芝加哥学派vs奥地利学派

加哥学派对奥地利学派

4fun 2011-07-01ν 3126

简介

芝加哥学派和奥地利学派都是自由主义的信奉者，但两者在方法论、关于繁荣和萧条的解释以及法律都存在差别。

People often ask me, "How are the Austrians different from the Chicago School economists? Aren't you all free-market guys who oppose big-government Keynesians?"

人们经常问我，为什么奥地利学派和芝加哥学派的经济学者差别这么大呢？你们不都是反对大政府凯恩斯主义的自由市场派

吗？

In the present article I'll outline some of the main differences. Although it's true that Austrians agree with Chicago economists on many policy issues, nevertheless their approach to economic science can be quite different. It's important to occasionally explain these differences, if only to rebut the common complaint that Austrian economics is simply a religion serving to justify libertarian policy conclusions.

在本文中，我将列举出一些两者的不同之处，虽然事实上奥地利学派也同意芝加哥学派学者提出的许多政治主张，但是两者的经济学分析方法是很不一样的。我们有必要常常去澄清这种区别，否则就难以还击那些认为“奥地利经济学派只是为了证明自由主义政策主张正确的教条主义”的观点。

Before jumping in, let me give a few obvious disclaimers: I do not speak for all Austrian economists, and in this article I will be discussing modern Austrian followers in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. (On methodology in particular, the Austrians in the Rothbardian camp differ somewhat from those who look more to Friedrich Hayek and Israel Kirzner for inspiration.) It's also important to note that not every Chicago School economist thinks alike. Even so, I hope the following generalizations are representative.

在深入讨论之前，我觉得有几点是必须澄清的：我这里所说的不是所有的奥地利学派的经济学家，在这里我只讨论路德维希冯米塞斯和穆瑞·罗斯巴德一派的观点。（对于方法论而言，罗斯巴德一派的经济学者与哈耶克和伊斯雷尔·M.柯兹纳一派的学者迥然不同。）同样，我们也应该注意到芝加哥学派的经济学家的思

考也存在着差异性。即使这样，我也希望下面的归纳是具有一定代表性的。

Methodology

方法论

The Austrians are oddballs among professional economists for their focus on methodological issues in the first place. Indeed, Mises's magnum opus, Human Action, devotes the entire second chapter (41 pages) to "The Epistemological Problems of the Sciences of Human Action." There was no such treatment in the last Freakonomics book.

奥地利学派很奇怪地首先从关注方法论开始。事实上，米赛斯的巨著《人类行为》花了整整第二章节（41页）的篇幅来讲“对

人类行为的科学的认识论问题”。没有其他经济学书籍会这么处理。

Although most economists in the 20th century and our time would disagree strongly, Mises insisted that economic theory itself was an a priori discipline. What he meant is that economists shouldn't ape the methods of physicists by coming up with hypotheses and subjecting them to empirical tests. On the contrary, Mises thought that the core body

of economic theory could be logically deduced from the axiom of "human action," i.e., the insight or viewpoint that there are other conscious beings using their reason to achieve subjective goals. (For more on Mises's methodological views, see this and this.)

虽然在20世纪和现在，大部分经济学家会强烈地不同意米赛斯所坚持的经济学理论本身就是先验的这一观点。但他的意思是说，经济学家不应该去模仿物理学的方法，通过前期猜想和后期实验来得出结论。恰恰相反，米赛斯认为经济学理论的核心应该是基于“人类行为”这一逻辑推理，比如人们有足够的洞察力使得其他理性的人们会基于相同理由来达到主观目标。（想了解更多关于米赛斯的方法论观点，请点击这里和这里。）

In contrast, the seminal Chicago School article on methodology is Milton Friedman's 1953 "The Methodology of Positive Economics." Far from deriving economic principles or laws that are necessarily true (as Mises suggests), Friedman instead advocates the development of models with false assumptions. These false premises are no strike against a good theory, however:

相比之下，芝加哥学派关于方法论的影响较大的著作是米尔顿·弗里德曼在1953年出版的《实证经济学的方法论》（The

Methodology of Positive Economics）。就像米赛斯所指出的那样，弗里德曼抛弃了经济学原理和法则必须源自真实这一要求，倡导建立在不真实的假设上的模型。这些不真实的前提不一定对一个好的理论产生什么影响，但是：

The relevant question to ask about the "assumptions" of a theory is not whether they are descriptively "realistic," for they never are, but whether they are sufficiently good approximations for the purpose in hand. And this question can be answered only by seeing whether the theory works, which means whether it yields sufficiently accurate predictions.

