A Sociological Argument for the Validity of ABCT

The validity of any given theory is often thought to be dependent on: 1) its logical coherence, i.e., its derivation from self-evident axioms and its construction according to the proper rules of logical deduction, and 2) its correspondence with the facts of reality.

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory (hereafter ABCT) is well-renowned for the emphasis it attaches to logical precision of the arguments, axioms, and deductions it is built on, and its predictive track record is unparalleled as compared with the so-called "mainstream" theories of the same phenomenon (see here and here).

Hence, one would have thought that ABCT merits the closest examination and intellectual scrutiny in the standard academic forum of peer-reviewed journals. It is the case, however, that it receives practically no attention in the journals which are not themselves Austrian-oriented. The attention from those prominent "mainstream" academics that it did manage to generate manifested itself in the form of popular articles and blog entries (see here, here, here, and here), all of which contain a poorly researched, strawman version of the theory they aim to criticize (as evidenced here).

In view of the above, only two conclusions suggest themselves: either the abovementioned academics are poor scholars in the sense of lacking the requisite intellectual skills to understand and critically evaluate ABCT in a professional manner, or they are poor scholars in the sense of lacking the requisite intellectual integrity, i.e., they do not even try to understand the theory in question, or they do understand it, but choose to willfully mischaracterize it.

Now, if either of the above conclusions is correct, then, given the fact that the exponents of ABCT do devote a lot of space in their peer-reviewed journals (see, e.g., here, here, here, and here) to a thorough intellectual examination of the theories and arguments of their intellectual opponents (even thought the latters' respect for the precision of logical deduction and their predictive track record compare unfavourably to those of the ABCT theorists), it has to be assumed that the exponents of ABCT are better scholars (in both of the dimensions listed above) than their "mainstream" counterparts.

And since, by definition, better scholars produce better theories, it has to be concluded that the preceding considerations of the sociology of academia make it more likely that it is ABCT rather than any of its "mainstream" alternatives that provides the correct explanation and analysis of the phenomenon of business cycles.

My Academic Publications

Below is a list of my publications, including peer-reviewed journal articles, academic monographs, and book chapters:

42. “Proactivity in Economics: Between Resourcefulness and Entrepreneurship”, Routledge (2026).

41. “The Two Faces of Realism in Austrian Economics”, in Walter Block – Anarcho-Capitalist Austro-Libertarian, ed. Popescu, G. H., Nica, E., Addleton Academic Publishers, New York (2025), 55-8.

40. “The Economics and Sociology of Global Totalitarianism”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 31, 2 (2025), 7-20.

39. “Evictionism in the Light of Praxeological Economic Theory”, Studies in the History of Philosophy 16, 1 (2025), 101-110.

38. “The Proactive Society: an Introductory Exposition”, in Transition Economies in Central and Eastern Europe: Austrian Perspectives, ed. Sielska, A., Routledge, London-New York (2023), 133-39.

37. “The Ethical Structure of Production”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 28, 1 (2022), 25-38.

36. “Economics and Ethics: Neither Independent nor Intertwined, But Mutually Relevant”, in Defending Liberty: Essays in Honor of David Gordon, ed. Rasmussen, D. B., Wiśniewski, J. B., Ludwig von Mises Institute (2022), 227-52.

35. “Defending Liberty: Essays in Honor of David Gordon”, ed. with Rasmussen, D. B., Ludwig von Mises Institute (2022).

34. “The Capital Structure of Libertarian Production”, Studia Humana 11, 2 (2022), 1-9.

33. “Przedsiębiorczość jako fundament dynamicznej analizy gospodarczej”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 27, 2 (2021), 63-80.

32. “Spontaniczność instytucji a współpraca społeczna”, in Niech żyje rewolucja: 150 lat zasad ekonomii Carla Mengera, ed. Sielska, A., Wydawnictwo UwB, Białystok (2021), 129-38.

