Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gvh9x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T22:22:05.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Austrian Capital Theory: Help or Hindrance?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2009

James C. W. Ahiakpor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Modern Austrian economists employ the Austrian Theory of Capital as an analytical construct with which to interpret policy-induced business cycles and suggest an appropriate remedy. The argument is that the structure of production, particularly the degree of capital intensity or “length of the production period” among different sectors of a non-collectivized economy, depends on the level of interest rates. Low interest rates encourage greater capital intensity in production while high interest rates reduce the degree of capital intensity or roundaboutness. Thus a greater capital intensity encouraged by an artificially low rate of interest created by a central bank's credit inflation must be followed by increased unemployment of labor when interest rates rise again to reflect the ensuing price inflation and the credit inflation stops. Restraint on central bank credit creation is thus prescribed as the remedy for fluctuations in output and employment in the business cycle.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , Fall 1997 , pp. 261 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahiakpor, James C. W. 1985. “Ricardo on Money: The Operational Significance of the Non-neutrality of Money in the Short Run,” History of Political Economy, 17, Spring, 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 1990. “On Keynes's Misinterpretation of ‘Capital’ in the Classical Theory of Interest,” History of Political Economy, 22, Fall, 507–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 1995. “A Paradox of Thrift or Keynes's Misrepresentation of Saving in the Classical Theory of Growth?,” Southern Economic Journal, 62, 07, 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 1997a. “Fisher, the Classics, and Modern Macroeconomics,” paper presented at the Allied Social Science MeetingsNew Orleans, 01 4.Google Scholar
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 1997b. “Full Employment: A Classical Assumption or Keynes's Rhetorical Device?,” Southern Economic Journal, 64, 07, 56–74.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1985. Economic Theory in Retrospect, 4th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1890. Capital and Interest: A Critical History of Economic Theory, translated by William, Smart; reprint, Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1891. The Positive Theory of Capital, translated by William, Smart; reprint, Books for Libraries Press, Freeport, NY, 1971.Google Scholar
Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen von. 1906. “Capital and Interest Once More: I. Capital vs. Capital Goods” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 21, 11, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulding, Kenneth E. 1936. “Professor Knight's Capital Theory: A Note in Reply,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 50, 05, 524–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Bruce, ed. 1995. The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, 9, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, and Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Clark, John Bates. 1893. “The Genesis of Capital,” Yale Review, 2, 11, 302–315.Google Scholar
Clark, John Bates. 1899. The Distribution of Wealth; reprint, Kelley & Millman, New York, 1956.Google Scholar
Ekelund, Robert B. and Hébert, Robert F. 1997. A History of Economic Theory and Method, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1906. The Nature of Capital and Income, Macmillan, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1922. Elementary Principles of Economics, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Fisher, Irving. 1930. The Theory of Interest, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Garrison, Roger. 1985. “A Subjective Theory of a Capital-Using Economy,” in O'Driscoll, Gerald P. and O'Driscoll, Mario J. Rizzo, The Economics of Time and Ignorance, Basil Blackwell, New York.Google Scholar
Harcourt, G. C. 1972. Some Cambridge Controversies in the Theory of Capital, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawtrey, Ralph G. 1952. “Professor Hayek's ‘Prices and Production,’” in Capital and Employment, 2d ed., Longmans, London, 220–255.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1932. “A Note on the Development of the Doctrine of ‘Forced Saving,’” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 47, 11, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1935. Prices and Production, 2d ed., Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1936. “The Mythology of Capital,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 50, 02, 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1941. The Pure Theory of Capital, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1945. “Time Preference and Productivity: A Reconsideration,” Economica, 12, 02, 22–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1946. Value and Capital, 2d ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1977. Economic Perspectives, Clarendon Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, John R. 1983. Classics and Moderns, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hirshleifer, Jack and Glazer, Amihai. 1992. Price Theory and Applications, 5th ed., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Hume, David. 1752. “Of Interest,” in Hume's Writings on Economics, edited by Rotwein, E., Nelson, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keynes, John M. 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Macmillan, London and Basingstoke, 1974.Google Scholar
Kirzner, Israel M. 1966. An Essay on Capital, Augustus M. Kelley, New York.Google Scholar
Kirzner, Israel M. 1993. “The Pure Time-Preference Theory of Interest: An Attempt at Clarification,” in Herbener, Jeffrey M., ed., The Meaning of Ludwig von Mises, Kluwer, Norwell, Mass.Google Scholar
Knight, Frank. 1935. “Professor Hayek and the Theory of Investment,” Economic Journal, 45, 03, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, Frank. 1951. The Economic Organization, Augustus M. Kelley, New York.Google Scholar
Lachmann, L. M. 1956. Capital and Its Structure, Bell, London.Google Scholar
Leijonhufvud, Axel. 1968. On Keynesian Economics and the Economics of Keynes, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Leijonhufvud, Axel. 1981. Information and Coordination, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Malthus, Thomas R. 1836. Principles of Political Economy, 2d ed., Augustus M. Kelley, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred. 1920. Principles of Economics, 8th ed.; reprint, Porcupine Press, Philadelphia, 1990.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. 1965. Collected Works, edited by Robson, J. M., Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. 1934. The Theory of Money and Credit, translated by Batson, H. E., Jonathan Cape, London.Google Scholar
Mises, Ludwig von. 1949. Human Action, Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Pigou, Arthur C. 1927. Industrial Fluctuations, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
Ricardo, David. 1951. Works and Correspondence, edited by Piero, Sraffa, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rima, Ingrid H. 1986. Development of Economic Analysis, 4th ed., Irwin, Homewood.Google Scholar
Robertson, Dennis H. 1966. Essays in Money and Interest, Collins, Manchester.Google Scholar
Salerno, Joseph T. 1989. “Comment on Tullock's ‘Why Austrians Are Wrong About Depressions,’” in The Review of Austrian Economics, 3, Lexington Books, Lexington.Google Scholar
Screpanti, Ernesto and Stefano, Zamagni. 1995. An Outline of the History of Economic Thought, translated by David, Field, Clarendon Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam. 1776. The Wealth of Nations, edited by Edwin, Cannan, 2 vols., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1988. “Why the Austrians Are Wrong about Depressions,” in The Review of Austrian Economics 2, Lexington Books, Lexington.Google Scholar
Tullock, Gordon. 1989. “Reply to Comment by Joseph T. Salerno,” in Review of Austrian Economics 3, Lexington Books, Lexington.Google Scholar
Wicksell, Knut. 1934. Lectures on Political Economy, translated by Classen, E., Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar