Subjectivism and Economic Analysis: Essays in memory of Ludwig ...

CARLO ZAPPIAset of methodological options that does not necessarily entail a clearpositive analytic content).The answer provided by Vaughn in her attempt to give analyticcontent to her definition of the Austrian paradigm is that if Austrianeconomics is to be something different from mainstreameconomics—a fact that is seen as essential for the survival of aseparate tradition of economic thinking—then it must be foundedon a continuous effort to develop a radically subjectivist approach.Vaughn contends that many fundamental concepts of Austrianeconomics such as the market process and spontaneous order can beconsistently opposed to neoclassical equilibrium constructs only ifthey are based on an approach to individual choice which stressesnot only the subjectivity of agents’ preferences and decisions, butalso the subjectivity of knowledge and expectations. Lachmann’slegacy is thus central to the whole of Vaughn’s analysis, because ofthe way in which Lachmann forced the Austrians to deal withsubjectivism. In fact, the overall purpose of the book is to define amore comprehensive concept of ‘order’, which can take into accountboth Lachmann’s viewpoint and the traditional Austrian referenceto co-ordinated patterns of behaviour.In what follows I intend to argue that while one may agree withVaughn’s emphasis on the necessity of further developing thesubjectivism proper to the Austrian tradition, it might be arguedthat the way in which this methodological option is implemented isunconvincing, at least with respect to one central issue. I willmaintain that with respect to the analysis of economicinstitutionswhich Vaughn considers essential for the notion of ordershe suggests—some distinguished Austrian arguments are not onlycritical of the mainstream, but also inconclusive. This is mainlybecause these arguments are derived from an analysis of economicinstitutions, which is limited to the usual comparison betweendecentralised and centralised economies and devoid of appropriatereference to a number of interesting developments—generatedwithin the mainstream, even if critical of the standard account ofit—which try to deepen the understanding of the organisation ofexchanges in decentralised economies. To be specific, I will arguethat the Austrian attitude towards the mainstream sometimes showslittle knowledge of the relevance of certain recent developments fora number of distinctive Austrian themes. In order to provide thebackground for my argument, I will give a preliminary account ofthe relationship between the Austrian approach and themainstream, with specific regard to the question of how to deal with126