The Economics of Ignorance and Coordination

The Economics of Ignorance and Coordination

Subjectivism and the Austrian School of Economics

New Thinking in Political Economy series

Thierry Aimar

This book clarifies the specific nature of the Austrian theory and restores the unity and open-mindedness of the Austrian school in general. The intention is not to offer a collection of different or parallel ideas, but rather to retrace, from a pedagogical and constructive perspective, the various stages of the construction of a well-founded theoretical edifice: from Ludwig von Mises to Murray Rothbard, from Friedrich Hayek to Israel M. Kirzner and from Lachmann to Lavoie. The book is a reconstitution of the way Austrian ideas and concepts organize themselves in a common structure.

Chapter 3: Action and Interpersonal Exchanges: The Limits of the A Priori Approach

Thierry Aimar

Subjects: economics and finance, austrian economics


3. Action and Interpersonal Exchange: The Limits of the A Priori Approach ___________________________________________________ From Mises’ point of view, the praxeological scheme of things is the basis of economics. All the economic categories appear there, for example: value (all action moves towards an ultimate objective of gain in satisfaction), cost (using scarce resources) and preference (choice involving an asymmetry of values). We also know that notions of action and exchange are inseparable. Action is always an infra-individual 1 exchange, whether theoretically or empirically viewed. Distinct exchange categories, however, should be noted, taking two practical forms: isolated and social (involving several individuals). In the case of isolated action, the only exchange is infra-individual. Mises describes it as an ‘autistic exchange’ (Mises, 1966, p. 206). Social action additionally involves interpersonal exchange which ‘weaves the bond which unites men into society’ (ibid, p. 206). Mises’ disciples define some particular epistemological aspects out of this exchange taxinomy. Establishing two distinct categories means that neither can be individually a theorem of action. 2 They are contingent, impossible to approach in an a priori or introspective mode (1). Particularly, moving from a formal analysis of action to the study of social action requires ‘subsidiary’ (Hayek ‘Economics and Knowledge’, 1937a) hypotheses to the praxeological structure. In other words, certain particular conditions must be present for interpersonal exchange to not only take place but be conceptually analysed. This question was to become crucial in the monetary field, leading Hayek to question the epistemological foundations of market theories (2). 1. VARYING...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information