What do you mean by the history of the 20th century being an argument for efficiency?
Keynesianism --- 1930-1980 --- pretty good run. Market socialism --- 1936-1985 --- pretty good run. Market failure theory, with a benevolent despot --- 1920s -- 1960s --- pretty good run. I am confused. Do you think that market oriented ideas rule the academy today? Do you think that the economics that is published in the AER today is better than the economics published in the J of Law and Econ in the 1960s? Is progress in economics clearly evident? The above three examples were given in the realm of ideas, how about the staying power of these ideas in the policy world --- Asian crisis --- what is the popular policy wonk explanation --- a Keynesian one; how about environmental goods? --- market socialist proposals. Do you all really believe public choice is in the blood of every economic theory penned now-a-days? Lets move on from economics --- how about political science, sociology, anthropology, history? Of course there have been good trends that we like, but there have also been a lot of bad trends --- extreme versions of post modernism come to mind!!! I am confused by the standard of success --- predictive power? acceptance by the mainstream? illumination? policy impact? WHAT IS THE MEANING OF EFFICIENCY IN THIS CONTEXT? And by the way, if you were to name 5 economists who influenced the direction of economic policy away from the failed policies of the past who would they be? Here is my list: Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan and Coase. Note that only Mises is not a Nobel Prize winner --- 3 of the names could be claimed to be Austrians and a fourth was a student of Hayek (Coase) and a fifth was a life-long friend and involved with the Mont Pelerin Society with Hayek. Not bad for a school of thought which has nothing to say.
