Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access published online on February 7, 2005
Cambridge Journal of Economics, doi:10.1093/cje/bei021
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. A disequilibrium between saving and investment decisions determines a maladjustment in production, the disruption of capital, and a downturn in economic activity, according to the Austrian approach. By contrast, the Dynamists argue that it may lead to economic growth, as disequilibrium may well be instrumental to capital accumulation. What explains these different predictions in otherwise similar models? The key is in the interplay between the analytical features and the ideological options underlying each of these approaches: alternative lines of thought, entirely compatible with their analytical models, were abandoned by some of these authors when they conflicted with their pre-analytical views. This paper illustrates the argument by exploring the models of two fathers, von Mises and Robertson.
Received January 15, 2004
Article
Money, cycles and capital formation: von Mises the Austrian vs. Robertson the Dynamist
Lilia Costabile, E-mail: costabil{at}unina.it
![]()
Abstract ![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?