In a lengthy interview economist Peter Boettke explains his views on the future of Austrian economics and what he is doing form his position as a university faculty member to advance the academic conversation around the Mises-Hayek tradition. It is my view that any social-intellectual change movement can and should use a variety of strategies. One single strategy is risky because some strategies may fail; others tactics may work better in combination than alone. The decision by an individual to pursue one strategy in their activism does not necessarily invalidate other competing approaches. Working through the academic world is one strategy, and clearly the one that Boettke is called to pursue. In the same interview Boettke says that he is “myopically focused on the academic conversation.”
But what about other angles, such as advancing Austrian thought through the private sector? The Mises Institute, while it works with both academics and non-academics, was founded by a non-doctoral economist and their current president does not have a doctoral degree in the field. The Mises Institute sells books and holds conferences aimed at both academics and non-academics. Many people who do not have and are not pursuing a Ph.D. visit the Mises.org web site, buy their books, and read the articles. Is it, then, a sound approach for the Austrian intellectual movement to have both academic and non-academic movements? Boettke explains that the self-taught Austrians should not have opinions on Austrian economics, other than of a general nature:
Daily Bell: You have said you are relentlessly focused on academic publication. Are you worried about taking Austrian economics out of the realm of the amateur? Isn’t the appeal of Austrian economics that anyone can understand it?
Peter Boettke: I am not worried about that. First, Austrian economics will continue to be valued by amateurs despite whatever I do as a professional economist. Second, I actually don’t think anyone can understand it anymore than anyone can understand the fine points of neuroscience. I do think we can brush with broad strokes and the public can understand, but the problem with many of the autodidacts that I have met in Austrian economics is that they are not content to brush with broad strokes but take very specific positions on very technical issues. This is a mistake. But I am not going to correct it. All I can do is do follow my comparative advantage – which is being a teacher and a research scholar in economics.
I can’t say for sure how Boettke would answer my question, but since he is myopically focused on academia, he must believe that approach is valuable. If non-academics cannot really understand Austrian economics without adult supervision, then it would be hard to see how a non-academic movement could get very far. It is also possible that we are not both part of the same movement. Maybe Boettke’s endpoint is the acceptance or integration of Austrian Economics into university economics departments. Suppose that we got there...then would the world look much different than it does now?
