Online Encyclopedia Search Tool

Your Online Encyclopedia

 

Online Encylopedia and Dictionary Research Site

Online Encyclopedia Free Search Online Encyclopedia Search    Online Encyclopedia Browse    welcome to our free dictionary for your research of every kind

Online Encyclopedia



Friedrich Hayek

(Redirected from Friedrich von Hayek)
Friedrich Hayek
Enlarge
Friedrich Hayek

Friedrich August von Hayek (May 8, 1899 - March 23, 1992) was an economist of the Austrian School noted for his defense of free-market capitalism against a perceived rising tide of socialist thought in the mid-20th century. He also made important contributions to the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science.

In The Road to Serfdom (1944) and subsequent works, Hayek said that socialism had a strong probability of leading towards totalitarianism as central planning overrode individual preferences in economic and social life. Hayek contended that in Centrally Planned Economies, an individual or a group of individuals decided the allocation of resources for the whole country and suffered from the economic calculation problem. This accumulation of power led to misuse and growth of fascism. In The Use of Knowledge in Society (1945), he sought to show how the price mechanism serves to share and synchronise local and personal knowledge in achieving diverse ends among society's members through a principle of self-organization. Hayek coined the term catallaxy for a "self-organizing system of voluntary co-operation".

Hayek viewed the price mechanism, not as a conscious invention, but as an evolved habit. Such thinking led him to speculate how the human brain could accommodate such evolved behaviour and, in The Sensory Order (1952), he proposed, independently of Donald Hebb, the connectionist hypothesis that forms the basis of the technology of neural networks and much modern neurophysiology.

Contents

Hayek and conservatism

Though an academic outcast for much of his career, Hayek's work gained new attention in the 1980s and 1990s with the triumph of economically liberal right-leaning governments in the United States and the United Kingdom (Margaret Thatcher, British prime minister from 1979 to 1990, was an outspoken devotee of Hayek's writings). After Thatcher had become Leader of the Conservative Party, she "reached into her briefcase and took out a book. It was Friedrich von Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty. Interrupting [the speaker], she held the book up for all of us to see. 'This', she said sternly, 'is what we believe', and banged Hayek down on the table."

Although Hayek authored a chapter Why I am not a Conservative [1], criticising traditional conservatism as obstinately reactionary, the critique was aimed at European-style opposition to capitalism as a threat to social stability. Hayek's defense of classical liberalism was, in fact, deeply influenced by Edmund Burke's attack on rationalism, and bore many conservative influences.

Recognition

In 1947, Hayek was the primary organizer of the Mont Pelerin Society.

Hayek, who taught at the London School of Economics, University of Chicago and the Univeristy of Freiburg , has, even after his death, continued to maintain a significant presence in its intellectual corridors. A student-run group - the LSE Hayek Society - has even been created in his honour.

Hayek shared the prize for Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974.

The Cato Institute, one of Washington, D.C.'s leading thinktanks, named its lower level auditorium after the great philosopher. During his last years, Hayek was a Distinguished Senoir Fellow at Cato.

Hayek is often referred to as F. A. Hayek, and sometimes by his full name.

Quotation

From A Conversation with Friedrich A. von Hayek, AEI, Washington D.C., 1979:

I have arrived at the conviction that the neglect by economists to discuss seriously what is really the crucial problem of our time is due to a certain timidity about soiling their hands by going from purely scientific questions into value questions. This is a belief deliberately maintained by the other side because if they admitted that the issue is a scientific question, they would have to admit that their science is antiquated and that, in academic circles, it occupies the position of astrology and not one that has any justification for serious consideration in scientific discussion. It seems to me that socialists today can preserve their position in academic economics merely by the pretense that the differences are entirely moral questions about which science cannot decide.

See also

External links





Last updated: 11-07-2004 17:37:39