"what exactly is the status of "Austrian economics" in the economics   
profession/discipline?", writes Sumitra.  
  
As a non-member of any community of Austrian scholars (there seem to be   
at least two or three of these), my answer to Sumitra is that Austrian   
economics has virtually no status in mainstream economics. This is   
partly because of the ideological bent of a large proportion of those   
who claim to be Austrians. It is also partly due to the fact that many   
are not good economists. But fundamentally it is due to the fact that,   
as in mainstream economics, it is not easy for "Austrian economists" to   
separate the wheat from the chaff. Real schools of thought, of the sort   
that existed in the 19th century or even midway through the twentieth   
century, have little prospect of developing today, it seems to me. The   
whole "profession" has become too "professional."  
  
Menger, Mises, Hayek, Kirzner, and Lachmann would have regarded   
themselves as economists. And that is all. The "revival" of Austrian   
economics, which is praised among modern "Austrians" and which began in   
1974, led to all sorts of strange results, partly because of the great   
extent to which writing about economics had become professionalized. The   
kinds of open forums that existed prior to World War II had narrowed   
their focus without the economists of the day having resolved    
fundamental disputes. The best examples of this during the 50s and 60s   
were the rise of Keynesian macroeconomics and of British (Marshallian)   
micro. It seems to me that the old fundamental problems were more or   
less forgotten. They were replaced by struggles of great minds to gain   
marginal advantages in a new economics profession based on the textbook   
divisions of economics into macro and micro that emerged in the 50s.   
Somehow, the textbook came to rule the profession. This left those who   
might have carried on the ideas of Mises and Hayek as non-players in the   
big game or, more correctly, games. So they created their own little   
games where they could be big fish in little ponds.  
  
Peter Boettke's list of successes seems lame to me. Hayek's work in   
economics more or less ended 6 decades ago. Occasionally, an Austrian   
has published in a major journal. And they have achieved some   
professional recognition at other-than-first tier institutions. This can   
certainly be regarded as professional success from within the Austrian   
ranks. But the thrust of Sumitra's question was different, it seems to   
me. Besides, there is the question of whether those who have achieved   
success are true followers of Menger, Mises and Hayek. Probably the best   
source on what Austrian Economics is is a now somewhat dated entry by   
Kirzner in the New Palgrave.  
  
Kirzner, Israel. (1987) "Austrian School of Economics." In J. Eatwell,   
M. Milgate, and P. Newman (ed.). The New Palgrave: a Dictionary of   
Economics. London: Macmillan: 145-51.  
  
Most Austrians do appear hostile to the mainstream. So do most HESers,   
it seems to me.  
  
  
Pat Gunning