Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Austrian Economics, Neoclassical Economics, Marketing, and FinanceTags Monopoly and Competition
Volume 5, No. 2 (Summer 2002)
Austrianism is far more receptive to business and private enterprise than Marxism, and it certainly exceeds neoclassical economics in this regard. In terms of the phenomenon with which we have been concerned—the assumption of full information—Austrianism is far superior to mainstream economics. For one thing, the concept of perfect competition is entirely absent from it, indeed, alien to it. Praxeologists have specifically criticized the distinction between perfect and imperfect competition. For another, Austrians have written supportively and analytically about advertising, marketing, entrepreneurship, and a whole host of concepts integral to a proper business-school education.
A more moderate suggestion would be not to replace all neoclassical economists in business schools with Austrians, but instead to adopt an “affirmative action” program with regard to the latter. In this way, at least there would be some increased representation in our nation’s business colleges of a school of thought that is conducive to their overall mission. Finally, because the model is so unrealistic, both economists and the discipline of economics lose credibility with businessmen and the public. It seems, then, that taking into account these problems, as well as those of unrealistic assumptions and a harmful standard, the costs far outweigh any benefits to be had from the perfect competition model that could not be had from supply-and-demand analysis without the detritus of the perfect-competition assumptions.
Cite This Article
Block, Walter and William Barnett II, and Stuart Wood. "Austrian Economics, Neoclassical Economics, Marketing, and Finance." The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 5, NO. 2 (Summer 2002): 51–66.