LIV REUNIÓN ANUAL| NOVIEMBRE DE 2019 David Ricardo Vs. Gottfried Haberler: When an Austrian Mind Matches an English Classic Mind Poinsot, Flavia Gabriela ISSN 1852-0022 / ISBN 978-987-28590-7-7 David Ricardo vs. Gottfried Haberler: When an Austrian mind matches an English classic mind Flavia G. Poinsot1 Abstract In many textbooks of international trade we read that the theory of comparative advantage, of Ricardo, determines its relative prices in function of the labor-cost theory. This approach, actually, emerges with Haberler by 1930s. For Haberler, the Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage is robust, but not the labor-cost doctrine which, he assumes, Ricardo applies. Haberler, then, reformulates the theory from the Austrian outlook which rejects the classical labor theory of value. The process, epistemologically speaking, resembles that of a Lakatosian “research program”, because while the hard core, the theory of comparative advantage, does not change, the assumptions and the labor-cost theory are eliminated. However, would Ricardo agree with Haberler in that he based the theory of comparative advantage in the labor-cost hypothesis? And, why Haberler thinks, without doubt, that Ricardo adheres to the labor-cost theory? This paper is an attempt to answer these questions. JEL classification: B31 - B53 – B25 – B12 - F10 Key words: David Ricardo – Gottfried Haberler – theory of value – theory of comparative advantage – Austrian school of thoughts – epistemology Introduction Gottfried Haberler, “the best horse in the Viennese stables” (Schumpeter, 2000, in Boehm, 2015), publishes Die Theorie der komparativen Kosten und ihre Auswertung für die Begründung des Freihandels in 1930, translate as The theory of international trade with its implications to commercial policy in 1933. The “known treatise of the professor von Haberler” (Schumpeter, 1954, 1971, p. 676), more than a century later of the David Ricardo’s Principles of Political Economy, makes famous the law of 1 [email protected] Universidad Nacional del Sur – Bahía Blanca – Argentina 1 comparative advantages of the latter. From here on, the idea that Ricardo puts forward his model in terms solely of labor is almost the norm in the most textbooks of foreign trade. Haberler develops the analysis of international trade in two parts, the theory and the trade policy. He divides the theory into the monetary theory of international trade in the first place, and the pure theory of international trade in the second place. In the former, Haberler considers the monetary aspects of the foreign trade. The theory of comparative advantage is in the latter and “dealt with the phenomena which result from the immobility of labor and capital, i.e. with the theory of comparative cost and all that follows from it” (pp. 8-9). Although it was linked to Ricardo by 1930s, and perhaps Torrens was the first in establishing the idea, Haberler stresses that Ricardo is the first in state his ideas systematically. We can read in the introduction that “the only really systematic theory of international trade we possess is the so-called classical theory” and all its component parts “were worked out by such early writers as Hume, Adam Smith and Ricardo” (Haberler, 1933, 1950, pp. 3). The doctrine of comparative costs is its “real” components, as opposed to the monetary aspects of the foreign trade. The problem, in Haberler view, is that Ricardo constructs the theory with the labor-cost theory, which supposes a set of unreal assumptions. Then, he argues, the theory is correct, but neither the assumptions nor the labor-cost theory is adequate. Then, he proceeds to disentangle the comparative advantage ideas of the chapter seven of the Principles (1817) of Ricardo from its assumptions, which, in turn, imply to eliminate the labor-cost theory. The picture of the theory that emerges from these considerations, “the solid theory” in Haberler’s words, resembles, I would suggest, that of a Lakatosian “research program”. We can state that the essentials underlying Ricardo explanation, his logical postulates, are the hard core of the theory, while the assumptions which support the labor-cost theory, and this theory itself, forms the protective belt. With this picture in mind, we can observe that Haberler unquestionably accepts the logical postulates of the law of comparative advantages. However, he rejects as unreal or false the assumptions, which support the labor-cost theory. He, then, reconsider the logical structure of this protective belt. In the first place, he changes the assumption and drops the labor-cost theory. In the second place, he substitutes those structures with the 2 principles of the marginal utility principles and the general equilibrium theory, in an Austrian way. However, does Ricardo state the theory of the international trade in terms of the labor theory of value? This question brings us to reconsider whether he adheres to the labor- cost theory because, if this is so, we can expect also that