Mark Blaug

“Why did his interest in the concept of spontaneous order and the history of the doctrine of unintended social consequences undergo very little development after the 1960s? All of his political writings are in fact amazingly repetitious, exploring a small number of big themes which, however, are not further refined or extended in new contexts. As organizing concepts, they held, I am convinced, enormous potentialities but nevertheless Hayek himself failed to realize them.”

“Hayek's career raises many puzzles and sometimes takes on the appearance of an endless trail of unresolved or only partly resolved issues.”

“There were many Hayeks: Hayek, the political scientist; Hayek, the economist; Hayek, the philosopher of social science; Hayek, the psychologist. Even in these different roles, he played many parts.”

“Modern Austrian economists go so far as to suggest that the Walrasian approach to the problem of multimarket equilibrium is a cul de sac: if we want to understand the process of competition, rather than the equilibrium end-state achieved by competition, we must begin by discarding such static reasoning as is implied by Walrasian GE theory. I have come slowly and extremely reluctantly to the view that they are right and that we have all been wrong.”

“Despite entries on socialism, socialist economics and market socialism, and biographical entries on Oskar Lange and Ludwig von Mises, the Socialist Calculation Debate, so crucial in the revival of general equilibrium theory and the rise of modern welfare economics in the 1930s, is nowhere discussed at length in The New Palgrave.”

“Nothing is more difficult than to turn and entire discipline around, asking itself to jettison its own history over the last 200 years.”

“Cambridge theories of value and distribution themselves suffer from the very malady which they hope to cure: rhetoric apart, they are deeply infected by static, equilibrium analysis of maximizing economic agents, acting with full information in a world of perfect certainty, as in the orthodoxy they deplore. … If there is something wrong with neo-classical economics – as there may well be – the Cambridge theories share all of its weaknesses and practically none of its strengths.”