I am not a “Neuro-Hayekian,” I'm a subjectivist

Abstract

Purpose – To respond to a paper by D'Amico and Boettke arguing that certain scholars, including myself, whom they label “Neuro-Hayekians” have both oversold the importance of Hayek's The Sensory Order for understanding his economics and misunderstood the importance of institutions as opposed to brains/minds in generating social order.

Methodology/approach – I offer a different interpretation of my own work, particularly my use of the word “foundational” to describe the role of The Sensory Order in Hayek's system as well as a criticism of D'Amico and Boettke's apparent dualism.

Finding – On a more careful reading of my own work, as well as that of Hayek himself, I argue that I am not guilty of holding the view that D'Amico and Boettke attribute to me.

Research limitations/implications – The major implication of this exchange is that there is much more agreement than D'Amico and Boettke seem to think.

Originality/value of paper – The value of this paper is found in its attempt to make clear that those scholars arguing for the importance of Hayek's cognitive theory in understanding his work are not arguing that it is a necessary or sufficient condition for understanding his system. Rather, it is valuable for grasping the interconnectedness of his theories of the mind and the market and the relationship between them.

Citation

Horwitz, S. (2010), "I am not a “Neuro-Hayekian,” I'm a subjectivist", Butos, W.N. (Ed.) The Social Science of Hayek's ‘The Sensory Order’ (Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol. 13), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 383-389. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-2134(2010)0000013018