文档介绍：The Austrian Theory of the
Business Cycle in the Light
of Modern Macroeconomics
Roger W. Garrison
he Austrian theory of the business cycle has many critics. Some believe
that this part of the Austrian contribution is so misdirected as to con-
T stitute an "embarrassing excrescence" (Yeager [1986, p. 378]); others
simply doubt that there can be a single theory that provides a general account
of cyclical activity (Leijonhufvud [1984, 1986]; see also Sirkin [1972] and
Lachmann [1978]); and still others deny the existence of some of the most
salient features of business Defending—or even discussing—the Aus-
trian theory of the business cycle, then, requires some careful groundwork.
There are a number of expositions of the Austrian theory in the literature,
which for the most part plementary (., Hayek [1967, 1975b], Mises
[1966, pp. 538-86], Mises et al. [1983], O'Driscoll [1977], Robbins [1934], and
Rothbard [1975]), but because business cycles remain a live issue inside as well
as outside the Austrian school, there is no—and can be no—canonical ver-
sion. Gordon Tullock, who took an exposition by Murray Rothbard to be
canonical, has identified perceived ings of the Austrian theory in an
article entitled "Why the Austrians Are Wrong About Depressions" (Tullock,
[1987]).2 The present article was initially motivated by Tullock's basic objec-
tions as well as by his "nit picks," as he calls them. But even his title is evidence
of a misunderstanding. The Austrian theory is not primarily about depressions;
it is about artificial booms and about the market process that brings them to
an end. The theory sheds light on the kind of readjustments needed on the
eve of the bust, but the issue of the depth and length of the ensuing depression
as measured by the massive unemployment of labor is dealt with by the
Austrians in ways that are similar to several other schools of thought.
Though inspired by Tullock's critique, the present article