberal values ​​and a critic of the socialist worldview is Friedrich von Hayek (1899–1991).

Interest in his ideas and the Austrian school as a whole increased in the 1970s, which can be explained by a number of factors:

– disappointment in the ideas of social reformism in general and awareness of the importance of liberal values, especially individual freedom;

– destruction of the existing in the 1940-1960s. consensus on the problems of socio-economic policy, which is associated with increasing doubts about the state’s ability to implement policies that would not undermine the effectiveness of the market system, and the awareness of the contradictory goals of such policies and their conflict with the fundamental values ​​of a democratic society;

– changes in the reproduction process, which helped to realize the inevitability of the problem of limited and efficient use of resources, even in conditions of their underemployment, and to recognize the groundlessness of the macroeconomic approach’s claims to universality, even when solving practical policy issues.

The main premise of knowledge in the philosophical concept of F. Hayek is the position about the fundamental limitations of human knowledge, its dispersion among people, each of whom has a certain share of this knowledge. Much of this knowledge is intuitive and informal. This situation follows from real life.

The consequence of this is the recognition of the impossibility of developing an objective and complete picture of the world and the economy, since any specific information about the system, including the economic one, is always limited and reflects only part of it. The knowledge accumulated in society is embodied in habitual ways of thinking and acting, traditions and norms, which are transmitted in the process of education and are taken for granted. However, these established institutional forms play an important role in society, its functioning and development. They form a social order that is maintained and created through the purposeful actions of people, but is the result of spontaneous coordination. This order, which F. Hayek called “extended” or “spontaneous”, arises in the process of evolution, its existence is not subordinated to any goal, but it is important for achieving many individual goals that guide people and which are collectively unknown to anyone .

An important part of the organic social order is the market and the institutions on which it directly relies, in particular the institution of private property. The market, like any social order, is formed naturally without any guiding force, but the well-being of the entire society depends on its existence, including the guarantee of the most important social value - personal freedom. Therefore, F. Hayek declared the main goal of economic science to be the study of the market as a system of voluntary exchange.

F. Hayek, as a successor to the tradition of the Austrian school, builds his concept on the basis of the following principles: subjectivism (reliance on the assessments and ideas of an individual), apriorism (science is based on axioms that are obtained intuitively) and methodological individualism (any social phenomena are derived from individual actions ).

F. Hayek’s focus is on the idea of ​​the economy as a coordination system and the content of basic economic concepts, in particular such as “equilibrium”, “market”, “prices”, “competition”, “entrepreneur”.

12.3. German neoliberalism: ordoliberalism and the theory of social market economy

Neoliberal ideas began to take shape in Germany in the 1930s. and became most widespread in the post-war period, when the old totalitarian regime collapsed, and the “barter economy” managed to appear in the form of anarchy and the “black market”. Germany after World War II lost a quarter of its pre-war territory and was divided into occupation zones. Its production at the beginning of 1948 barely reached half the level of 1936, which was due to enormous human losses, a population demoralized by war and devastation, a multi-million army of refugees, worn-out fixed capital, destroyed infrastructure, the rationing system and the preservation of elements of the Nazi control system. There was “the loss of the old world without the acquisition of a new one, a feeling of apathy and hopelessness pushed to neglect established norms.” Order in these conditions was necessary. Under these conditions, the ruling circles of West Germany turned their attention to neoliberal ideas, which served as the ideological platform for the reforms being carried out.

In the German neoliberal movement of the 1940-1950s. Two groups should be distinguished, the views of whose representatives deserve special attention: the ordoliberals, or the Freiburg school, led by W. Eucken and F. Böhm, and supporters of the theory of the social market economy, among whom the leading figure was A. Müller-Armack.

Ordoliberals proposed their own doctrine of the national economy based on a synthesis of the ideas of the new, or young, historical school, the neoclassical concept and traditional liberalism. Methodologically, this direction is closest to the ideas of the new historical school, which considers the process of social development from the point of view of gradual changes and evolution. Representatives of both movements use a single terminology to characterize the economic life of different societies: “orders”, “steps” and “styles”.

Ordoliberalism is related to the neoclassical movement by marginalism, the provisions of which are taken into account, but are not used as the most important research tool. The focus of the ordoliberals is not on quantitative, but on qualitative, institutional problems, the solution of which is considered a sufficient prerequisite for eliminating the most important quantitative imbalances in the reproduction process.

