Two things. First, I will grant the incentive structures of intellectual discussions may not be the exact same as market incentives. However, the incentives are quite similar. Certainly, if there is a mass market failure occurring in the academic literature, there needs to be a more specific theory. Why is it that radical economists are compeltely snubbed by the academic market? The approximated institutions of the intellectual market ought to create some tendency towards efficeincy. Austrians have been shut out, not underrepresented, why? Is there some theory of how approximated property rights to research or the misinformation reputational prices can destroy a whole school of thought? The market analogy is very appealing otherwise.
Second, the Boulding article did not provide the thoery I am seeking. Are you referring to the article " The Misallocation of Intellectual Resources"? JC ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 12:58 PM Subject: Re: Austrians and markets > The institutions of property, prices and profit and loss are at best > approximated in science --- we have at best attenuated property rights, > etc. The coin of the realm in science is pretige and reputation. It > is not necessarily a cash nexus, though of course some drug research > etc. does have this implication -- but we were talking about economic > science originally. > > I highly recommend Kenneth Boulding's work on the waste of resources in > intellectual markets --- paper can be found in his Collected Writings > edited by Fred Glahey. > > Pete > > > Prof. Peter J. Boettke, Deputy Director > James M. Buchanan Center for Political Economy > Department of Economics, MSN 3G4 > George Mason University > Fairfax, VA 22030 > Phone: 703-993-1149 > FAX: 703-993-1133 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > HomePage: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/pboettke > > Editor, THE REVIEW OF AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS > > >
