Lachmann’s Influence

Modern disciples of Mises and Rothbard are usually easy to recognize. They are almost all free-market or anarchist economists working within the Austrian school. Although their beliefs on economics, morality, and politics vary, one would be hard-pressed to find a socialist Rothbardian. On the other hand, Lachmann’s influence is diffuse. Although there are few self-proclaimed Lachmannians, his influence can be discerned in a number of varied economic camps, ranging from the Austrians to the Post-Keynesians to Critical Realist and Hermeneutical economics.

Why do so many different groups appropriate his ideas? I think that part of the reason was the lack of political prescriptions in most of his work (although his master’s thesis and Capital and its Structure both contain policy advice, which I will discuss in another post). This made his work more digestible to a number of heterodox schools. In addition, his ideas about uncertainty and equilibrium were seen as meshing well with Post-Keynesian critiques of neoclassical economics and capitalism in general. However, Lachmann himself, although probably not a classical liberal, was certainly not anti-capitalist. On the whole, when one takes into account his economic theory and methodology, particularly his capital theory and Weberian institutionalism, it is impossible to see how he can be taken as anti-capitalist or Keynesian.

As a side note, I will begin blogging the book as soon as I receive it.