From traditional liberalism, its German version borrowed the idea of ​​individual freedom based on strengthening and encouraging private ownership of the means of production. Unlike their predecessors, who assessed economic processes from a microeconomic perspective, the ordoliberals transferred the emphasis of assessment to the macro level, i.e., the level of the economy as a whole.

The central idea of ​​the illiberal concept is the recognition of the importance of the active influence of the state on the institutional matrix of economic life in order to create reliable general conditions for conducting a market economy and a strict framework for competition.

The basis of ordoliberalism is the doctrine of two types of economic order (system), which is an economic modification of M. Weber’s theory of ideal types of social systems. Its author, V. Eucken, defines the economic order as a set of economic forms implemented in practice, in which the everyday concrete economic process takes place. He believes that human society throughout history has been characterized by two main types of economic systems: a centrally controlled economy and an exchange economy, more often referred to as a market economy. He, in turn, divides the centrally managed economy into individual, or natural, and centrally administrative. The pure types he identified are realized in specific conditions in various forms, combining elements of both types and differing in the relationship between them.

According to the ordoliberals, state economic policy should be aimed at:

1) to form an economic order or structure;

2) impact on the production process.

The first involves regulating the activities of monopolies and promoting competition, maintaining an optimal balance between private and state types of property, direct and indirect measures of intervention in the economy, and establishing legal norms for business. The second direction provides for the entire range of government measures regulating economic growth.

The main idea of ​​the ordoliberal concept is that a strong state is limited to the formation and maintenance of economic order, i.e., the institutional environment, and the regulation and course of the economic process occurs spontaneously. This idea is enshrined in the slogan of the Freiburg school of neoliberalism: “State regulation of economic forms - yes, state planning and regulation of the economic process - no!”

Central to the ordoliberal doctrine is a well-functioning competition system, understood as a state institution that must be protected from the encroachments of monopolists, since it was their actions that provoked the serious crisis that hit the economies of Western countries in 1929–1933. The implementation of antimonopoly policy should be carried out by an agency consisting of independent political experts.

V. Eucken formulated the principles on which the competitive order is based:

– inviolability of private property;

– stability of monetary circulation and national currency;

– open markets;

– freedom of transactions and contracts;

– imposing financial responsibility on those who manage the activities of business units, i.e. preventing effective companies;

– constancy of economic policy.

The Ordoliberal concept gained recognition among business circles in West Germany immediately after the war, but it could not be fully implemented for two reasons:

1) a deeper intervention in the economy was required than the ordoliberals assumed;

2) it did not have support among the general population.

These circumstances allowed another version of neoliberal theory - the concept of a social market economy - to become the ideology of the ruling circles. Thus, the creation of a model of a social market economy as the main goal of economic policy was announced by German Chancellor K. Adenauer in the preface to W. Röpke’s work “Is German economic policy correct?”

When developing this theory, its authors relied on post-Marxist analysis of capitalism and research from the historical school. The term “social market economy” first appeared in 1947 in the work of A. Müller-Armack “Regulation of the Economy and the Market Economy.”

Theory of social market economy differs from ordo-liberalism in that it modifies the concept of capitalism, stating the need for social balancing, putting forward the idea of ​​a universal economic order, and recognizing the possibility of insufficiency or failure of the principles of the market system, such as market failures or monopolization.

The main difference between a social market economy and capitalism, according to A. Müller-Armak, is the active social policy pursued by the government, subject to the principle of “social compensation”: “This market economy becomes social due to the fact that ... the “functional distribution” arising from the production process “Property is transformed through social policy into a socially desirable “personal” distribution of income.”

A. Müller-Armak considered the main instrument of “social compensation” to be progressive taxation of persons with high incomes and the redistribution of funds received in favor of the less wealthy in the form of budget subsidies for the maintenance of children, payment of rent, construction of their own housing, etc. In this way it was intended to reduce gap between high and low incomes. Other forms of social policy were also proposed, for example the creation of a developed social insurance system and infrastructure worthy of people.

In the 1950s the provisions of the theory of social market economy were specified and supplemented by the slogans “welfare for all” and “property for all” put forward by the ruling parties CDU/CSU. In 1965, L. Erhard, at the CDU party congress, announced the completion of the program for creating a social market economy in Germany, which had transformed the country into a “formalized society.”

