This file is a single-authored chapter/essay, first published as a memorial paper for Murray N. Rothbard. Kirzner uses the occasion not simply to honor Rothbard, but to intervene in an intramural Austrian debate over Mises’s legacy. Its central thesis is that Misesian economics cannot be understood apart from the market as an entrepreneurial process, and that this insight substantially overlaps with Hayek’s account of competition as discovery.
Kirzner begins autobiographically, recalling Mises’s 1954 seminar, where one sentence became the key to his later work:
"The market," Mises began, "is a process."
The chapter unfolds as an interpretation of that sentence. Against recent attempts by Salerno, Rothbard, and Herbener to “dehomogenize” Mises and Hayek into opposed paradigms, Kirzner argues that the corrective, discovery-like character of the market is central to both. Mises’s market is not an equilibrium tableau but a dynamic sequence in which entrepreneurs notice discrepancies, bid resources away from lower-valued uses, and tend to replace “false” prices with less false ones.
Mises saw the market process as a continually corrective process driven and constituted by active entrepreneurial grasping of pure profits.
This is Kirzner’s core conceptual move: entrepreneurial profit is not a marginal embellishment but the engine of coordination. Disequilibrium prices are “false” because they misstate consumer valuations and resource uses; profit opportunities reveal those errors to alert entrepreneurs. Hence the market process is the ceaseless correction of discoordination.
The market process consists, that is, in the continual correction of false prices that occurs in the course of entrepreneurial competition.
Kirzner then links Mises to Hayek without collapsing their differences. Hayek more explicitly described competition as a knowledge-discovery procedure, but Kirzner insists that this is compatible with Mises’s own analysis of entrepreneurial adjustment. The decisive commonality is not a shared terminology but a shared account of market order as emerging through rivalrous correction.
What makes possible the entrepreneurially driven process of equilibration is active market competition.
The polemical center of the essay is Kirzner’s critique of the “two-paradigm” thesis. He grants that Mises and Hayek differ in method and emphasis, and he also grants that Salerno and Rothbard are right to stress Mises’s distinctive theory of economic calculation. But he rejects the claim that Mises’s calculation problem has “nothing whatever” to do with Hayek’s knowledge problem. Socialist calculation fails because, without resource markets and money prices, planners lack the meaningful numbers needed to appraise alternative uses of heterogeneous goods. That absence is also, Kirzner argues, a knowledge gap.
We may readily concede that Mises did not articulate his calculation problem in terms of knowledge; but this does not in the slightest imply that that problem cannot be seen to consist of a knowledge problem.
Kirzner’s refinement is careful: prices are not merely messages or low-cost signals, and he criticizes readings of Hayek that reduce them to communication devices. For Mises, prices are indispensable cardinal aids to entrepreneurial calculation, even when they are disequilibrium prices.
For Mises (as Salerno and Rothbard correctly point out) prices are not primarily signals economizing on the cost of communicating information.
Yet that concession does not sever Mises from Hayek. Current prices are useful because they embody the best entrepreneurial judgments available at that moment and because they arise from an ongoing competitive process that has already been correcting earlier errors. Thus calculation and discovery are not rival doctrines: market prices make calculation possible precisely as products of entrepreneurial appraisal, rivalry, and correction.
The concluding relevance of the chapter is both doctrinal and institutional. Kirzner warns that exaggerating differences between Mises and Hayek obscures the Austrian school’s strongest contribution: its understanding of entrepreneurial market process. The essay is therefore a defense of Mises against static or purely calculational readings, and a defense of Austrian economics against internal fragmentation.
Austrians are a beleaguered minority in the economics profession today.
Kirzner’s final plea is for a shared understanding of the Mises-Hayek legacy: markets coordinate not because equilibrium is assumed, but because entrepreneurial competition continually discovers and corrects error.
This work was divided into 9 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 9 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian