Hutchison on the Socialist Calculation Debate

From Hutchison’s paper “Hayek, Mises and the Methodological Contradictions of ‘Modern Austrian’ Economics” (1994):

“As regards the debate on socialism, it may be worth observing, first, that the question as to how a socialist economy would, or could, achieve a more or less ‘efficient’ allocation of resources did not originate with the Austrian school, but with German historical economists, including even, in a rather jocular passage, Friedrich Engels (v. Hutchison, 1953, pp. 293–8; and 1981, pp. 14–16). Mises certainly deserves credit, however, for raising the issue so sharply in 1920. But the argument he employed was seriously exaggerated and oversimplified. Intermittently, underlying his argument is the extreme rationalist assumption of what Kirzner, rather misleadingly, calls ‘static individualism’, and also, of course, of so much economic theorizing since Ricardo of generally full, or even perfect knowledge. It is just too facile to demonstrate that socialist planners may not be able to improve on the allocation of competitive markets if everybody in those markets—more or less by definition—is equipped with full or perfect knowledge. At one point, for example, Mises raised the question of how a ‘socialist commonwealth’ would decide about investing in a new railway line. He explains that ‘under a system of private ownership we could use money calculations to decide these questions’ (1969, p. 104). Certainly ‘money calculations’ could be used, but they would not lead to correct or even efficient decisions without adequate knowledge on the part of the calculators. In fact, the Austro-nihilist wing, of the modern Austrian movement, led by Lachmann and Shackle, insisted that total unpredictability made any kind of economic ‘calculation’ (capitalist or socialist) impossible in any case. Mises, in fact, also failed to recall that it was precisely in the area of railway investment, in the pristine heyday of free-market capitalism in Britain, that some of the most immense and disastrous miscalculations had been perpetrated which plunged the whole economy into years of depression, bringing intense suffering to the poorest in the community (see Hutchison, 1938, p. 186).” (Hutchison 1994: 225–226).

There are three interesting points here:

(1) Mises was not the originator of a critique of planning in command economies in the socialist calculation debate, but the German historical school economists apparently were;

(2) Mises’ belief that a market economy achieves superior economic calculation depends on the assumption of a strong tendency to market clearing and that in turn implies the unrealistic assumption of “full or perfect knowledge” (or least something close to it!).

(3) even within the Austrian school, the wing following Ludwig Lachmann apparently argued that radical uncertainty threw up problems for “economic calculation” as defined by Mises in either a capitalist or socialist economy.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hutchison, Terence Wilmot. 1994. “Hayek, Mises and the Methodological Contradictions of ‘Modern Austrian’ Economics,” in T. W. Hutchison, The Uses and Abuses of Economics: Contentious Essays on History and Method. Routledge, London. 212–240.

Bibliography on the Socialist Calculation Debate from the 1920s to 1940s

To follow up on an earlier post, I list below a bibliography on the socialist economic calculation debate from the original literature of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s.

The bibliography is in chronological order, rather than alphabetical, since I think this gives a better perspective on how the debate played out.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barone, Enrico. 1908. “Il ministro della produzione nello stato collettivista,” Giornale degli economisti 37: 267-293, 391-414. [English trans. in Barone 1935]

Mises, L. von. 1920. “Die Wirtschaftsrechnung im sozialistischen Gemeinwesen,” Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaften 47: 86–121. [English trans. in Mises 1935]

Cohn, Arthur Wolfgang. 1920. “Kann das Geld abgeschaft werden?” (“Can Money be Abolished?”), Dissert., University of Jena.

Weber, Max. 1921. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen.

Heimann, Eduard. 1922. Mehrwert und Gemeinwirtschaft. Kritische und positive Beiträge zur Theorie des Sozialismus. Engelmann, Berlin.

Kautsky, Karl. 1922. Die proletarische Revolution und ihr Programm. Dietz, Stuttgart and Berlin.

Mises, L. von. 1922. Die Gemeinwirtschaft. Gustav Fischer, Jena.

Polanyi, K. 1922. “Sozialistische Rechnungslegung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 49.2: 377–420.