The doctrine of a formed society, according to L. Erhard and his associates, is a search for a better natural economic order, which can be achieved through the creation of a social market economy. Realizing the impossibility of the automatic functioning of the latter, W. Röpke and L. Erhard recognized the need to counter any manifestation of anarchy of production with appropriate measures of government intervention that would ensure a synthesis between a free and socially obligatory social system. The role of the state is compared to the position of an arbiter (judge) on the field: it strictly monitors the actions of economic entities in accordance with certain rules, but does not have the right to directly participate in the game.

Neoliberalism - direction in economic science and practice of economic activity, based on the principle of self-regulation of the economy, free from excessive regulation.

Liberalism how the system of views originates from the English classics A. Smith and D. Ricardo. Liberalism is based on the recognition of the leading role of individual activity, determined by personal interest. Government intervention in individual economic activity should be limited.

Another source of neoliberalism, and in particular its Freiburg school, is the historical school of Germany. Its representatives for the first time began to consider political economy as a science about the national economy.

Modern representatives of economic liberalism follow two traditional positions: Firstly, they proceed from the fact that the market (as the most efficient form of management) creates the best conditions for economic growth, and, Secondly, they defend the priority importance of the freedom of participants in economic activity.

The state must provide conditions for competition and exercise control where these conditions do not exist.

The Chicago (M. Friedman), neo-Austrian (F. Hayek), and Freiburg (W. Euken, L. Erhard) schools are usually classified as neoliberalism. Supporters of neoliberalism usually criticize Keynesian methods of regulating the economy.

In the United States and some other countries, modern neoliberal policies are based on a number of economic approaches that have received the most recognition. These are monetarism, supply-side economics, and the theory of rational expectations.

Historical and Freiburg schools of Germany

The historical school arose in Germany in the middle of the 19th century. where the classical school was not widespread. Representatives of the historical school believed that the economy of each country develops according to its own laws, which are related to its geographical conditions, historical development, national and cultural traditions and national character traits. They considered the general economic laws of production, exchange, and distribution to be an invention of the British.

Methodological features of the historical school:

• taking into account the influence of the social environment on the economic development of the country, including the human factor;
• identifying the relationship between economic and non-economic factors;
• determining the place and role of non-class criteria in the study of phases and stages of development of society.

According to representatives of the historical school, economic laws should not be identified with natural ones, which invariably manifest themselves due to the stable nature of the previously known elements and components that cause their action. Therefore, contrary to the classics, they point to the non-universal nature of political economy and the dependence of the effectiveness of economic processes not only on economic (basic), but also on non-economic factors, i.e., as they say, on factors of the social environment: national characteristics and traditions, historical accident, geographical conditions of the country, characteristics of national culture, psychology, religion.

Among the classics, non-economic factors are determined by the influence of economic factors, i.e. the higher the level of productive forces, the more developed the social environment will be. In the works of German authors, economic and non-economic factors are considered in conjunction. This position led to the emergence of the idea of ​​the uniqueness of the German national spirit.

Among the classics, historicism is manifested through the criterion of identifying, at various stages of the evolution of peoples and states, higher and lower, main and non-main classes of society. German authors used a purely economic approach.

In the process of evolution of the historical school of Germany in literature, three stages are distinguished:

First stage: 40-60s XIX century was called the “Old Historical School” (W. Roscher, F. Liszt, B. Hildebrandt, K. Knies).

Second phase falls on the 70-90s. XIX century and is called the “New Historical School” (L. Brentano, G. Schmoller, K. Bücher).

Third stage: first third of the twentieth century. “The newest historical school” (W. Sombart, M. Weber, A. Spiethof).

The merit of the representatives of the old historical school lies, first of all, in the formation of methodological provisions alternative to the classical school, which then formed the basis of the methodology of the social-institutional direction.

"Old" historical school

The founder of the historical school is considered Friedrich List (1789-1846). In his main work "National system of political economy"(1841) he opposed the English classics. The focus of his work is the national economy as a whole, in its relationships with the external environment. Main ideas of the book:

1. The theory of productive forces. The growth of social wealth is achieved not through scattered, but through the coordinated activities of people who must preserve and multiply what was produced by the efforts of previous generations. True wealth lies in the development of productive forces, and not in the quantity of exchange values. The task of politics is to unite people, to ensure the industrial education of the nation; this will facilitate the rise of productive forces. The increase in productive forces begins with the individual factory and then extends to a national association.

