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

3MISES AND LACHMANNON HUMAN ACTIONStephen D.ParsonsIn his book on Weber, Lachmann sets out a framework forinvestigating human action, which he retained in his final works(e.g. Lachmann 1990). Lachmann’s analysis is interesting for anumber of reasons. First, from the perspective of the history ofAustrian economics, Lachmann must have been aware of the extentto which his approach would be controversial. Lachmann claims to‘carry forward Weber’s ideas in the circumstances of today’(Lachmann 1971:1), although recognising that Weber, as a studentof Schmoller, ‘remained very much the heir of the German HistoricalSchool all his life’ (ibid.: 17). This, of course, was the very schoolthat Menger had subjected to a rather vitriolic attack. Further, Weberwas a friend of, and influenced by, Rickert, whom Mises had similarlyaccused of being ‘bound to historicism’ (Mises 1981:5). 1 There thusarises the suspicion that, in drawing his analysis of human actionfrom the one provided by Weber, Lachmann may be adopting aperspective that earlier Austrians had specifically rejected.Second, although Lachmann’s analysis was published in 1971, itanticipates, in significant ways, some of the arguments recentlyadvanced in the philosophy of action (e.g. Bratman 1987). Third,once this perspective on Lachmann’s argument is appreciated, hisanalysis can be read as an implicit critique of the rational choicetheory that underpins conventional neoclassical economics. 2Fourth, given the above, it is somewhat surprising that Lachmann’sanalysis appears not to have been taken up by economistssympathetic to the Austrian tradition. 3It will be argued that Lachmann’s theory of human action, ratherthan signifying some betrayal of the Austrian tradition, can be31