Leichter, O. 1923. Die Wirtschaftsrechnung in der socialistische Gesellschaft. Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, Vienna.

Polanyi, K. 1924. “Die funktionelle Theorie der Gesellschaft und das Problem der sozialistischen Rechnungslegung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 52: 218–228.

Mises, L. von. 1924. “Neue Beiträge zum Problem der sozialistischen Wirtschaftsrechnung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 51 (December): 488–500.

Marschak, J. 1924. “Wirtschaftsrechnung und Gemeinwirtschaft,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft 51: 488–500.

Weil, F. 1924. “Gildensozialistische Rechnungslegung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 52: 196–217.

Polanyi, K. 1924. “Die funktionelle Theorie der Gesellschaft und das Problem der sozialistischen Rechnungslegung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 52: 218–228.

Neurath, Otto. 1925. Wirtschaftsplan und Naturalrechnung. Laub, Berlin.

Bowen, John. 1926. Conditions of Social Welfare. C. W. Daniel, London.

Hawtrey, R. G. 1926. The Economic Problem. Longmans, Green and Co., London and New York.

Horn, Erich. 1928. Die ökonomischen grenzen der gemeinwirtschaft: eine wirtschaftstheoretische untersuchung über die durchführbarkeit des sozialismus. H. Meyer, Halberstadt.

Mises, L. von. 1928. “Neue Schriften zum Problem der sozialistischen Wirtschaftsrechnung,”
Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 60: 187–192.

Brutzkus, Boris. 1928. Die Lehren des Marxismus im Lichte der russischen Revolution. Sack, Berlin. [originally published in Russian in 1921–1922; English trans. in Brutzkus 1935).

Roper, W. C. 1929. The Problem of Pricing in a Socialist State. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Taylor, F. M. 1929. “The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State,” American Economic Review 19 (March): 1–8.

Halm, G. 1929. Ist der Sozialismus wirtschaftlich möglich?. Berlin.

Roper, W. C. 1929. The Problem of Pricing in a Socialist State. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Pollock, F. 1929. Die planwirtschaftlichen Versuche in der Sowjet-Union 1917–1927. Leipzig.

Dickinson, H. D. 1930. “The Economic Basis of Socialism,” Political Quarterly 1.4: 561–572.

Halm, G. 1930. Über Konkurrenz, Monopol und sozialistische Wirtschaft" in Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, Vol. 133, 1930.

Grundprinzipien kommunistischer Verteilung und Produktion. Gruppe internationaler Kommunisten. Allgemeinen Arbeiterunion Deutschlands. Berlin, 1930.

Heimann, Eduard. 1929. “Über Konkurrenz, Monopol und sozialistische Wirtschaft : 1. Konkurrenz und Monopol im Kapitalismus,” Die Arbeit : Zeitschrift für Gewerkschaftspolitik und Wirtschaftskunde 6.

Brutzkus, Boris. 1935. Economic Planning in Soviet Russia. Routledge, London.

Gerhardt, Johannes. 1930. Unternehmertum und Wirtschaftsführung. Mohr, Tübingen. 1930.

Pohle, Ludwig and Georg Halm. 1931. Kapitalismus und Sozialismus (4th edn.). J. Springer, Berlin.

Landauer, Karl. 1931. Planwirtschaft und Verkehrswirtschaft. Duncker & Humblot, Munich and Leipzig.

Moreau, G. 1931. “De Economische Struktur eener Socialistische Volkshuishouding,” De Economist, s’Gravenhage.

Tisch, Claere. 1932. Wirtschaftsrechnung und Verteilung im zentralistisch organisierten sozialistischen Gemeinwesen. Dissert. University of Bonn.

Schiff, Walter. 1932. Die Planwirtschaft und ihre ökonomischen Hauptprobleme. Carl Heymanns verlag, Berlin. 1932.

Kerschagl, Richard. 1932. Die Möglichkeit einer Wirtschaftsrechnung in der sozialistischen Planwirtschaft. Berlin.