31. “Austrian Economics as a Paradigm of Golden Mean Thinking”, New Perspectives On Political Economy 16, 1-2 (2020), 39-51.

30. “Is Statism an Amoral Philosophy?”, Studia Humana 9, 2 (2020), 121-26.

29. “On the Impossibility of Intellectual Property”, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 23, 1 (2020), 33-45.

28. “Dobra i zła interdyscyplinarność w ekonomii”, in Ekonomia jako dyscyplina naukowa i kierunek kształcenia. Aktualne trendy i pożądane zmiany, ed. Rutkowska-Tomaszewska, E., Kwaśnicki, W., Difin, Warszawa (2020), 94-105.

27. “Wpływ teorii makroekonomicznych na etyczną jakość praktyki finansowej”, Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym / Annales. Ethics in Economic Life 22, 4 (2019), 7-20.

26. “Austrian Welfare Economics: A Reply to Wysocki and Megger”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 25, 3 (2019), 25-8.

25. “Word, Action, and Entrepreneurship”, Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 57, 1 (2019), 161-74.

24. “The Economics of Law, Order and Action: The Logic of Public Goods”, Routledge (2018).

23. “Etyka gospodarcza jako refleksja nad jakościowym potencjałem działalności ekonomicznej”, Annales. Etyka w Życiu Gospodarczym / Annales. Ethics in Economic Life 21, 1 (2018), 47–56.

22. “Legal Polycentrism and Contractarianism”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 23, 2 (2017), 75–82.

21. “Repugnancy, Marginalism, Transitivity, and Population Ethics”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 21, 3 (2015), 21–37.

20. “A Note on Collective Action, Cooperation, Collusion, and Voluntary Production of Public Goods”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 21, 2 (2015), 55–8.

19. “A comment on the concept of desire satisfaction and the Mises-Hayek dehomogenization debate”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 21, 1 (2015), 63–8.

18. “Legal Polycentrism, the Circularity Problem, and the Regression Theorem of Institutional Development”, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 17, 4 (2014), 510–8.

17. “Defense as a Private Good in a Competitive Order”, Review of Social and Economic Issues 1, 1 (2014), 3-35.

16. “The Methodology of the Austrian School of Economics: The Present State of Knowledge”, Ekonomia - Wroclaw Economic Review 20, 1 (2014), 39-54.

15. “Legal monocentrism and the paradox of government”, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 16, 4 (2013), 459-78.

14. “Non-excludability, Externalities, and Entrepreneurship – An Overview of the Austrian Theory of Common Goods”, Journal of Prices & Markets 1, 1 (2013), 57-68.

13. “Nonrivalness, Subjectivity and Capital – An Overview of the Austrian Theory of Club Goods”, New Perspectives On Political Economy 9, 1-2 (2013), 24-37.

12. “Abortion, Libertarianism, and Evictionism: A Last Word”, Libertarian Papers 5, 1 (2013), 153-62.

11. “On Regime Uncertainty and Legal Entrepreneurship”, Independent Review 17, 2 (2012), 253-6.

10. “A Note on Being Healthy”, Diametros 31 (2012), 133-5.

9. “Irreducible Holism”, Diametros 30 (2011), 76-92.

8. “Do Moral Dilemmas Tell Against the Consistency of a Given Moral System?”, Reason Papers 33 (2011), 44-59.

7. “Robust Political Economy and the Question of Motivations”, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 14, 1 (2011), 56-65.

6. “Well-Being and Objectivity”, Libertarian Papers 3, 7 (2011).

5. “Response to Block on Abortion, Round Three”, Libertarian Papers 3, 6 (2011).

4. “Rejoinder to Block's Defense of Evictionism”, Libertarian Papers 2, 37 (2010).

3. “A Critique of Block on Abortion and Child Abandonment”, Libertarian Papers 2, 16 (2010).

2. “Well-informedness and rationality: a philosophical overview”, Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 12, 3 (2009), 43-56.

1. “Free Will and Preactions”, Libertarian Papers 1, 23 (2009).