he would develop the trade theory in terms of this. Another question related is why Haberler thinks, without doubt, that Ricardo adheres to the labor-cost theory. This paper is an attempt to answer these questions. So that, the first section of this essay briefly displays the biography of Gottfried Haberler. In order to answer the addressed questions, the next section develops the key elements in the transformation of the theory Haberler does. In his own words, he takes the “only really systematic theory of international trade” to transform it in the theory he described as a “solid” one. So then, in the third and fourth section I give some probable answers to those questions. A final section contains some concluding thoughts. Gottfried Haberler, “the best horse in the Viennese stables”: His biography in a few lines Gottfried Haberler born on 20 July 1900 in Purkesdorf near Vienna. At the University of Vienna, where he studies, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Wieser are his professors of economics and, since that, he belongs to the Austrian School of Economics. He is a member of the Mises circle. What’s more, with Hans Kelse, they are the witnesses of the marriage of Ludwing von Mises with Margit Sereny-Herzfeld in Geneva in 1958. This event was something strange for these two friends because Mises, of fifty-seven years old, lived with his mother until she dies a while ago, and Margit was not known for over a decade. Really, Kelse “could hardly believe he was seeing his friend at the office of the county clerk” (Schulak & Unterköfler, 2011, p. 115-16). Haberler gains his doctorate in law in 1923 and in political science in 1925, after that he works in the chamber of commerce. In 1927 he graduates from postdoctoral studies in London, and, when returns to Vienna, he obtains his Habilitation with Der Sinn der Indexzahlen, or The Meaning of the Index Numbers, in 1928, with Friedrich Hayek and Oskar Morgenstern. A year later, he graduates from postdoctoral studies, now from 3 Harvard, where he gives guest lectures in 1931-32. At the University of Vienna, Haberler, with Hayek and Morgenstern, have his lectures and participates in the Mises- Privatseminar (Schulak & Unterköfler, 2011). Haberler, Hayek and Morgenstern, “serve as a quantitative counterbalance to Spann and his circle of students for the first time in many years” with their courses alongside those of Mayer, Mises, and Strigl. In the Mayer’s circle, its students question the foundations of the “Austrian monetary business cycle theory” (Vorlesungsverzeichnis, 1929-1930, p. 12; Weber, 1966, p. 2, in Schulak & Unterköfler, 2011, p. 109), a theme that Haberler writes about and debates in the Mises’ circle. In this line of investigation, the combined contributions of Haberler, Machlup, Morgenstern and Strigl makes possible that the Austrian School presents itself in Zurich in 1928 “as the authoritative research group in monetary and business cycle theory” (Schulak & Unterköfler, 2011, p. 71). On 1934, Haberler writes a compilation of all current business cycle theories and two years later, when many of them were living outside of Austria, he completes his work on business cycle theories, “a monument to the “Austrian” contribution” (Haberler, 1937, pp. 33- 72). In the spite of the fact that the Austrian School is paralyzed by the political events of the time, its exiled members join the neoclassical mainstream, like Fritz Machlup in information economics; Oskar Morgenstern with his works on game theory, economic forecasting, and methodology; and Paul Rosestein-Rodan with his work in developing countries. Hayek points out that it is possible to have the impression that the Austrian School theories have entered into mainstream economics (Hayek, 1973, p. 13; Boettke, 1994b, p. 1, in Schulak & Unterköfler, 2011, p. 168). At this time, when many members of the Austrian School are politically undesirable, Haberler, whose Prosperity and Depression (1937) makes possible his contacts with the most world’s well-known economists, accepts, shortly after its publication, an appointment at Harvard. Therefore, he is abroad when Hitler determines the annexation in 1938, when many lectures and professors, who were either Jewish or dislike of the Nazis, among them Schüller, Morgenstern and Winkler, loss their teaching certification. But, in spite of his situation, he “uses his excellent contacts and his organizational talents to help emigrants and exiles in many ways” (Feichtinger, 2001, p. 202-3, in Schulak & Unterköfler, 2011, p. 132). Once more, in the United States, Haberler gains an excellent reputation, became advisor to the Board of Governors of the American 4 central banking system and later is elected president of the American Economic Association in 1963. While n 1971 Fritz Machlup became an honorary senator of the University of Vienna, Gottfried Haberler receives honorary Ph. D.s from the University of Innsbruck in 1970 and the Vienna University of Economics and Business in 1980.