Rhijn, A. A. Van. 1932. “De Economische Calculatie in het Socialism,” De Economist, s’Gravenhage.

Heimann, Eduard. 1932. Sozialistische Wirtschafts- und Arbeitsordnung. Protte, Potsdam.

Gregory, T. E. 1933. “An Economist looks at Planning,” Manchester School 4.

Dickinson, H. D. 1933. “Price Formation in a Socialist Community,” Economic Journal 43 (June): 237–250.

Dickinson, H.D. 1933. “Freedom and Planning, a Reply to Dr Gregory,” Manchester School 4: 82–89.

Dobb, M. 1933. “Economic Theory and the Problem of a Socialist Economy” The Economic Journal 43: 588–598.

Wootton, Barbara. 1934. Plan or No Plan. V. Gollancz, London.

Frisch, R. 1934. “Circulation Planning: Proposal for a National Organization for a Commodity and Service Exchange,” Econometrica 2.

Zassenhaus, Herbert. 1934. “Über die ökonomische Theorie der Planwirtschaft,” Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie, 5: 507–532.

Lerner, A. P. 1934. “Economic Theory and Socialist Economy,” Review of Economic Studies 2.1: 51–61.

Mandelbaum, K. and G. Mayer. 1934. “Planwirtschaft,” Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung 3.

Heimann, Eduard. 1934. “Planning and the Market System,” Social Research 1.4: 486–504.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1935. Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. G. Routledge & Sons, London.

Barone, Enrico. 1935. “The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,” in F. A. von Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. G. Routledge & Sons, London.

Mises, L. von. 1935. “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” in F. A. von Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. G. Routledge & Sons, London. 87–131.

Halm, Georg. 1935. “Further Considerations on the Possibility of Adequate Calculation in a Socialist Community,” in F. A. von Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. G. Routledge & Sons, London. 131–201.

Pierson, N. 1935. “The Problem of Value in the Socialist Society,” in F. A. von Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. Geonze Routledee & Sons, London. 41–86.

Lange, O. 1936. “On the Economic Theory of Socialism (Part I),” Review of Economic Studies 4: 53–71.

Lange, O. 1937. “On the Economic Theory of Socialism (Part II),” Review of Economic Studies 5: 123–142.

Lerner, A. 1937. “Statics and Dynamics in Socialist Economics,” Economic Journal 47: 251–270.

Lerner, A. 1938. “Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics,” Review of Economic Studies 6 (October): 71–75.

Dickinson, H. D. 1939. Economics of Socialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1940. “Socialist Calculation III, the Competitive ‘Solution’,” Economica 7: 125-149.

Schumpeter, Joseph Alois. 1943. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Allen & Unwin, London.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review 35: 519–530.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1948. “Socialist Calculation III, the Competitive ‘Solution’,” in F. A. von Hayek, Individualism and Economic Order. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 181-208.

Note on the Socialist Economic Calculation Debate

A crucial assumption of Ludwig von Mises in his argument against a command economy was the following:

“ … von Mises (as well as everybody else in those days) envisages socialism as operating under consumer sovereignty. He explicitly excludes ‘planners’ sovereignty’—the authoritarian determination of the output assortment and hence the scarcity relations between all goods and services on the basis of the ‘planners’’ (the political rulers’) own subjective preferences. The task of the socialist economy was to maximize social welfare on the basis of the individual citizens’ own preferences. It was this that he found socialist calculation incapable of doing.” (Keizer 1987: 115).

And yet it is obvious that former communist states like the Soviet Union did not operate their economies on the principle of “consumer sovereignty.”

These were command economies with production decisions by planners. And that is why so much of the socialist calculation debate seems mostly an academic exercise. If one assumes that the output of the command economy is planned by administrators by their own standards or designs, and not primarily to maximize “social welfare on the basis of the individual citizens’ own preferences,” then we have a different debate.