2. The concept of economic progress of a nation in accordance with the doctrine of stages of production. The stages proposed by List are quite conventional: “state of wildness”, “pastoral life”, “agricultural economy”, “agricultural-craft economy”. As a result, nations reach the final stage in which agriculture, industry, and trade develop harmoniously. The meaning of the “stage theory” is that each stage must correspond to its inherent economic policy, aimed at increasing production and developing the productive forces of the nation. This thesis is directed against the universal recipes of the classics: their theory of free trade met the interests of England, but contradicted the needs of an economically weak and politically fragmented Germany at that time.

3. Justification of the active economic policy of the state. List wrote that it is impossible to understand the national economy as an organic whole if the state economy is excluded from it. The national economy becomes a national economy if the state embraces an entire nation that has independence, the ability to acquire stability and political significance. State power coordinates and directs the efforts of individual parts of the national economy in the name of the long-term fundamental interests of the nation.

The same views were shared by Wilhelm Roscher (1817-1894), who published the book “Brief Basics of the Course of Political Economy from the Point of View of Historical Method” in 1843, Bruno Hildebrandt (1812-1878), whose main work was “Political Economy of the Present and Future ”was published in 1848 and Karl Knies (1821-1898), who outlined his views in the work “Political Economy from the Point of View of Historical Method” (1853).

"New" historical school

She developed the methods of the “old” school in new conditions. Germany was already a single national state; there was no longer any need to prove the vital importance of unification and strict protectionism. But nationalist motives and the cult of the state remained traditional features, fueled by the foreign policy aggressiveness of the German state. Gustav Schmoller (1838-1917) in his works “The history of small craft production in Germany in the 19th century.”(1870), “National economy, the science of national economy and its methods”(1897) was firmly convinced that political economy could become a dominant social science only when it established strong scientific connections with ethics, history, sociology, and political science.

Schmoller identified three spheres of activity in economic practice: private economy, state economy, and charitative economy. In the first type, personal interest dominates, in the second - public interest, based on the principle of coercion, in the third - charity. In areas of the first type, abuses and other extremes are possible, which must be regulated by the state and moral standards. In the third, moral motives predominate. Among the functions of the state, representatives of the “new” historical school named the following: care for mental and aesthetic education; health; development of communication routes; patronage of the elderly, children; assistance to injured workers.

Luyo Brentano (1844-1931) in the works “Modern workers’ guilds (1871-1872), “On the relation of wages and working time to labor productivity” (1877), "Agrarian Policy"(1897) put forward ideas about a radical change in the situation of workers and the elimination of inequality through the organization of trade unions, consumer cooperation, and factory legislation.

"Newest" historical school

Extremes in the application of the historical method are characteristic of works Werner Sombart (1863-1941). Over his long life, Sombart went from Marxism to fascism. In progress "Heroes and Merchants"(1915) Sombart contrasts the “nation of traders” (English) with the “nation of heroes” (Germans) and justifies the right of the latter, with the help of military force, to conquer for themselves what the former acquired through the development of trade and industry. In progress "German socialism"(1934) Sombart formulates the social ideal for Germany in the form of “state socialism,” which for him is equivalent to “planned” or “organized” capitalism. The main elements of this model - a corporate state planning the national economy, strict centralization of management, strict hierarchy and class division - were adopted by German fascism and became part of its socio-economic policy.

Max Weber (1864-1920) in 1919-1920 gave a course of lectures at the University of Munich, which were published in book form "History of the economy"(1923), where the concept of ideal types of economy is used to compare the ideal design with reality. By comparing the ideal “model” with the actual process of economic development, Weber tracks the degree to which the real system deviates from the ideal. This is a method for studying the historical development of peoples, comparing national practices and a general theoretical model.

Weber showed the importance of religious norms and ethics of behavior for the formation of commodity-capitalist relations. In his work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,” he reveals the influence of religion on the economy. The Protestant religion contributed to the development of business acumen and entrepreneurial activity. She helped to develop frugality, prudence, enterprise, resourcefulness, and the ability to take risks. It was from among the Protestants that the class of entrepreneurs—owners and organizers of production—was formed. The result was a “rationalist” form of capitalism.

