|
Volume 4, Number 1, 1999
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Hayek—Social Theorist of the Century
|
This last year of the
20th century is also the 100th anniversary
of the birth of Austrian economist Friedrich
von Hayek. He and American Milton Friedman
stand as perhaps the most influential free
market economists of the century. Hayek's
The Road to Serfdom and other works
helped turn the world away from socialist
and communist ideology.
The Federal Reserve
Bank of Dallas is proud to make available this
essay about Hayek and his legacy. An excellent,
fuller treatment can be found in a commemorative
album compiled by John Raybould and published
by the Adam Smith Institute in London.
| — |
Bob McTeer
President and Chief Executive Officer
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas |
|
|
Hayek—Social Theorist of the Century
Americans love to create lists of important
people, events and things. As the title of this article suggests,
F. A. Hayek not only belongs on a list of the century's great
social theorists but deserves to be at its apex. Although
Hayek is not a household name, no other 20th century social
thinker has better understood how free societies work, and
none has been so vindicated by unfolding events in so many
intellectual areas. As 1999 is the centenary of Hayek's birth,
it's an especially opportune time to examine his ideas and
their real-world impact during this century, much of which
Hayek—who died in 1992—lived to see.
The 20th century has seen a single,
unifying intellectual struggle play out across its decades,
affecting all the earth's peoples. That struggle has been
between those who wished the state to impose a centrally planned
order on society and those who understood that the best order—and
the only one consistent with democracy and individual freedom—is
a spontaneous one that does not need imposition. Such an order
flourishes only under democratically, or constitutionally,
restrained governments that operate under the rule of law.
Tens of millions of people have died in this century's wars,
perished under oppressive regimes or were put to death simply
because they were in the political opposition. Even those
who survived have often suffered harsh economic and political
deprivation. This is the most visible manifestation of the
ideological struggle in which Hayek was a central participant.
The Early Years and the Great Depression
The Austro–Hungarian empire
was at its zenith when Hayek was growing up in pre–World
War I Vienna. He considered his an idyllic childhood.[1] The
Hayek men had typically been civil servants, but Hayek and
his two brothers became university professors, and his cousin,
Ludwig Wittgenstein, became a world-famous philosopher.
During the Great War that transformed
Europe both geographically and ideologically, Hayek served
as an artillery officer in the Austrian army. He became, in
his own words, a "mild socialist," who hoped that
at war's end there would be a societal reorganization and
world peace. In 1918 Hayek entered the University of Vienna,
where he earned two doctorates, one at age 21 in law and the
second in political economy. While at the university, he had
many brilliant teachers of political economy, most notably
Ludvig von Mises. Mises held an honorary professorial post
but, more important, hosted the fortnightly Privatseminar,
where gifted, rising students in economics, sociology and
philosophy presented their papers and where new ideas and
theories were enthusiastically discussed. For Hayek, it was
the beginning of a lifelong friendship with Mises, the most
prominent living member of the Austrian school of economics.[2]
Within three years, Hayek's socialistic leanings had been
redirected by Mises' persuasive arguments, which were consistently
rooted in the classical liberal tradition.
Because the war's aftermath brought
depression to many countries and hyperinflation to Germany
(which dramatically affected Austria), Hayek and Mises cofounded
an institute to study business cycles. Hayek's 1929 work Geldtheorie
und Konjunkturtheorie (later published in English as
Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle) drew the attention
of economists in other nations, and in 1930 he was invited
to London to lecture on the Austrian theory of business cycles.[3]
The London Years
Hayek was invited to lecture at
the London School of Economics (LSE) by Lionel Robbins, and
in 1931 he gave the series of lectures that became Prices
and Production.[4] Although Hayek was coolly received
at Cambridge, home of John Maynard Keynes' "Cambridge
Circus," his lectures were enthusiastically applauded
at the LSE, which offered him the Tooke Chair in Economic
Science and Statistics the following year. Hayek promptly
accepted, which led to his permanent residence, and citizenship,
in Britain. Except for a brief stint at Cambridge during World
War II, he remained at the LSE until 1950.
It was during Hayek's London days that
he became internationally recognized as one of the world's
leading classical liberal scholars and thinkers. Prices
and Production was followed by Collectivist Economic
Planning, The Pure Theory of Capital and the book that
would introduce him to the general public on both sides of
the Atlantic, The Road to Serfdom. This book, completed in
1944, sold so well that the University of Chicago Press had
to reprint it three times in the first three weeks after its
release. The Book-of-the-Month Club distributed 600,000 copies
of the condensed version, which had been serialized in Reader's
Digest.[5] Ultimately, this work would become a multimillion
worldwide best-seller.