For example, the Soviets developed a space program that required planning and production on a large and complex scale, and its achievements were not insignificant:

“Over its sixty-year history, ... [sc. the Soviet space program] was responsible for a number of pioneering accomplishments in space flight, including the first intercontinental ballistic missile (1957), first satellite (Sputnik-1), first animal in space (the dog Laika on Sputnik 2), first human in space and Earth orbit (cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin on Vostok 1), first woman in space and Earth orbit (cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova on Vostok 6), first spacewalk (cosmonaut Alexey Leonov on Voskhod 2), first Moon impact (Luna 2), first image of the far side of the moon (Luna 3) and unmanned lunar soft landing (Luna 9), first space rover, first space station, and first interplanetary probe.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program

The Soviet Union also created an industrial economy that beat Nazi Germany (albeit with help from the West), and delivered real output growth in consumer goods.

The empirical record shows that the Soviet Union “worked” in the sense that it was able to increase real output for some decades, as decided by its planners, though it had very serious economic problems from the 1970s (for the recent literature, see Allen 2003; Gregory and Lazarev 2003; Gregory 2004; Davies 2004). And note that the latter assertions are not an endorsement of, or support for, the brutal Soviet system or command economies in general, but merely statements of fact.

Even if in the long term it was inefficient and economic problems became severe, the Soviet planning system did manage to “work” in the short to medium term, though the stupidity, cruelty and incompetence of its rulers like Stalin imposed unnecessary suffering so great as to be on a level with Nazi Germany.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Robert C. 2003. Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. and Oxford.

Davies, R. W. 2004. Years of Hunger: Soviet Agriculture 1931-1933. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Gregory, Paul R. 2004. The Political Economy of Stalinism: Evidence from the Soviet Secret Archives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. and New York.

Gregory, P. R. and V. Lazarev. 2003. The Economics of Forced Labor: The Soviet Gulag. Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA.

Keizer, W. 1987. “Two Forgotten Articles by Ludwig von Mises on the Rationality of Socialist Economic Calculation,” Review of Austrian Economics 1.1: 109–122.

Austrians Rewrite the History of the Socialist Calculation Debate

Consider this statement from Gary North over at Mises.org:

“The Soviet Union was based on socialism, and socialist economic calculation is irrational. Ludwig von Mises in 1920 described why in his article, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” He showed in theory exactly what is wrong with all socialist planning. He made it clear why socialism could never compete with the free market. It has no capital goods markets, and therefore economic planners cannot allocate capital according to capital’s most important and most desired needs among by the public.

Mises’s argument was not taken seriously by the academic community. Socialism was so popular by 1920 among academics that they did not respond to Mises for over 15 years. When finally one major economist, who really was not a major economist but was simply a Polish Communist, wrote a response to Mises, it got a great deal of publicity. His name was Oscar Lange. He was a hack. He taught at the University of Chicago. He had no theory of economics. ….

So, the only major supposed academic refutation of Mises was made by a hack who switched sides to Communism when he got a better offer. Yet he was heralded as a brilliant economist because he had supposedly refuted Mises.”

Gary North, “Dancing on the Grave of Keynesianism,” Mises Daily, October 01, 2012.

And Austrians might wonder why nobody takes them very seriously.

The “only major supposed academic refutation of Mises” was the work of Oscar Lange? Is this man serious?

I guess all these replies to, and critiques of, Mises in the 1920s and 1930s went down the Austrian memory hole:

Cohn, Arthur Wolfgang. 1920. “Kann das Geld abgeschaft werden?” (“Can Money be Abolished?”), Dissert., University of Jena.

Polanyi K. 1922. “Sozialistische Rechnungslegung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 49.2: 377–420.

Kautsky, Karl. 1922. Die proletarische Revolution und ihr Programm. Dietz, Stuttgart and Berlin.

Leichter, O. 1923. Die Wirtschaftsrechnung in der socialistische Gesellschaft. Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, Vienna.

Polanyi, K. 1924. “Die funktionelle Theorie der Gesellschaft und das Problem der sozialistischen Rechnungslegung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 52: 218–228.

Neurath, Otto. 1925. Wirtschaftsplan und Naturalrechnung. Laub, Berlin.

Taylor, F. M. 1929. “The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State,” American Economic Review 19 (March): 1–8.

