"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