Hayek was better known to the general
public than even Keynes, whose policy ideas and macroeconomic
theories dominated the postwar world. But Hayek's career seemed
at its peak, for after his penetrating dissection of socialism,
the general academic community slowly turned chilly toward
him. The Labour Party, full of avowed socialists who wanted
to implement many of the policies Hayek's book had condemned,
took power in 1945. The political and intellectual climate
in Hayek's adopted country was decidedly hostile to his antisocialist,
antiplanning arguments. He retreated to academia and in 1948
published Individualism and Economic Order, a book of essays
that dissented from the postwar embrace of ever-widening government
intervention.
Believing the classical liberal order
was under theoretical and political assault in 1947, Hayek
founded an organization whose purpose was "to work out
the principles which would secure the preservation of a free
society" and to promote such a society internationally.
The new group was named after the site of its initial meeting,
Mont Pelerin on Lake Geneva, Switzerland. The first meeting
of the Mont Pelerin Society drew a glittering collection of
intellectuals from around the world, many of whom had never
met because of wartime travel restrictions. The society would
ultimately succeed in making a reality of Hayek's vision of
retaking the future from the then-dominant statist movements.[6]
Chicago and the Later Years
In 1950, Hayek accepted a professorship
in social and moral science at the University of Chicago and
joined the school's Committee on Social Thought. Through with
writing economic theory at this point, Hayek widened the scope
of his writing and scholarship. He published works in political
science, law, sociology, history of science, biography, history
and even psychology. Hayek was rare in that he integrated
his knowledge of economic theory with a theory about the generation,
perception and evolution of knowledge generally and of all
human evolution. It was during this period that he wrote The
Sensory Order, John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor, The Constitution
of Liberty and The Counter-Revolution of Science.
He also edited and wrote an introductory essay for Capitalism
and the Historians.
In 1962, Hayek returned to Germany
as a professor of economic policy at Albert Ludwigs Universität
at Freiburg, West Germany. But ironically, even as he lived
amid the German "economic miracle," which his teaching
had so influenced,[7] Hayek's political positions seemed less
fashionable than ever to many, and in 1968 he retired from
the university and from active academic life. He became isolated
and depressed and was routinely ignored or forgotten by those
who disagreed with him. Despite this, Hayek was far from through
with thinking and writing. The catalyst that regenerated the
old fires came, surprisingly, in 1974 from socialist Sweden,
when he and Gunnar Myrdal were awarded the Nobel Memorial
Prize in Economic Sciences.
His retirement financially secured
by the prize money, Hayek returned to his unfinished work
and completed the second and third volumes of Law, Legislation
and Liberty, in which he elaborated on themes explored
in The Constitution of Liberty. In his final book,
The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, published
in 1988, Hayek took a powerful and logical look at why socialism
had to fail. And then, empirically, all over the world that
failure began to happen in ways so dramatic as to have been
unimaginable just a few years earlier. The Soviet Union collapsed,
the Berlin Wall fell and Germany was reunited. Even self-described
socialist nations began to follow America's lead, cutting
their tax rates and sometimes selling off their public business
monopolies. Historical developments everywhere seemed to confirm
Hayek's theories, and even his old nemesis—Keynesian
economic theory—no longer dominated macroeconomic policy.
Instead, it became one of many macroparadigm approaches that
developed between 1950 and 1980, including monetarism, supply
side economics, rational expectations and, of course, variations
on Keynes' original ideas.[8]
As we move into a new century, Hayek's
vision of a world of more open societies is arriving, albeit
slowly in places. His was a remarkable life, and though he
doubtlessly sometimes believed the flow of history ran against
him, he always seemed optimally positioned to research and
write on precisely the topics that would shape world events.
He was a model scholar, always exceptionally polite to his
intellectual adversaries, a prolific yet trenchant writer
and an example of the type of person who lives by his professed
ideals. And while in terms of policy his own century favored
others–notably Marx, Pigou, Fischer, Keynes, Friedman
and Mundell—the 21st may see an international blooming
of societies based on his vision of a free—and a good—society.
| — |
Robert L. Formaini
Senior Economist |
 |
| Notes
- Raybould (1998).