The historical school, with rare exceptions, has not made a noticeable contribution to the development of economic science in its modern sense, but, nevertheless, it has done a lot to define the range of problems that this science is called upon to find solutions to. At the end of the 19th century. economic science was divided into theoretical (positive) and practical (normative) parts. The first studies what is happening in the economy, the second studies what needs to be done to achieve certain goals. The period of formation of the foundations of the theoretical part of economics coincided with the period of the emergence and development of the historical school, which set the direction for the development of the applied part precisely when the theoretical part moved away from the discussion of practical problems. Thus, from the point of view of the evolution of economic science, both trends turned out to be interconnected and complementary.

The line drawn by the German historical school found a kind of continuation in American economic thought of the late 19th - first third of the 20th centuries. — institutionalism, as well as in ordoliberalism.

Freiburg School (ordoliberalism)

Ordoliberalism attempted to create its own doctrine of the national economy on the basis of a synthesis of the ideas of the new historical school, neoclassicism and traditional liberalism.

Methodologically, ordoliberalism is closest to the new historical school, which is characterized by the interpretation of the process of social development as a slow, gradual evolution.

Unlike neoclassicism, marginalism does not occupy an independent place in the methodological tools of ordoliberalism. It is taken into account as a common theoretical device in Western concepts.

Ordoliberalism has in common with traditional liberalism the idea of ​​individual freedom based on the comprehensive strengthening and encouragement of private ownership of the means of production. At the same time, neoliberals, unlike their predecessors, assessed the processes of economic life from macroeconomic rather than microeconomic positions. In addition, ordoliberalism differs from the liberalism of the era of free competition capitalism in that it advocated active government influence on the economy. Moreover, the ordoliberals, unlike the Keynesians, considered the object of this intervention not the reproduction process itself, but the institutional foundations of the mechanism of profit and competition.

The basis of ordoliberalism is the doctrine of the system of competition and the concept of a social market economy. The doctrine of two types of economic system belongs to Walter Eucken (1891-1950) and outlined in his works "Foundations of National Economy"(1947) and "Basic principles of economic policy"(1950).

Economic system - a set of economic forms implemented in practice in which everyday specific economic processes take place.

Eucken believes that the key to the analysis of all economic systems known in history can be obtained by identifying two main types of economic systems. Firstly, a centrally managed economy, and secondly, a communication economy, or a market economy. They are never found in pure form, but always in the form of some mixture with a predominance of one of them.

The task of economic research is to find which of the possible economic orders was implemented in a given place at a given time. Having solved this problem, you can get answers to two questions: what is the structure of the economic order and what are the processes occurring in it.

If Keynes explained the ills of capitalism by a chronic lack of effective demand, which, with the non-intervention of the state in the economy, deprives this system of incentives for development, then the ordoliberals saw the source of troubles in the undermining of perfect competition and monopolization. Monopoly is a deviation from the model of perfect competition. He classified trade unions as monopolists, thereby justifying the legality of entrepreneurs and the state taking restrictive measures against them.

From the passivity of the state, Eucken deduced the undermining of perfect competition and the social costs of capitalism, which can be eliminated with the help of the state.

The main direction of state economic policy is the formation of an economic system: regulation of monopoly and competition, the relationship between private and state property, direct and indirect measures of intervention in the economy, and the establishment of legal norms for economic activity.

Basic principles of competition according to Eucken:

• inviolability of private property;
• currency stability;
• open markets;
• freedom of all transactions and contracts;
• imposing financial liability on those responsible for the actions of business units;
• constancy of economic policy.

Ordoliberals contrasted the constancy of economic policy with the ideas of Keynes, who considered a flexible fiscal and countercyclical monetary policy necessary. Ordoliberals allowed state influence on the economic process only in exceptional cases associated with the action of exogenous factors.

The Ordoliberal theory could not be used in West Germany after the war for two reasons:

• due to the objective need for a more flexible state influence on the economy than the ordoliberals allowed;
• the system of competition did not find support among the general population due to the crisis of the 20-30s.

These circumstances were taken into account by theorists of the “social market economy”. This term first appeared in 1947 in the work of A. Müller-Armak, “Regulation of the Economy and the Market Economy.”

If Eucken proclaimed the crown of social justice to be the market distribution of income under conditions of perfect competition, then Müller-Armack advocated active social policy, subject to the principle of social compensation, which was the main difference between the social market economy and capitalism.