当我们质疑这一假设的理论正确与否时时，我们既不能说他是解释了现实世界——事实上也不可能，也不能说他已经足够地接近预期的目标。这个问题可能只能通过观察这个理论是否管用，即是否能使预期实现。

Although Friedman's analysis sounds perfectly reasonable, and the epitome of "scientific," Mises thought it was a seductive trap for economists. For a quick illustration of the difference in perspectives, let me relay an example from my teaching experience.

虽然弗里德曼的分析听上去是非常合理的，但米赛斯认为所谓的“科学性”不过是给经济学家设置的一个陷阱罢了。为了让大家通过一个简单的示例看清楚两者的区别，我将介绍一个来自我教学经验的例子。

It was a principles of microeconomics class, and we were using the (excellent) textbook by Gwartney, Stroup, et al. In the first chapter they have a list of several guideposts or principles of the economic way of thinking. As I recall, these are items such as, "People respond to incentives," and "There are always tradeoffs." These were noncontroversial things that every economist would agree were important for getting undergrads to "think like an economist."

有一次在上微观经济学概要的课程，我们正使用格沃特尼、斯特鲁普等人的优秀教材。在第一节，他们列出了一些控制指标或者经济学思考原则，据我回忆，比如说“人们会对诱因反应”，或者“他们常常是经过权衡的”，这些是没有争议的，每个经济学家都认为，而且对于训练大学生像经济学家一样思考也很重要。However, the one guidepost that stuck out like a sore thumb announced, "To be scientific, an economic theory must make testable predictions." I explained to the class that even

though this was a popular view among professional economists, it was not one that I shared. I explained that everything we would learn the entire semester from the Gwartney et al. textbook would not yield testable predictions. On the contrary, I would simply teach them a framework with which they could interpret the world. The students would have to decide whether the framework was useful, but ultimately their decision wouldn't boil down to, "Did these tools of supply and demand make good predictions?"

但是，一个路标就像受伤的拇指一样站出来宣布，“要具备科学性，一个经济学理论就必须经过实验证明”。我跟课堂上的同学解释，即使这是在专业的经济学家之间一个比较流行的观点，我也不打算跟他们分享。我解释说，我们在整个整个学期里从格沃特尼等人编写的教材里学到的内容不一定是可以用来实验证明的。相反，我可以简单的教给他们解释世界所需要的架构。学生们于是不得不决定这一构架是有用的，还是最后归结于“这些供求关系的工具是否能制造一个好的预言。”

After I went through my spiel, one of the students made the excellent observation that not a single one of the other guideposts was a testable prediction. He was right! For

example, how could someone test the claim that, "People respond to incentives"? I could say to a person, "I'll give you $20 if you cut off your big toe." Regardless of what happens, my claim is safe and secure. If the person doesn't cut off his big toe, it just shows that I didn't offer him a big enough incentive.

当我滔滔不绝的讲完后，一个学生发现并不是所有的控制指标都是可以经过实验证明的。他是对的。比方说，人们怎么测试“人们会对诱因产生反应”正确与否？我可以和一个人说，“你砍掉你的大脚趾我就给你20美元。”不管会发生什么，我的主张都是安全的、保险的。如果那人没有砍掉他的大脚趾，只是证明我美元给他足够大的诱因罢了。

This is not mere philosophical grandstanding. Mises stressed that the important heritage of sound economic thought is not a collection of empirically tested claims about the behavior of economic variables. Rather, economic theory is an internally coherent framework for interpreting "the data" in the first place.