- Also known as the Viennese school, the Austrian
school began with Carl Menger and has included
or influenced, to a greater or lesser degree
at various times, such notables as Eugen von
Böhm-Bawerk, Friedrich von Wieser, Gottfried
Haberler, Joseph Schumpeter, Oskar Morgenstern,
Fritz Machlup, Lionel Robbins, Israel Kirzner,
Wilhelm Röpke, G. L. S. Shackle, Ludwig
Lachmann and Murray Rothbard.
- Hayek visited London a year earlier for a
monetary conference, where he first met his
future lifelong intellectual opponent, John
Maynard Keynes. Though friends, Hayek and Keynes
agreed infrequently on economic theory and public
policy issues.
- Hayek (1967b).
- Raybould (1998), 47.
- Raybould (1998), 55–59.
- Ludwig Earhard, whose 'bonfire of controls'
ignited the German economic reconstruction one
Sunday afternoon in the late 1940s, attended
the second meeting of the Mont Pelerin Society.
His chief economic advisor, Walter Eucken, was
also a society member and later helped Hayek
secure his position at Freiburg. Röpke,
another Mont Pelerin member, had advised Earhard
to abolish the Allied-imposed controls in 1948.
After the controls were lifted, a long-running
experiment unfolded that showed West Germany's
freer economy was clearly superior to East Germany's
communist one. The result was, of course, the
erection of the Berlin Wall to prevent flight
from communist East to capitalist West.
- Keynesians now are in three subgroups: Neo-Keynesian,
post-Keynesian and Post Keynesian. Each group
is attempting to come to terms with the deficiencies
of Keynes' The General Theory of Employment,
Interest and Money in light of economic
performance and policy problems since 1950.
References
Hayek, F. A. (1972), Individualism
and Economic Order (Chicago: Regnery Gateway
Editions), orig. pub. 1948.
–––
(editor) (1967a), Capitalism and the Historians,
8th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press),
orig. pub. 1954.
–––(1967b),
Prices and Production, 2nd ed. (New York:
Augustus Kelley Reprints of Economic Classics),
orig. pub. 1931.
–––
(1967c), The Road to Serfdom (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press), orig. pub. 1944.
–––
(1988), The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
–––
(1994), Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical
Dialogue (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press).
Raybould, John (1998),
Hayek: A Commemorative Album (London:
Adam Smith Institute).
Further Reading on Friedrich
von Hayek
Hayek, Friedrich
von (1944), The Road to Serfdom (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press).
–––
(1960), The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press).
–––
(1976), Law, Legislation and Liberty,
Volume 2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Raybould, John (1998),
Hayek: A Commemorative Album (London:
Adam Smith Institute).
Steele, G. R. (1996), The
Economics of Friedrich Hayek (New York: St.
Martin's Press).
The University of Chicago
Press is in the process of publishing Hayek's
collected writings in 20 volumes. Seven of these
are now available:
1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10.
To learn more about the
Raybould book, see the Adam Smith Institute's
web site, www.adamsmith.org
[off-site]. |
 |
|
The Foundation
of Our Civilization
Our civilization depends,
not only for its origin but also for its preservation,
on what can be precisely described only as the
extended order of human cooperation, an order
more commonly, if somewhat misleadingly, known
as capitalism. To understand our civilization,
one must appreciate that the extended order resulted
not from human design or intention but spontaneously:
it arose from unintentionally conforming to certain
traditional and largely moral practices, many
of which men tend to dislike, whose significance
they usually fail to understand, whose validity
they cannot prove, and which have nonetheless
fairly rapidly spread by means of an evolutionary
selection—the comparative increase in population
and wealth—of those groups that happened
to follow them. The unwitting, reluctant, even
painful adoption of these practices kept these
groups together, increased their access to valuable
information of all sorts, and enabled them to
be "fruitful, and multiply, and replenish
the earth, and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28).
This process is perhaps the least appreciated
facet of human evolution.
…The main point
of my argument is, then, that the conflict between,
on one hand, advocates of the spontaneous extended
human order created by a competitive market, and
on the other hand by those who demand a deliberate
arrangement of human interaction by central authority
based on central command over available resources
is due to a factual error by the latter about
how knowledge is and can be generated and utilised.
As a question of fact, this conflict must be settled
by scientific study. Such study shows that, by
following the spontaneously generated moral traditions
underlying the competitive market order (traditions
which do not satisfy the canons or norms of rationality
embraced by most socialists), we generate and
garner greater knowledge and wealth than could
ever be obtained or utilised in a centrally-directed
economy whose adherents claim to process strictly
in accordance with "reason." Thus socialist
aims and programmes are factually impossible
to
achieve or execute; they also happen, into the
bargain as it were, to be logically impossible.