Müller-Armak considered the main instrument of social compensation to be progressive taxation of persons with high incomes and the redistribution of these funds in favor of the poorer strata in the form of budget subsidies for the maintenance of children, payment of rent, and construction of their own homes. Among other forms of social policy, he included the development of a social insurance system: for unemployment, for illness, and a social infrastructure worthy of a person.

He played an outstanding role in the practical implementation of ordoliberal ideas. Ludwig Erhard (1897-1977), Vice-Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany under Adenaur and Chancellor after his death. In the book "Prosperity for all"(1956), which was a report on the transformations carried out, Erhard notes that the main goals of the social market economy are freedom and justice, and economic freedom is impossible without political freedom, without state guarantees of ensuring human rights and freedoms, without social security and social justice .

One of the areas of modification of the orthodox neoclassical doctrine was the emergence and development of the neoliberal direction of economic theory. In contrast to previous neoclassical analysis, neoliberalism pays much more attention to the problems of macroeconomic regulation and the role of the state in the economy. Traditional microeconomic problems remain on the periphery of research.

In its development, neoliberal economic theory went through several stages. The emergence of this trend should be attributed to 1938, when representatives of orthodox neoclassical science gathered in Paris in order to criticize the book by J. M. Keynes, “The General Theory of Interest, Employment and Money,” published shortly before. The organizer of the neoclassical congress was a prominent American scientist and political figure W. Lippman, after whom the meeting was named "Lippmann Colloquium". The “color” of neoclassicism of that time came to see it – F. von Hayek, L. von Mises, R. Aron, B. Lavernier, J. Rueff and many others.

The common theme of all speeches was criticism of the newly emerged Keynesianism. But along with this, Lippmann's colloquium formulated the basic principles of a new direction of neoclassicism, which was called neoliberalism. Its feature was a gradual transition from the construction of abstract theoretical schemes to real problems of economic policy.

Principles neoliberalism can be reduced to the following.

• 1. The state must develop clear and consistent laws according to which economic activities are carried out in society, unique “rules of the game”.
• 2. The government should exercise strict control over the implementation of these rules, trying not to revise them too often.
• 3. The most important direction of state policy should be the fight against monopolies of all types, both public and private. This thesis follows from the neoliberals' understanding of the role of competition. Competition is interpreted as the only force for social progress and economic development. Any restriction of competition causes stagnation and other negative phenomena. Therefore, the fight against monopoly and the creation of conditions for the development of competition is the most important component of state policy.
• 4. By creating and maintaining the “rules of the game,” the government must simultaneously minimize direct interference in economic life, and above all in the pricing process. This intervention is permissible only in extreme cases - during wars, natural disasters, etc. This idea was later embodied in "the principle of a football referee", formulated L. Erhard, – the state itself does not participate in economic activity, but only maintains a pre-announced order.
• 5. General economic equilibrium is achieved on the basis of the spontaneous action of the price mechanism. As a result, optimal proportions are established in the economy and the activities of all economic entities are regulated. In the market, a balance is achieved between supply and demand.
• 6. The state must fight against the influence on prices from individual economic entities (both monopolists and speculators).

As can be seen, Lippmann’s colloquium did not formulate anything fundamentally new in comparison with traditional neoclassical principles. However, he clearly defined the main directions of state policy, which represent a logical development of the idea of ​​economic non-intervention in the conditions of the 20th century.

Late 1930s was not the most favorable period for the further development of neoliberalism. A year later, World War II began, and in almost all the countries participating in it, governments were forced to switch to active regulation of the economy.

The situation changed dramatically in the second half of the 1940s. The collapse of National Socialism and fascism in Germany and Italy became a kind of catalyst for a sharp departure from the policy of active state intervention in the economy of not only the losers, but also the victorious Western countries. Truly neoliberalism, both as a theory and as a policy, emerges and develops precisely during this period. The center of its influence becomes West Germany, which later turned into the Federal Republic of Germany.

There were a number of factors contributing to the rapid development of neoliberalism in the post-war period in West Germany.

• 1. The transition to economic liberalism was a natural reaction to the collapse of the National Socialist administered economy. A significant part of the population has the opinion that only a policy diametrically opposed to Hitlerism can lead the country out of the impasse. An important role was played by the desire to imitate the victorious countries - England, France and, first of all, the United States, whose welfare was an unattainable dream for the German people in those years.
• 2. Germany, which lost the world war, did not claim an active social policy. The situation of the main part of the population was characterized by the proverb “I don’t care about fat, I wish I was alive.” The state could not pursue an active social policy and not support incapacitated members of society, paying them significant unemployment benefits, and make other large expenditures from the state budget (for example, on the maintenance of the armed forces).