Roper, W. C. 1929. The Problem of Pricing in a Socialist State. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Dickinson, H. D. 1933. “Price Formation in a Socialist Community,” Economic Journal 43 (June): 237–250.

Dickinson, H. D. 1939. Economics of Socialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lerner, A. 1937. “Statics and Dynamics in Socialist Economics,” Economic Journal 47: 251–270.

Lerner, A. 1938. “Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics,” Review of Economic Studies 6 (October): 71–75.

And this is only a selection of the literature.

My purpose here is not to defend the socialist critics of Mises: whatever you think of the merits of their responses to Mises, the fact is that it is absurd to assert to that nobody responded to Mises “for over 15 years,” and that Lange provided the “only major supposed academic refutation” of him.

How could anyone familiar with the history of economics write such rubbish?

In fact, even Hayek said explicitly that soon after 1920 Mises’s socialist critics began to reply to him:

“In the years immediately succeeding its publication [viz. Mises’s “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth – LK] a number of attempts were made to meet his challenge directly and to show that he was wrong in his main thesis, and that even in a strictly centrally directed economic system values could be exactly determined without any serious difficulties.” (Hayek 1935: 36).

One can consult Appendix B of Hayek (1935: 291–293) for a detailed list of the literature.

Furthermore, Mises’s critique of command economy socialism was hardly unique. Hayek (1935: 34) tells us that Max Weber independently came to much the same conclusions as Mises over the difficulty of a planned socialist economy in his posthumous work Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft (Tübingen, 1921), and a Russian economist Boris Brutzkus (who was actually living in Russia) wrote a critique of Soviet economics published in 1921–1922 in the Russian journal Ekonomist, later reprinted in an English translation called “Problems of Social Economy under Socialism” (Hayek 1935: 35). Brutzkus had also criticised war communism along similar lines to Mises.

It is rather curious that Mises’s original article of 1920 was mainly a critique of the marketless, planned, and moneyless economy imagined by Otto Neurath, but the socialist critics of Mises quickly accepted Mises’s view that such a moneyless planned economy would not work (Hayek 1997: 9). Moreover, Mises had never denied that a syndicalist system of production was possible: he admitted that rational economic calculation was possible under syndicalism since he argued that there was a group-collective private ownership of capital goods in such a system (Keizer 1987: 114).

The major responses to Mises and Hayek came from so-called “market socialists,” such Abba Lerner, H. D. Dickinson, and Oscar Lange. These socialists used Walrasian general equilibrium theory, and argued that a decentralized socialist economy would allow the choices of consumers and workers to be free, and that state firms engaged in production competitively would choose cost-minimizing techniques and then expand production until their marginal costs equalled prices. This, they thought, would overcome the difficulties foreseen by Mises.

The foundation was laid by H. D. Dickinson in his article “Price Formation in a Socialist Community” (Economic Journal 43 [1933]: 237–250), where Dickinson argued that the system of equations by which an economy can be represented in a Walrasian economic model would be solved in the socialist economy by planning authorities (Hayek 1997: 13). If the prices were wrong, Dickinson and other socialists argued that, by trial and error, the right prices would be found.

Even Lange accepted Mises’s view the prices are necessary for rational economic calculation (Hayek 1997: 20). By the time Hayek entered the debate he, in essence, conceded that rational economic calculation under socialism might be a theoretical possibility (something which Mises denied), but Hayek thought that in practical terms it was impossible.

The real paradox here is that in his criticisms of market socialists Hayek was driven to question the usefulness of Walrasian general equilibrium theory in understanding real world capitalist economies (Donzelli 1993).

The crucial reason why many perceived that Lange had adequately answered Mises and Hayek was that the mainstream economics profession was taken over by neoclassical theory after 1945.

But it is obvious that the Walrasian basis of the market socialists’ argument for a planned economy is badly mistaken, for Walrasian theory is wrong.

Where that leaves the arguments for planned economies is another question, of course. I will address this in the next post.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barone, Enrico. 1908. “Il ministro della produzione nello stato collettivista,” Giornale degli economisti 37: 267-293, 391-414.

