Austrian Economics is a viable research program in economics, that continuously struggles to find its footing in the mainstream departments, but is not completely absent from the mainstream. I, for example, have held faculty or research appointments at New York University, Stanford University, London School of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, Russian Academy of Sciences, and the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Rizzo is still teaching at NYU (a top 20 department) as is David Harper. And others are scattered across various PhD programs and elite undergraduate institutions. But Austrian economics also has a huge lay following and public policy following, which is an entirely different manner. Often individuals slide between these two worlds and that sometimes creates very unusual signals for those outside (including students) to read on what is Austrian economics actually about. And the Mises Institute has a huge internet presence and this also creates yet another signal to outsiders and students. Austrian economics is both orthodox and heterodox, which again makes it an unusual mix of ideas --- it is often orthodox in its emphasis on the invisible hand, but it is heterodox in the way it approaches the study of invisible hand explanations. On the issue of "acceptance" --- I just put this out as a conjecture subject to refutation, but I believe it to be the case that no other Nobel prize winning economist gets mentioned by other Nobel Prize winners more frequently in a positive way than Hayek. Consider Phelp's article in the WSJ the other day on "Dynamic Capitalism" --- who is the one figure he singles out who understood the dynamics of capitalism --- Hayek. This was true for Buchanan, Coase, North, and Vernon Smith as well, when they were awarded the Nobel Prize. Look at their Nobel Prize addresses, the discussions on their work right after they won, etc. Hayek was an inspiring figure to many who have gone on to make major contributions to contemporary economic science. Must be something about those ideas that he got from Menger and Mises --- or at least that is the hypotheis I would put forth. As for judging the Austrian School ... I think it is best to judge the best who practice within the tradition rather then the marginal players. Don't judge classic Austrian works by reading von Philippovich by by reading Menger, Wieser and Bohm-Bawerk. The internet sometimes confuses the signals on who is major contributor, but we tend to get it right when looking backwards --- we read Menger and not Phillipovich. Similarly, I wouldn't judge contemporary Austrians by reading marginal players, but by reading Mises, Hayek, Lachmann, and Kirzner. Rothbard is an interesting character because his best academic work is as good as anyone's, but he is also a very ideological writer. As was Mises. Mises and Rothbard have had a major influence on the modern Austrian movement in America --- they were the inspiring figures. But that movement was split in two --- those who picked up more or less the analytical project that had ideological implications, and those who picked up the ideological project that had analytical/methodological implications. I think if you look at the work of Mario Rizzo, Lawrence White, and Don Lavoie --- you will see individuals who picked up the analytical/methodological project and tried to make contributions to the economics profession --- the ideological side of their work is less pronounced. It is there no doubt, but it is not what is the lead punch. Rizzo teaches at NYU, White is the Hayek Professor at University of Missouri at St. Louis (after teaching at U of Georgia), and Lavoie was the Koch Professor at GMU before his untimely passing in 2001. Their articles are published in mainstream outlets (Journal of Legal Studies, Journal of Money Credit and Banking, AER, etc.) and their books are published by mainstream publishers (Cambridge University Press, University of Chicago Press, etc.). Robert Higgs, an economic historian heavily influenced by Austrian economics, taught for years at Univesity of Washington, and published papers in the Journal of Economic History and two books with Oxford University Press that our great contributions to economic history that reflect the interpretative power of the Austrian School --- Crisis and Leviathan, and Depression, War and Cold War. Roger Garrison (of Auburn) has contributed to the mainstream journals from the Austrian perspective on issues of money, business cycle, and fiscal policy. Tyler Cowen (of GMU) has been in the mainstream journals, published with Harvard and Princeton University Presses, and currently has the "Economic Perspectives" column with the NYT. Tyler grew up in the Austrian tradition and has contributed to it over the years --- if at an arms length --- but his work exhibits the deep influence of the Austrian school through and through. So the best practioners in the Austrian tradition have been able to contribute to the mainstream discourse on economic issues. Of course, for those of us who believe passionately in the insights and analytical approach of Menger, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard and Kirzner, the Austrian school has had less impact on the teaching of economics and research in economics than we would like to see. But there are Austrian textbooks and professors teaching in PhD programs, and researchers getting into journals regularly like the Journal of Law and Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, Journal of Economic History, Journal of Economic Organization and Behavior, Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, let alone the AER and JPE. (I haven't mentioned HOPE, or JHET, or RHET&M or EJHET because while these are the main outlets in history of thought, history of thought is not a mainstream field --- there are more thinkers interested in Austrian theorizing (e.g., Andrei Shleifer) at top tier sc hools than there are those who care about history of ideas in economics). But that reminds me --- Bruce Caldwell is the leading historian of the Austrian tradition and Bruce's work has been brilliant and placed in the highest outlets in our profession, AER, and JEL, etc. And of all the thinkers around, he understands these science wars because they played out so critically in Hayek's work. So a long winded reply to your question about the Austrian school. It is alive and well, and its practioners are constantly knocking on the door to be let in the mainstream economic conversation, a few have been let in, others get frustrated and either quick knocking or start knocking harder or unfortnately start screaming. To answer your question, you decide who to listen to. BTW, as for the youngest generation of Austrian economists and where they are able to place their work --- I suggest you check out Peter Leeson (www.peterleeson.com) and Chris Coyne (www.ccoyne.com). Pete's dissertation on the political economy of conflict and cooperation has led to two papers being published in Journal of Law and Economics and Journal of Legal Studies. Chris's dissertation work will be published as a book with Stanford University Press. These two guys are unapologetically Austrian, but just do solid work and tackle pressing questions in economics and political economy. Pete Boettke *I am currently visiting at the London School of Economics as the 2006 Hayek Fellow. This my second time as I was the 2004 Hayek Fellow as well. **I run the blog -- The Austrian Economists -- which tries to track the development of arguments in the Austrian tradition as they relate to trends in economic thinking and also contemporary policy disputes.