这不仅仅是哲学上的巧辩。米赛斯强调良好的经济思想的重要遗产不是以经验为主的对经济变量的行为实证检验声明的集合。在

一定程度上，经济学理论首先是源自内心的用于解释“数据”逻辑架构

It's true that certain applications of economics involve historical evidence — such as investigating whether the Federal Reserve played an important role in the housing bubble — but this is a far cry from the typical mainstream economist's justification for mathematical model building.

的确，某些应用经济学涉及到了历史证据——如调查美联储是否在房地产泡沫中发挥了重要作用——但这已经远离典型的主流

经济学家为建立数学模型辩解的理由。

Booms and Busts

繁荣与萧条

Another major divergence between the Austrian and Chicago Schools is their explanation for booms and their policy prescriptions for busts. The readers of this article are likely familiar with the Austrian view, so I will omit another discussion.

奥地利学派和芝加哥学派的另一大区别就是关于繁荣的解释以

及针对萧条的政策。这篇文章的读者可能已经非常了解奥地利学派的观点，所以我将省略掉这部分的讨论。

Chicago School economists obviously have nuanced views, but generally speaking they subscribe to the "efficient markets hypothesis." In its strongest form, the EMH denies that there could even be such a thing as the housing bubble (see here and here). Given their assumptions of rational actors and markets that quickly clear, and given that they lack a sophisticated theory of the capital structure of the economy, the Chicago School economists are forced to explain recessions as an "equilibrium" outcome due to sudden "shocks."

虽然芝加哥学派的经济学者有明显的细微的差别，但是总体而言他们都同意“有效市场假说”（efficient markets hypothesis，简称“EMH”——译者注）。在其最强大的表现形式下，有效市场假说甚至否认存在房地产泡沫这件事。（参见这里和这里）由于他们关于理性的经济人和市场是非常清楚的，同时他们缺乏成熟的经济资本结构理论，芝加哥学派的经济学者只能被迫解释经济衰退就像是一个因突发的冲击而造成的平衡结果。

Historically they didn't consider the distortions caused by below-market interest rates (which of course are the key ingredient in the Austrian theory of the business cycle). However, recently more and more Chicago School critics of the Fed have been pointing out the dangers of Ben Bernanke's zero-interest rate policy.

他们并没有从历史上来考虑低于市场利率所造成的扭曲，而这点是奥地利商业周期理论的关键组成部分。但是，最近越来越多的芝加哥学派关于美联储的批评中已经指出了伯南克的零利率政

策的危险。

Ironically, the policy area where the Austrians and the Chicago School differ most is in regards to money, the issue in which Milton Friedman specialized. Friedman (and coauthor Anna Schwartz) famously faulted the Federal Reserve for not printing enough new money in the early 1930s to offset the decline fueled by bank runs. In our time, some Chicago-trained economists — who justifiably point to Milton Friedman himself for vindication — blame the crisis in the fall of 2008 on Bernanke's "tight-money" policies. Naturally, these views are anathema to modern

Austrians in the tradition of Murray Rothbard, who think the central bank should be abolished.

讽刺的是，奥地利学派和芝加哥学派在政策领域最大的不同机种在对货币的认识上，而这恰恰是弗里德曼所擅长的。弗里德曼以及其合作者安娜·施瓦茨最著名的失误就是在二十世纪三是年代要求美联储不要印刷足够的新货币已抵消掉银行运行不足的影响。在我们那个年代，一些芝加哥大学训练出来的经济学家无可非议的指出弗里德曼的问题，指责2008年秋发生的经济危机是由于伯南克的货币紧缩政策。事实上，这些观点是对罗斯巴德一派的现代奥地利学派的诅咒，因为奥地利学派认为中央银行必须取消。

Law and Economics

法与经济学

Finally, most modern members of the Austrian and Chicago Schools have vastly different ideas when it comes to the field known as "Law and Economics." Whether based in natural law or the traditional inheritance from the common law, Austrians tend to think that people objectively have property rights, full stop, and once we specify these rights the economic analysis can begin. In contrast, some

of the more extreme applications of what could be called "the Chicago approach" would say that the assignment of property rights themselves should be determined on the grounds of economic efficiency. (In Walter Block's reductio ad absurdum, a judge decides if a man has stolen a woman's purse by asking how much each party would be willing to pay for it.)