—From The Fatal
Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, 6–7. |
|
The Condition
of the Working Class Under Capitalism
There is, however, one
supreme myth which more than any other has served
to discredit
the economic system to which we owe our present-day
civilization...[I]t is the legend of the deterioration
of the position of the working classes in consequence
of the rise of "capitalism" (or of
the
"manufacturing" or the "industrial
system"). Who has not heard of the "horrors
of early capitalism" and gained the impression
that the advent of this system brought untold
new suffering to large classes who before were
tolerably content and comfortable? The widespread
emotional aversion to "capitalism" is
closely connected with this belief that the
undeniable
growth of wealth which the competitive order
has produced was purchased at the price of depressing
the standard of life of the weakest elements
of society;...[A] more careful examination of
the
facts has, however, led to a thorough refutation
of this belief.
—From Capitalism
and the Historians, 9–10. |
|
Decentralized
Knowledge and the Economic Planning Problem
The peculiar character
of the problem of a rational economic order
is determined
precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the
circumstances of which we must make use never
exists in concentrated or integrated form but
solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and
frequently contradictory knowledge which all
the separate individuals possess. The economic
problem
of society is thus not merely a problem of how
to allocate 'given' resources—if 'given'
is taken to mean given to a single mind which
deliberately solves the problem set by those
'data.' It is rather a problem of how to secure
the best
use of resources known to any of the members
of society, for ends whose relative importance
only
these individuals know. Or, to put it briefly,
it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge
which is not given to anyone in its totality...[I]
should briefly mention the fact that the sort
of knowledge with which I have been concerned
is knowledge of the kind which by its nature
cannot
be conveyed to any central authority in statistical
form. The statistics which such a central authority
would have to use would have to be arrived at
precisely by abstracting from minor differences
between the things, by lumping together, as resources
of one kind, items which differ as regards
location,
quality, and other particulars, in a way which
may be very significant for the specific decision.
—From Individualism
and Economic Order, 77–79. |
|
On John
Maynard Keynes
There were of course extraordinary
gaps in his knowledge. His knowledge was aesthetically
guided, with the result that he was completely
ignorant of nineteenth-century economic history.
Totally ignorant. He just disliked it. I had
to tell him every day, not so much about economic
history, but even about the earlier English economists.
He knew his Marshall, but very little else...[H]e
had hardly anything about international trade
theory...[I] like to say, I liked Keynes and
in
many ways admired him, but do not think he was
a good economist.
—From Hayek
on Hayek,
92–93. |
|
The Tempting Road to Serfdom
It is a revealing fact that
few planners are content to say that central planning
is desirable. Most of them affirm that we can
no longer choose but are compelled by circumstances
beyond our control to substitute planning for
competition. The myth is deliberately cultivated
that we are embarking on the new course not out
of free will but because competition is spontaneously
eliminated by technological changes which we neither
can reverse nor should wish to prevent. This argument
is rarely developed at any length—it is
one of the assertions taken over by one writer
from another until, by mere iteration, it has
come to be accepted as an established fact. It
is, nevertheless, devoid of foundation. The tendency
toward monopoly and planning is not the result
of any 'objective facts' beyond our control but
the product of opinions fostered and propagated
for half a century until they have come to dominate
our policy.
…[O]nce government
has embarked upon planning for the sake of justice,
it cannot refuse responsibility for anybody's
fate or position. In a planned society we shall
all know that we are better or worse off than
others, not because of circumstances which nobody
controls, and which it is impossible to foresee
with certainty, but because some authority wills
it. And all our efforts directed toward improving
our position will have to aim…[a]t influencing
in our favor the authority which has all the
power.
The nightmare of English nineteenth-century political
thinkers, the state in which ‘no avenue
to wealth and honor would exist save through
the
government,’ would be realized in a completeness
which they never imagined—though familiar
enough in some countries which have passed
to
totalitarianism.
—From The Road to Serfdom,
43 and 107.
|
|
| About Economic
Insights
Economic Insights
is a publication of the Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas. The views expressed are those of the authors
and should not be attributed to the Federal Reserve
System.
Please address all correspondence
to
Economic Insights
Public Affairs Department
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
P.O. Box 655906
Dallas, TX 75265-5906 |
|
|