Review of Austrian Economics, 11: 145–162 (1999)
c
1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers
Some Notes on Alfred Sch¨utz and the Austrian
School of Economics: Review of Alfred Sch¨utz’s
Collected Papers, Vol. IV. Edited by H. Wagner,
G. Psathas and F. Kersten (1996)
MIE AUGIER
T
he Austrian/American philosopher, Alfred Sch¨utz (1899–1959) is a figure who
has received particular interest from sociologists, although his ideas should be
stimulating to the social sciences more broadly, including economics, and par-
ticularly Austrian economics. In many ways, the vision Sch¨utz followed was
very close to especially Ludwig von Mises’ vision of praxeology—the study of human
action. Both Mises and Sch¨utz aimed at understanding the essence of purposive ac-
tion, but only recently have the affinities between Alfred Sch¨utz and the Austrian School
become an important theme in the historiography of the Austrian School (e.g., Boettke
(1998b), Koppl (1997), Kurrild-Klitgaard (1997), Prendergast (1986, 1993)). This is the
case even though the role of interpretive reasoning within Austrian economics has been
long understood to be very important (see e.g., Boettke (1990), Prychitko (1995)). Ini-
tiated by a well-known essay by Christopher Prendergast (1986), a number of impor-
tant contributions have now emphasized the relationship between Austrian economics and
Sch¨utzian phenomenology.
1
And indeed, there are very strong personal as well as intellec-
tual ties between Alfred Sch¨utz and Austrian economics. Sch¨utz was an active member
of Mises’ Privat-Seminar in Vienna in the 1930s (and later he became a member of the
classical liberal organization, the Mont Pelerin Society). In Vienna he developed close
friendships with several Austrian economists (such as Mises, Hayek and Machlup), and it
was Mises who helped him find his first job. In many ways Sch¨utz continued to be an
important part of the Austrian tradition, which started with Mises and was spread through
his famous seminar in Vienna in the 1930s. Like Mises, Sch¨utz was interested in grasping
the meaning of human action. Indeed, this was what the social sciences should aim at.
This is somehow downplayed in the standard Sch¨utz literature, probably because the bio-
graphy of Sch¨utz, written in Wagner (1983) did not take into account such considerations,
My interest in the relations between Alfred Sch¨utz and Austrian Economics owemuchtodiscussionsconcerning
the topic with Peter Boettke, Roger Koppl, Kristian Kreiner, and Bettina B. Greaves. Remaining shortcomings
and errors are, of course, mine.
1
Among these recent contributions to the interpretive reasoning within Austrian economics are Boettke (1990,
1998a, 1998b), Helling (1984), Esser (1993), Foss (1996), Koppl (1997), Kurrild-Klitgaard (1997), O’Driscoll
and Rizzo (1985), Prendergast (1986, 1993) and Pietrykowski (1996), Forstater (1996, 1997), Langlois and Koppl
(1991), Koppl (1992,1994), Koppl and Langlois (1994). Ebeling (1986, 1987, 1995) and Prychitko (1995) are
also centered around the relation between Austrian subjectivism and interpretive sociology.
@Phil_Robichaud
@deepthiw
@JoseServera