最后，当涉及到“法与经济学”这一领域时，奥地利学派和芝加哥学派的成员有着极大差别的想法。无论是建立在自然法还是继承普通法的传统，奥地利学派倾向于认为人们客观地拥有财产权利，就是这样，一旦我们指定了这些权利经济学分析就可以开始了。相反的，一些极端的被称为“芝加哥方法”的经济学应用会说，财产权的分配必应该是以经济效率为理由来决定。在沃尔特·布洛克的反证法中，一位法官决定一个男人是不是偷了一个女人的钱包，必须通过询问双方愿意出多少钱来买它。

This is a particularly subtle area that I cannot adequately summarize in this article. Suffice it to say, Austrians and Chicago School economists alike can appreciate the amazing insights — and challenge to the standard Pigovian critique of the market — contained in Ronald Coase's famous article. However, the Chicago School tradition has

taken Coase's work to conclusions that many (perhaps most) modern Austrians find repellant.

这是一个特别微妙的领域，以致我不足以在本文中概述清楚。能够说的是，奥地利学派和芝加哥学派经济学者同样都能欣赏这种令人诧异的洞察力——对标准的庇古市场批判的挑战——科斯

著名的理论也在其中。但是芝加哥学派传统将科斯的理论作为大部分奥地利学派找到了防护剂的结论。

Conclusion

结论

On typical issues such as the minimum wage, tariffs, or government stimulus spending, Austrian and Chicago School economists can safely be lumped together as "free market." However, on many other areas — particularly issues of pure economic theory — the two schools are entirely different. As a self-described Austrian economist, I would encourage free-market fans who only know Friedman to add Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard to their reading lists.

在像最低工资、关税制度以及政府刺激消费等问题上，奥地利学派和芝加哥学派的经济学家可以像“自由市场”一样安然地共处。

但是，在其他不少领域，特别是纯经济理论，两者有着完全的不同。就像奥地利学派经济学者自我描述的那样，我弗里德曼以及其合作者安娜·施瓦茨最著名的失误就是在二十世纪三是年代要求美联储不要印刷足够的新货币已抵消掉银行运行不足的影响。===========================================

不是佛里德曼和施瓦茨“失误”，应该是“指出错误”：“……其合作者安娜·施瓦茨最著名的，是指出二十世纪三十年代美联储未曾印刷足够的新货币以抵消掉银行运行不足的影响的错误”鼓励只知道弗里德曼的自由市场粉丝在他们的书单上增加米塞斯和罗斯巴德。

以下是二者之间的相同点：

1. 两大阵营都主张私有权不可侵犯，都认为私有产权是交易，正义和社会进步的基础。

2.二者都保卫自由资本主义，坚信斯密“看不见的手”的定律，认为个人幸福最大化和社会福利最大化来自于个人激励行为，相信自由与秩序最终是和谐的。

3.二者都支持自由贸易，自由移民政策和全球化

4.二者都赞同开放资本市场，消费产品市场，劳动力市场和货币市场。

5.二者都反对对汇率，价格，租金，工资的控制，包括反对最低工资法。

6.二者一般都相信有限政府的意义，主张把政府职能限定于保卫国家，私人财产，有选择的公共事务。

7.二者都赞成私有化，非国有化和放松管制

8.二者都反对企业福利主义和特权。

9.二者都反对中央计划经济和集权主义

10.二者都相信贫困可以消除，并认为自然不平等是不可避免的。他们都保卫所有个人(无论是富人还是穷人）的权利，即保卫所以个人拥有财产，使用财产和交换自己财产的权利（假定这些财产都是通过公正手段获得的)

11.二者都反对凯恩斯主义和马克思主义的干预思想。

12.二者都反对赤字财政，累进制税收和国家福利，主张社会保险和医疗保险的市场化取向。

13.二者都主张通过市场和产权方法解决污染和其他环境问题，通常认为环保主义者过度夸大了环境危机。

（不难明白美国为什么就是不承认我们的市场经济地位，为什么我把A股资本市场称之为非典型复杂适应系统）

有以下四大方面的不同点

第一，方法论上的区别。奥地利学派以路德维希。冯。米塞斯的著作为圭臬，在经济分析中主张演绎的，主观的，定性的和市场运行过程中的分析方法。芝加哥学派以米尔顿。弗里德曼的著作