This, in turn, made it possible not to intensify the search for profitable budget items and create a favorable tax climate for private entrepreneurship.

• 3. The country had strong capitalist traditions. The institution of private property, although it was limited during the years of Nazi rule, nevertheless continued to exist. The consciousness of the bulk of the population strongly approved of this. The necessary financial institutions existed for the private capitalist functioning of the economy.
• 4. West Germany received external assistance under the Marshall Plan, which made it possible to intensify the investment process in the country.

The social need for the development of neoliberal theory was realized in the works of economists Freiburg school. It included V. Repke, A. Rüstow, F. Boehm, L. Erhard(the latter was a prominent politician and in the future – Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany). The recognized leader of the school was W. Eucken, who made a significant contribution to the formation of neoliberal doctrine. Institutionally, West German neoliberals grouped around the scientific journal published since 1948. ORDO" ("Build").

Walter Eucken became famous not only as a prominent neoliberal, but also as almost the only economist of the 20th century who created an entire system of theories, rather than exploring one or several isolated problems.

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution

higher professional education

Tula State University

Faculty of Economics and Law

COURSE WORK

in the discipline "History of Economic Doctrines"

NEOLIBERALISM

Completed by:_________________________________

Supervisor:______________________________

Associate Professor, Candidate of Sciences tech. sciences

Admitted to defense: ________________________________________

Protected with rating:__________________________________________

Chairman of the commission:__________________________

Members of the commission:_______________________________

Date of:_________________________________________

Introduction

1. Neo-Austrian school. F. Hayek, L. Mises.

1.1. Views of L. Mises.

1.1.1 Defense of the principles of free enterprise.

1.1.2 Problems of socialism.

1.1.3 Problems of the theory of knowledge of economic phenomena:

1.2. Views of F. Hayek.

1.2.1 Criticism of socialism and government intervention in

economy.

1.2.2 Problems of the theory and methodology of knowledge.

1.2.3 The doctrine of the spontaneous nature of the market order.

1.2.4 Criticism of Keynesianism and socialism

2. West German neoliberalism. V. Oyken.

2.1 Basic work.

2.2. The concept of competitive order.

2.3. Model of social market economy.

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Both the neoclassical direction in economic theory and neoliberalism are rooted in the economic views of A. Smith. It was his principle of the “invisible hand”, the belief that the realization of a person’s selfish interest in the field of economic activity will lead to public welfare and the requirement for non-interference of the state in the economy arising from this point of view that formed the basis of the concepts of representatives of neoliberalism. The essence of the theoretical provisions of economic liberalism can be reduced to the fact that liberals recognize and emphasize the existence of an obvious connection between individual freedom, private property and the level of economic efficiency of a given society. They insist that no one has the right to violate someone else's freedom, including economic freedom. These ideas are based on the political philosophy of liberalism, the credo of which is the famous principle of “laisser faire”, which can be interpreted as the right of people to do what they want, to give them the right to be themselves in economic activity and religion, culture, everyday life and thoughts . And individualism, which became the basis of European civilization, according to one of the prominent representatives of the neoliberal trend, F. Hayek, is not selfishness and narcissism, it is, first of all, respect for the personality of one’s neighbor, it is the absolute priority of the right of every person to realize himself in this world.

In this work we will look at 2 main schools of neoliberalism - the Neo-Austrian school (representatives are F. Hayek and L. Mises) and West German neoliberalism, the founder and main representative of which is W. Eucken.

Each of the schools made its own contribution to the development of the theory of neoliberalism, and these contributions need to be illustrated.

1. Neo-Austrian school. F. Hayek, L. Mises

L. Mises and F. Hayek are among the most prominent representatives of the neoliberal movement, one of the most consistent defenders of the idea of ​​economic freedom.

L. Mises and F. Hayek used the methodological and conceptual approaches of the Austrian school in the post-war conditions of the development of a market economy, thereby laying the foundations of the neo-Austrian school.

