1 On the following see, for example, Robert Leonard, Von Neumann, Morgenstern and the Creation of Game Theory: From Chess to Social Science, 1900-1960 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Hansjoerg Klausinger, “Volkswirtschaftliche Theorien: Joseph Schumpeter—Ludwig Mises—Othmar Spann,” in Das Werden der Ersten Republik… der Rest ist Österreich, vol. 2, ed. Helmut Konrad and Wolfgang Maderthaner (Vienna: Carl Gerold’s Sohn, 2008), 139-56; and as a primary source Friedrich A. Hayek, “The Austrian School of Economics” [1968], as reprinted in The Fortunes of Liberalism: Essays on Austrian Economics and the Ideal of Freedom (vol. 4 of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek), ed. Peter G. Klein (Chicago: University of Chicago Press and London: Routledge, 1992), 42-60.

2 See his Theorie des Geldes und der Umlaufsmittel, 2nd rev. ed. (Munich and Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1924); translated as The Theory of Money and Credit (London: Cape, 1934; reprinted, Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1981).

3 On the emigration of the Austrian School see Earlene Craver, “The Emigration of the Austrian Economists,” History of Political Economy 18 (1986): 1-32; Earlene Craver and Axel Leijonhufvud, “Economics in America: The Continental Influence,” History of Political Economy 19 (1987): 173-82; Hansjoerg Klausinger, “‘ In the Wilderness’: Emigration and the Decline of the Austrian School,” History of Political Economy 38 (2006): 617-64; and for biographical information Harald Hagemann and Claus-Dieter Krohn, eds., Biographisches Handbuch der deutschsprachigen wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Emigration nach 1933, 2 vols. (Munich: Saur, 1999).

4 Of course, at the University of Vienna Erich Streissler must be mentioned as an intimate and appreciative adept of the Austrian tradition.

5 See Stephan Boehm, “Austrian Economics between the Wars: Some Historiographical Problems,” and Mark Blaug, “Commentary,” both in Austrian Economics: Tensions and New Directions, ed. Bruce J. Caldwell and Stephan Boehm (Boston: Kluwer, 1992), 1-30 and 31-34.

6 The most prominent and persistent adversary was the American economist Frank H. Knight; see Avi J. Cohen, “The Hayek/Knight Controversy: The Irrelevance of Roundaboutness, or Purging Processes in Time?” History of Political Economy 35 (2003): 469-90.

7 Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (London: Allen & Unwin, 1954; reprinted, Routledge, 1994), 565, contrasts these positions as “advance economics” versus “synchronization economics.”

8 See Avi J. Cohen and Geoffrey C. Harcourt, “Whatever Happened to the Cambridge Capital Controversies?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 17 (2003): 199-214.

9 Hayek’s most important piece on this topic is Prices and Production (London: Routledge, 1931; 2nd rev. ed., 1935); these and other contributions will be conveniently available in Hansjoerg Klausinger, ed., Business Cycles I and II (vols. 7 and 8 of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek ) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press and London: Routledge, forthcoming). The foundation of Keynesian economics is, of course, John Maynard Keynes, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (London: Macmillan, 1936), reprinted as vol. 7 of The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, ed. Austin Robinson and Donald Moggridge (London: Macmillan and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).

10 See for a “revisionist” Austrian account Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

11 By the way, Mises’criticism was triggered by the propagation of a “natural economy” of wartype socialism by the Austrian philosopher Otto Neurath.

12 For an overview of Walrasian general equilibrium theory and its modern development see Bruna Ingrao and Giorgio Israel, The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1990).

13 For a summary of the contemporary debate see Friedrich A. Hayek, ed., Collectivist Economic Planning: Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1935).

14 Neoclassical theory in this sense culminated in John R. Hicks, Value and Capital (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1939, 2nd rev. ed. 1946), and Paul A. Samuelson, Foundations of Economic Analysis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1947, enlarged ed. 1983). The view of the neoclassical synthesis was popularized in the various editions of Samuelson’s textbook, Economics: An Introductory Analysis, 1st ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948), now co-authored by William D. Nordhaus in its 19th edition (2010).

15 See E. Roy Weintraub, General Equilibrium Analysis: Studies in Appraisal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), ch. 6.

16 Due to Gustav Cassel, Theoretische Sozialökonomie, 4th ed.(Leipzig: Winter, 1927), translated as The Theory of Social Economy, new rev. ed. (London: Benn and New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1932).

17 This resulted in a series of four papers by Wald, 1934-1936, and one by von Neumann 1937.

18 See E. Roy Weintraub, How Economics Became a Mathematical Science (Durham: Duke University Press, 2002); and Mark Blaug, “The Formalist Revolution of the 1950s,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25 (2003): 145-56.

19 See their Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944). On the evolution of game theory see Leonard, Von Neumann, Morgenstern and the Creation of Game Theory, and Nicola Giocoli, Modeling Rational Players: From Interwar Economics to Early Modern Game Theory (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2003).

20 See Joseph Schumpeter, Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, 2nd ed. (Munich: Duncker & Humblot, 1926), translated as The Theory of Economic Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1934).

21 “Economics and Knowledge,” Economica, N. S. 4 (1937): 39, reprinted in Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948; and London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1949), 39. See also his “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” American Economic Review 35 (1945): 519-30, reprinted as chapter 4 of Individualism and Economic Order, and “Competition as a Discovery Procedure,” in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978), 179-90.

22 See, for example, Friedrich A. Hayek, “The Campaign Against Keynesian Inflation,” in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, 191-231.

23 See Milton Friedman and Anna J. Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963); and also Harry G. Johnson, “The Keynesian Revolution and the Monetarist Counter-Revolution,” American Economic Review 61 (1971): 1-14.

24 During the Thatcher years Hayek apparently developed a taste for engaging in public controversy, in particular in the pages of The Times and with his favorite opponent, the post-Keynesian Nicholas Kaldor. This series of controversies ran from December 1976, on the alleged socialist character of the German economy, to September 1980, on recommendations for reflation.

25 I use the term “neoliberal” only with the utmost caution because in its meaning in everyday English it is more often than not used in a pejorative sense. Here it simply denotes a set of policy prescriptions conforming to liberal values (in the European sense).

26 Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1944); see also the reprinted “definitive edition” as vol. 2 of The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, ed. Bruce Caldwell (2007); and Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper, 1942).

27 See James H. Stock and Mark W. Watson, “Has the Business Cycle Changed and Why?” Macroeconomics Annual 17 (2002): 159-218; and also the speech on “The Great Moderation,” at the meeting of the Eastern Economic Association, Washington, 20 Feb. 2004, by Ben S. Bernanke, then governor, presently the chairman of the United States Federal Reserve System.

28 Hayek, “The Austrian School of Economics,” 52. He believed that the Austrian School “has to a great extent come to enjoy such a success” (ibid.).

29 See, for example, David Colander, “The Death of Neoclassical Economics,” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 22 (2000): 127-43; and idem., Richard P. F. Holt, and J. Barkley Rosser, “The Changing Face of Mainstream Economics,” Review of Political Economy 16 (2004): 485-99.

30 Not even in the highly hedged version attributed to Milton Friedman with regard to Keynesianism that, “In one sense, we are all Keynesians now; in another, nobody is any longer a Keynesian” (Time, 4 Feb. 1966).