ABSTRACT

Mainstream economics has been accused of excessive mathematization, whereas the rejection of mathematical and other formal methods is often cited as a crucial trait of Austrian economics. Based on a systematic discussion of potential benefits and drawbacks of formalization, this paper corroborates legitimate concerns that predominant types of mathematization induce a shift of attention away from the key concepts of Austrian economics. Taking this shift to the extreme, predominant modes of mathematization tend to accompany a detachment from ‘reality’ incompatible with Austrian pleas for realisticness. Contrary to popular prejudice however, the most prominent representatives of the Austrian School including Carl Menger, Ludwig Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Israel Kirzner, and Peter Boettke neither provide a justification for a wholesale rejection of formalization nor actually reject it. Adequate formalization can serve as a remedy for lacking logical and semantic rigor in standard mathematical economics as well as in murky verbal chains of reasoning.

摘要

主流经济学被指责过度数学化，而对数学和其他形式方法的拒绝常常被认为是奥地利学派经济学的一个关键特征。基于对形式化的潜在好处和缺点的系统讨论，本文证实了人们的合理担忧，即主要类型的数学化导致人们的注意力从奥派经济学的关键概念上转移。将这种转变推向极端，数学化的主要模式往往伴随着与“现实”的脱离，这与奥地利学派对现实性的诉求不相容。然而，与普遍的偏见相反，奥地利学派最杰出的代表包括卡尔·门格尔、路德维希·米塞斯、弗里德里希·哈耶克、伊斯雷尔·柯兹纳、彼得·博特克（Peter Boettke）既没有为全面拒绝形式化提供理由，也没有真正拒绝它。充分的形式化可以作为标准数理经济学以及模糊的语言推理链中缺乏逻辑和语义严谨性的补救措施。