1.1. Views of L. Mises

1.1.1 Defense of free enterprise principles

Human Action: A Treatise on Economic Theory (1949), The Almighty State (1944), and The Anti-Capitalist Mentality (1956). These works study the logic of a person’s individual labor activity and the motives that encourage a person to work. The development of these problems forced Mises to turn to the areas of psychology, morality, and instincts. The influence of institutionalism is clearly visible in the development of these issues. Mises paid considerable attention to the analysis of the functioning of various economic systems, consistently considering three types of economic structure of the modern world: a purely market economy, a “spoiled market” and a non-market economy. When analyzing the functioning of the market system, he focused on the problem of the evolution, place and role of such an important institution for a market economy as private property. In his opinion, it is private property that is “a necessary requisite for civilization and material well-being,” and its social function is that it promotes the optimal use of resources and ensures consumer sovereignty. From Mises's point of view, only private property can be the basis of rational economic activity, since the individualistic incentives generated by it ensure the maximum use of resources.

1.1.2 Problems of socialism

"Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis" (1922)

Mises interprets socialism as a non-market economic system that has no future either from the point of view of logic or from the point of view of practice. Mises believed that such a system lacks rational organization. Therefore, Mises devoted his main attention to criticism of planning - the central link of the economic system of socialism, which supporters of socialism regarded as a manifestation of a rational principle that would prevent the anarchy of production and stop the waste of the productive forces of society.

As is known, from representatives of utopian socialism to Marx, one of the main accusations of the capitalist system was that the anarchy of production, in which the producer only learns about the need for his products on the market, leads to a senseless waste of society's resources. And planning, in their opinion, will allow one to foresee the consequences of the actions taken.

However, Mises categorically argued that planned regulation of the economy excludes the possibility of market principles of pricing, without which it is impossible to measure the contribution of various factors of production to the value of consumer goods. In turn, this makes it impossible to use resources efficiently. Mises concluded that under socialism a system of arbitrary assessments dominates. Therefore, he defined socialism as a “system of planned chaos.”

In addition, L. Mises drew attention to the fact that strengthening the role of the state in such a system will inevitably lead to a strengthening of the role of the bureaucracy, and therefore to corruption, a decrease in production efficiency, etc. According to Mises, socialism creates a certain type of person for whom “following familiar and outdated is the chief of all virtues,” and eliminates any innovation that promotes economic progress. Meanwhile, only a free market corresponds to democratic principles, and only in a free market conditions do economic entities maximize their well-being , having the freedom to choose alternative options.

Freedom of choice for Mises means not only respect for the taste preferences of a person as a consumer, but also, in a broader sense, indicates respect for the human person.

The market system, according to Mises, also has mechanisms that promote high rates of economic growth and can provide rapid growth in well-being for all segments of society. In this regard, the urgent question was why the rejection of this socio-economic system by a significant part of society was growing.

Like Schumpeter, Mises saw the reason for his critical attitude towards the market system in unsatisfied ambition. He noted that in traditional societies, divided into classes, failure and lack of prosperity were attributed to circumstances beyond human control, such as fate or divine providence. In a market economy, a person’s position is determined to a large extent not by his origin, but by his own efforts. That is, a person must blame himself first of all for his failures. For most people, this is unacceptable, and therefore they look for the reason for their own unsatisfactory situation in the vices (true and imaginary) of a given economic system. And this seems to Mises a breeding ground for various collectivist and socialist doctrines.

1.1.3 Problems of the theory of knowledge of economic phenomena

"Theory and History" (1957), "Epistemological Problems of Economic Science" (1960), "Fundamentals of Economic Science." An important place in Mises's works is given to praxeology, the study of human behavior, or the science of the principles of human choice. The categories of praxeology are considered eternal and unchanging, since, according to Mises, they reflect the unchanging structure of human thinking.

As for the methods of economic research, Mises paid special attention to logical consistency as such, believing that only it is able to provide a truly scientific result, while other research methods are historical, empirical, etc. - complicate a logically consistent approach to economic phenomena, since they include the personal biases of researchers, which cannot but affect the results of the analysis. One of the a priori truths underlying praxeology is that the purpose of human action is to strive to get rid of the feeling of anxiety that grips a person. Today, many authors recognize that Mises's attempt to develop universal principles of human choice outside the historical context, the existing socio-economic structure of society, the nature and level of development of culture actually means abstracting from the decisive factors and conditions that determine such choice. Nevertheless, this concept played its ideological role - it served to substantiate the concept of free enterprise.