Barone, Enrico. 1935. “The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,” in F. A. von Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. G. Routledge & Sons, London.

Chaloupek, Günther. 1990. “The Austrian Debate on Economic Calculation in a Socialist Society,” History of Political Economy 22.4: 659–675.

Christainsen, Gregory B. 1993. “What Keynes really Said to Hayek about Planning,”
Challenge 36.4 (July/August): 50–53.

Cohn, Arthur Wolfgang. 1920. “Kann das Geld abgeschaft werden?” (“Can Money be Abolished?”), Dissert., University of Jena.

Dickinson, H. D. 1933. “Price Formation in a Socialist Community,” Economic Journal 43 (June): 237–250.

Dickinson, H. D. 1939. Economics of Socialism. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Donzelli, F. 1993. “The Influence of the Socialist Calculation Debate on Hayek’s view of General Equilibrium Theory,” Revue européenne des sciences sociales 31.96.3: 47–83.

Halm, Georg. 1935. “Further Considerations on the Possibility of Adequate Calculation in a Socialist Community,” in F. A. von Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. G. Routledge & Sons, London. 131–201.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1935. Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. G. Routledge & Sons, London.

Hayek, Friedrich A. von. 1997. Socialism and War: Essays, Documents, Reviews (ed. Bruce Caldwell). Routledge, London.

Heimann, Eduard. 1922. Mehrwert und Gemeinwirtschaft. Kritische und positive Beiträge zur Theorie des Sozialismus. Engelmann, Berlin.

Kautsky, Karl. 1922. Die proletarische Revolution und ihr Programm. Dietz, Stuttgart and Berlin.

Keizer, W. 1987. “Two Forgotten Articles by Ludwig von Mises on the Rationality of Socialist Economic Calculation,” Review of Austrian Economics 1.1: 109–122.

Keizer, W. 1989. “Recent Reinterpretations of the Socialist Calculation Debate,” The Journal of Economic Studies 16.2: 63-83.

Keizer, W. 1997. “Schumpeter’s Walrasian Stand in the Socialist Calculation Debate,” in W. Keizer, B. Tieben and R. van Zijp (eds.), Austrian Economics in Debate. Routledge, London and New York. 75–94.

Lange, O. 1936. “On the Economic Theory of Socialism (Part I),” Review of Economic Studies 4: 53–71.

Lange, O. 1937. “On the Economic Theory of Socialism (Part II),” Review of Economic Studies 5: 123–142.

Leichter, O. 1923. Die Wirtschaftsrechnung in der socialistische Gesellschaft. Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung, Vienna.

Lerner, A. 1937. “Statics and Dynamics in Socialist Economics,” Economic Journal 47: 251–270.

Lerner, A. 1938. “Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics,” Review of Economic Studies 6 (October): 71–75.

Mises, L. von. 1920. “Die Wirtschaftsrechnung im sozialistischen Gemeinwesen,” Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaften 47: 86–121.

Mises, L. von. 1935. “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” in F. A. von Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. G. Routledge & Sons, London. 87–131.

Neurath, Otto. 1925. Wirtschaftsplan und Naturalrechnung. Laub, Berlin.

Pierson, N. 1935. “The Problem of Value in the Socialist Society,” in F. A. von Hayek (ed.), Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism. Geonze Routledee & Sons, London. 41–86.

Polanyi, K. 1922. “Sozialistische Rechnungslegung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 49.2: 377–420.

Polanyi, K. 1924. “Die funktionelle Theorie der Gesellschaft und das Problem der sozialistischen Rechnungslegung,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 52: 218–228.

Rothbard, Murray N. 2006 [1991]. “The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited,” Mises Daily, 8 December
http://mises.org/daily/2401

Roper, W. C. 1929. The Problem of Pricing in a Socialist State. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Taylor, F. M. 1929. “The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State,” American Economic Review 19 (March): 1–8.

Weber, Max. 1921. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. J.C.B. Mohr, Tübingen.