Friedrich August von Hayek, Nationalökonomie

Hayek’s Nationalökonomie is a scholarly book review first published in The Economic Journal in April 1941 and reproduced in the supplied 2013 edition. Its subject is Ludwig von Mises’s Nationalökonomie: Theorie des Handelns und des Wirtschaftens (1940), a systematic treatise extending from the philosophical foundations of human action through economic theory to contemporary policy. Hayek’s central judgment is that the book’s importance lies less in isolated theoretical innovations than in the intellectual coherence with which Mises integrates these fields. His admiration is substantial but qualified: systematic consistency makes the work imposing, while Mises’s relative isolation from contemporary economics limits some of its arguments.

The review initially approaches the treatise as the culmination of a long scholarly career. Readers familiar with Mises’s writings on money, socialism, and social-scientific method will recognize much of its central economic argument, now stated more precisely and situated within a comprehensive framework. Hayek nevertheless identifies new material, particularly the treatment of interest. His response to Mises’s development of the psychological element in Böhm-Bawerk’s theory is reserved: illuminating in some respects, it seems less convincing overall than most of the book. This criticism establishes the review’s distinctive stance—sympathy toward Mises’s intellectual project without unqualified endorsement of its theoretical details.

Hayek interprets the reception of Mises’s earlier work as evidence that controversial arguments can eventually become accepted economic knowledge. Ideas once attacked or ridiculed now appear less revolutionary because they have entered the discipline’s common understanding. Their republication is therefore not merely repetition:

In their new systematic setting his views assume in many ways new significance and certainly gain in impressiveness by their thorough consistency.

The systematic setting changes the force of familiar arguments by revealing their connections. Yet Hayek distinguishes this achievement from engagement with the development of economics outside Mises’s own work. He detects continuing intellectual growth, but regards it as largely autonomous. Past vindication appears to have encouraged a dismissive attitude toward contemporary economics, reducing Mises’s opportunities to learn from other approaches. The theory of competition is Hayek’s principal example: a more sympathetic treatment of recent contributions could have made Mises’s own position easier to understand. Consistency thus appears as both a strength and, when coupled with intellectual distance, a possible constraint.

The review’s most concrete example of a productive generalization is Mises’s treatment of comparative costs. Rather than confining the principle to international trade, Mises places it at the foundation of social association and the exchange economy. Hayek values this move because it connects an economic theorem to the broader question of why cooperative societies form. The example captures his larger assessment of the theoretical sections: their contribution often resides in the sustained application of a general philosophy, not in a succession of separable discoveries. Economic propositions acquire wider significance when organized around the conditions of human cooperation.

Hayek then shifts attention from the treatise’s central economic sections to its methodological opening and policy-oriented conclusion. He expects these parts to hold the greatest interest for many readers. The policy discussions consolidate arguments previously dispersed across books and essays, fill gaps, and draw upon Mises’s extensive historical and contemporary knowledge:

Yet there were perhaps even greater opportunities for the author to fill in gaps, and the result is a really imposing unified system of a liberal social philosophy.

Hayek explicitly resists equating this philosophy with a simple revival of nineteenth-century laissez-faire. Although its conclusions resemble those of mid-century liberalism, its philosophical foundations have undergone substantial development. The distinction matters: continuity in policy recommendations does not establish intellectual immobility. Hayek presents Mises’s liberalism as the outcome of an articulated account of action and society, rather than merely an inherited set of political preferences.

The most original and controversial contribution, however, is the opening account of human action. Here Mises develops his earlier defense of the a priori character of economic reasoning and his opposition to importing inappropriate methods from the natural sciences:

In the new volume he now proceeds to vindicate the autonomous character of the method of the social sciences by systematically building up a general theory of human action, or, as he now calls it (reviving an older French term), the science of "praxeology".

Economics becomes a special part of this broader science. Hayek regards the argument as the most impressive and consistent defense of that methodological position yet offered, while anticipating that it will not overcome prevailing objections. His agreement remains qualified: he would formulate many points differently, but considers Mises closer to the truth on the central issue than commonly accepted approaches. The review therefore also records Hayek’s willingness to defend methodological independence against the dominant scientific tendencies of his time.

The conclusion gathers these assessments into a portrait of philosophical breadth. Mises’s work recalls an eighteenth-century philosopher more than a modern specialist; its technical discussions repeatedly return the reader to major contemporary problems. Such breadth can also lead him to dismiss refinements too quickly, but Hayek refuses to make conformity with current analytical fashions the measure of significance:

To the many who will disagree with most of it, this will no doubt prove a profoundly irritating book, but not one which they can afford to disregard, however much they may feel that parts of it are not au courant with the latest refinements of mathematical analysis in which they are wont to wallow.

The review’s enduring interest lies in this balance: it recognizes the costs of Mises’s intellectual independence while insisting that his integration of methodology, economic theory, and liberal social philosophy demands serious engagement.