The current Austrian economy suffers from an important and rather interesting problem: the lack of critics. What I mean by this is not that there aren’t enough trolls, hecklers, and politically motivated anti-economists. No, I mean there are very few, if any, real, informed critics of Austrian economic theory.

The Austrian tradition has had a significant and lasting impact on the economy over the past century and a half. This was largely due to fierce academic debates, either started by the Austrians or in which they played a leading role. Consider Carl Menger’s debate with the German Historical School on method and theory in what became known as Methodological method. Or that of Böhm-Bawerk dismantling Marx’s theory of exploitation. Or the decades-long debate over the (im)possibility of socialism that followed Mises’s 1920 essay: “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” Or the eminent scholar and popular reviews and opposition to the Keynesian avalanche. And that only concerns the first four generations of Austrian scholars!

Regardless of the degree of victory for the Austrians, the debates motivated further efforts to develop and strengthen economic theory. The debates attracted attention and therefore had an impact on scholars of other schools of thought. When the market socialist Oskar Lange said that “a statue of Professor Mises should occupy an honorable place in the great hall of the Ministry of Socialization or the Central Planning Council of the Socialist State”, he was certainly talking about ‘a joke, but he also recognized Mises’s important contributions to the debate on socialist calculation.

The closest thing to today’s debates is the Austrian opposition to the claims of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) (see e.g., here And here), but MMT is not a scientific or theoretical perspective, but a political perspective – with little or no impact on the economy in any form. So even though MMT is a sensation online and in the media, it is largely – and for good reason – ignored by real economists. But these same economists also avoid other debates, particularly academic and theoretical.

We could – and should – have noisy theoretical debates about fiat money, central banks, international trade and migration, economic growth, entrepreneurship and the regulatory burden, to name just a few . A new Methodological method is also long overdue, particularly given the constant failures of economic forecasts and political analyses. But there is nothing. This lack is to the detriment of the economy in general and of the Austrian economy as well.

Certainly, the Austrian economy does not depend on the mainstream. We now have our own institutional support in the form of peer-reviewed journals (such as Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics (QJAE) and the Review of Austrian Economics (RAE)), conferences like the Austrian Conference on Economic Researchand educational organizations like the Mises InstituteTHE Francisco Marroquin University, Liberty University, Rey Juan Carlos UniversityAnd George Mason University. All of this is important for keeping the tradition alive and continuing to develop sound economic theory. But this will not spark debates with mainstreamers and other non-Austrians. My own article in QJAE debunking MMT “chartalism”—request by MMT Champion Stephanie Kelton – was simply ignored.

This is partly a failure of modern economics, which is much less of a scientific tradition than it once was. Indeed, non-Austrians used to cast a much wider net and were overall much more erudite and curious in their reading and were not afraid to engage with new or alternative ideas. For example, the late Harold Demsetz of UCLA replied to Walter Block in the RAE. But today they generally hide in their ivory silos and are neither aware nor interested in what may be happening outside their own narrow specialization within the so-called “mainstream” economy.

But the blame also lies with us Austrians. We are not doing enough to dialogue and criticize mainstream economists and their studies. It is certainly difficult to publish in their journals and attract their attention, especially when taking a perspective that challenges orthodoxy, but there are ways – and, just like the masters of our tradition, we should search for them.

Austrians are generally more successful in doing this outside the mainstream, such as in the case of heterodox economics (e.g. here And here) or introduce Austrian theory into business disciplines (e.g. here). But the scope of these efforts is often very limited and they have no impact on business circles or economists.

Our inability to reach out is just as evident in public (political) debates. Austrian economics is mentioned more and more often, but it is generally conceived as a rejection of libertarian philosophy. A typical commentary would require empirical evidence of the success of “Austrian policy”. The critic rarely knows that Austrian economics is a set of positive theories – a scientific tradition in economics and not a political movement. And when this is the case, then it is obvious that society in general and the economy in particular are in desperate need of another Methodological method.

Of course, all is not doom and gloom. We cannot be blamed for the very poor quality of our reviews. But we should do much more to fulfill the role that economists deserve in society: that of a voice of reason and rationality, a sober critic of policies based on fantasy. And, of course, our own role in economics: as principled, rigorous, and fearless advocates of sound economics and proper theory. That is to say, not giving in to evil and absurdity, but acting ever more boldly against them.

Critics will then arise. And they will have to come to our level.