I know I am biased, but in all honesty I cannot understand for the life of me why folks would have any objection to Kirzners theory of the entrepreneurial market process, and the implications that follow. At the most basic pop level the essence of the theory is celebrated when put in a book like Tim Harfords Adapt, and at the most profound scientific theory level it is celebrated when presented in works like Franklin Fishers Disequilibrium Foundations of Equilibrium Economics. So what gives? I cannot understand why such a gentleman and serious scholar is not more widely recognized and celebrated as contributing so profoundly to our understanding of how markets work. Is it because he acknowledges that his theory is built on the towering achievement of his teacher Mises and the Austrian tradition? Is it because his method of analysis is more consistent with the way economics was done from 1776 to 1950, than the prevailing methodological consensus since? Simple and profound insights, such as those found in Kirzner, or for that matter Coase, or Buchanan, are critical for scientific advancement in a discipline.
Posted on: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 13:37:31 +0000