Ekonomia jako nauka o celowym działaniu. Paradygmat szkoły austriackiej oraz krytyka keynesizmu i monetaryzmu

The article presents key assumptions of the research paradigm of the Austrian School of Economics (ASE), pointing to their logical cohesion and interdependence, and then highlights the key differences between ASE and Keynesian economics and monetarism. The article starts with methodological considerations; in ASE approach economics is praxeology, a science of purposeful human action, and methodological individualism – looking at economic actions from the point of view of the acting man – is a basic feature of the Austrian method. The axiom of purposeful action is extended using verbal deduction, which allows to build a whole system of economic statements. The ASE approach to economic goods, and their role in the economic system is highlighted then, which leads to the conclusion that in a free, unhampered market economy the key determinant of allocation of resources and income in the economy are decisions of the consumer. The key elements of the Mises monetary theory are then discussed, including the regulatory role of interest rate. These considerations lead to displaying of mechanics of Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT), where the key driving force behind business fluctuations are interventions into the regulatory mechanism of interest rate via credit expansion. The following part of the text highlights the key similarities and differences between ASE and economics of Keynes and monetarism. The key critique of ASE vs. Keynes’ theory regards the interest rate mechanism (concept of liquidity preference), which – in his theory - was devoid of its role of intertemporal coordination. Another point of critique is too high a level of aggregation (of economic data), which – according to Hayek (as well as many other members of ASE) does not allow to see critically important interdependencies in economic phenomena. The critique of monetarism is based on Bellante and Garrison, who pointed to numerous similarities between the two approaches, which stem from putting monetary considerations in the center of attention. When it comes to the differences, monetarism puts different mechanism of monetary impulse’s impact on the economy. It is hard for conclusive, quantitative verdict on the merits of these methodologies, due to lack of relevant statistical data. The article concludes with pointing out to the elements of ASE paradigm that could be especially interesting in the context of the current economic crisis, as well as in the context of crisis in ”mainstream” economic theory. According to the author of this article, methodological individualism of ASE could be a very interesting concept. One example of that could be the development of “economics of complexity”, which perceives acting agents in a way which is very similar to ASE, and at the same time shares several other key methodological assumptions.