为圭臬，主张历史的，定量的和均衡的分析方法。弗里德曼和他的追随者主张理论需要得到经验的检验，如果经验的结果于理论相矛盾，那么就要抛弃理论或修改理论。米塞斯反对这种历史方法，主张极端的演绎之推论。按照米塞斯和他的继承者穆瑞。罗斯伯德以及伊斯雷尔。柯兹纳的观点，经济学应当建立在“不言而喻的公理”的基础上，历史（经验数据）不可能对理论进行证实或证伪。尽管对理论怀有某种疑问，但经验数据充其量只能用来说明这种疑问。

第二，关于市场经济中政府恰当作用观点的区别。如何界定市场经济中的外部性问题，公共物品问题，垄断问题，不完全竞争问题和宏观经济不稳定的广度与深度的问题？政府在多大的程度上具有控制“市场失效”的必要性?奥地利学派一贯坚持自由放任政策，而芝加哥学派从长期来看发生了相应的调整与变化（有人说,两大学派都是“反 ZF主义的”，但是，奥地利学派更加显现了它的“反 ZF主义的”）借助强大的竞争参与者的力量，亚当。斯密的自然自由秩序足以打破垄断，还是针对垄断问题，政府必须实施反垄断法呢？奥地利学派一直主张自然主义和不干涉主义。相反，以亨利，西蒙斯为代表的第一代芝加哥学派明显持干预主义观点，他们主张通过干预，打破大公司垄断和其他形式的垄断。以乔治。斯蒂格勒为代表的第二代芝加哥学派最

初支持西蒙斯的干预主义，但是，最终改弦更张，赞成斯密的信仰，主张依靠竞争的力量和不干预主义。

第三，关于健全通货观的区别。什么是最理想的货币本位？两大学派都赞成稳定的货币体系，但是，他们在如何建立一个稳定的货币体系问题上存在着明显的歧见。绝大多数奥地利学派的学者倾向于金本位，或更普遍的形式即市场自发创造的自然形成的商品本位。有些奥地利学派的学者走的更远，主张实行政府监督最小化自由银行制度，建立私人银行自由发行货币，开立账户，提供信贷服务的竞争体系。相反，芝加哥学派反对金本位，主张信用货币体系，主张货币供给按照固定比率或中性比率（货币主义法则）增长。二者均主张，对活期存款设定100% 的准备金是最理想的稳定机制。即使关于这点也有不同。所不同的是，奥地利学派主张用黄金或其他适当的商品作为准备金，而芝加哥学派主张用法定货币

第四，在商业周期，资本理论和宏观经济方面的区别。奥地利学派的代表人物米塞斯，哈耶克创立了奥地利学派的商业周期理论，认为法定货币供给的扩张和人为降低利率会导致不可持续的，不稳定的繁荣，最终必将导致经济崩溃。弗里德曼和他的同僚对于米塞斯-哈耶克商业周期理论的诸多方面都持反对观点，他们主张货币总量模型。芝加哥学派的学者们赞成哈耶克在他的

著作《通往奴役之路》和《自由宪章》中提出的政治理论，但反对他的资本理论和奥地利学派的宏观经济学。

弗里德曼认为，于经济平均增长率相一致货币供给的稳定增长能够为经济提供可持续非通胀环境。但是，奥地利学派的学者并不同意这种观点，认为无论是处于怎样的水平，给定的通货膨胀不可能长期维持下去。许多奥地利学派的学者对芝加哥学派的“宏观经济学”和总量分析（如国民经济统计，价格指数）作为有效的分析工具的观点持怀疑态度。奥地利学派和芝加哥学派对于20世纪30年代大萧条的原因和拯救方案存在着争论，关于宏观经济模型构建中的适当总量水平存在歧见，常常关于凯恩斯，凯恩斯主义者，亚当，斯密，古典经济学家和其他经济学派也存在着不同的看法，他们甚至于就他们的目标以及对于学术界和公众应当达到的影响程度也存在着不同的见解。