芝加哥学派vs奥地利学派汇总

加哥学派对奥地利学派

??4fun?? 2011-07-01? 3126

简介

芝加哥学派和奥地利学派都是自由主义的信奉者，但两者在方法论、关于繁荣和萧条的解释以及法律都存在差别。

People often ask me, \are the Austrians different from the Chicago School economists? Aren't you all free-market guys who oppose big-government Keynesians?\

人们经常问我，为什么奥地利学派和芝加哥学派的经济学者差别这么大呢？你们不都是反对大政府凯恩斯主义的自由市场派吗？

In the present article I'll outline some of the main differences. Although it's true that Austrians agree with Chicago economists on many policy issues, nevertheless their approach to economic science can be quite different. It's important to occasionally explain these differences, if only to rebut the common complaint that Austrian economics is simply a religion serving to justify libertarian policy conclusions.

在本文中，我将列举出一些两者的不同之处，虽然事实上奥地利学派也同意芝加哥学派学者提出的许多政治主张，但是两者的经济学分析方法是很不一样的。我们有必要常常去澄清这种区别，否则就难以还击那些认为“奥地利经济学派只是为了证明自由主义政策主张正确的教条主义”的观点。

Before jumping in, let me give a few obvious disclaimers: I do not speak for all Austrian economists, and in this article I will be discussing modern Austrian followers in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. (On methodology in particular, the Austrians in the

Rothbardian camp differ somewhat from those who look more to Friedrich Hayek and Israel Kirzner for inspiration.) It's also important to note that not every Chicago School economist thinks alike. Even so, I hope the following generalizations are representative.

在深入讨论之前，我觉得有几点是必须澄清的：我这里所说的不是所有的奥地利学派的经济学家，在这里我只讨论路德维希冯米塞斯和穆瑞·罗斯巴德一派的观点。（对于方法论而言，罗斯巴德一派的经济学者与哈耶克和伊斯雷尔·M.柯兹纳一派的学者迥然不同。）同样，我们也应该注意到芝加哥学派的经济学家的思

考也存在着差异性。即使这样，我也希望下面的归纳是具有一定代表性的。 Methodology 方法论

The Austrians are oddballs among professional economists for their focus on methodological issues in the first place. Indeed, Mises's magnum opus, Human Action, devotes the entire second chapter (41 pages) to \Problems of the Sciences of Human Action.\There was no such treatment in the last Freakonomics book.

奥地利学派很奇怪地首先从关注方法论开始。事实上，米赛斯的巨著《人类行为》花了整整第二章节（41页）的篇幅来讲“对人类行为的科学的认识论问题”。没有其他经济学书籍会这么处理。

Although most economists in the 20th century and our time would disagree strongly, Mises insisted that economic theory itself was an a priori discipline. What he meant is that economists shouldn't ape the methods of physicists by coming up with hypotheses and subjecting them to empirical tests. On the contrary, Mises thought that the core body

of economic theory could be logically deduced from the axiom of \that there are other conscious beings using their reason to achieve subjective goals. (For more on Mises's methodological views, see this and this.)

虽然在20世纪和现在，大部分经济学家会强烈地不同意米赛斯所坚持的经济学理论本身就是先验的这一观点。但他的意思是说，经济学家不应该去模仿物理学的方法，通过前期猜想和后期实验来得出结论。恰恰相反，米赛斯认为经济学理论的核心应该是基于“人类行为”这一逻辑推理，比如人们有足够的洞察力使得其他理性的人们会基于相同理由来达到主观目标。（想了解更多关于米赛斯的方法论观点，请点击这里和这里。） In contrast, the seminal Chicago School article on methodology is Milton Friedman's 1953 \Methodology of Positive Economics.\Far from deriving economic principles or laws that are necessarily true (as Mises suggests), Friedman instead advocates the development of models with false assumptions. These false premises are no strike against a good theory, however:

相比之下，芝加哥学派关于方法论的影响较大的著作是米尔顿·弗里德曼在1953年出版的《实证经济学的方法论》（The

Methodology of Positive Economics）。就像米赛斯所指出的那样，弗里德曼抛弃了经济学原理和法则必须源自真实这一要求，倡导建立在不真实的假设上的模型。这些不真实的前提不一定对一个好的理论产生什么影响，但是：

The relevant question to ask about the \theory is not whether they are descriptively \for they never are, but whether they are sufficiently good approximations for the purpose in hand. And this question can be answered only by seeing whether the theory works, which means whether it yields sufficiently accurate predictions.

当我们质疑这一假设的理论正确与否时时，我们既不能说他是解释了现实世界——事实上也不可能，也不能说他已经足够地接近预期的目标。这个问题可能只能通过观察这个理论是否管用，即是否能使预期实现。

Although Friedman's analysis sounds perfectly reasonable, and the epitome of \seductive trap for economists. For a quick illustration of the difference in perspectives, let me relay an example from my teaching experience.

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/kvz2.html