THE SUBJECTIVISM OF ACTIVE MINDSexpectations fit together. This complementarity is a strength <strong>of</strong>the theory. Keynes’s treatment <strong>of</strong> long-run expectations runsmostly <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> psychological expectations. It is not clear, <strong>in</strong>his analysis, what <strong>in</strong>stitutional properties <strong>of</strong> asset marketsencourage the perversities he identifies <strong>and</strong> what propertiesdiscourage them. (Keynes refers only to liquidity.) Rationalexpectations models refer, presumably, to dispositionalexpectations. They seem to imply that psychologicalexpectations are perfectly plastic, tak<strong>in</strong>g on whatever form isneeded to generate the predicted behaviour. As Thomas Sargenthas noted, this may imply that economic agents know withcerta<strong>in</strong>ty the very structural parameters <strong>of</strong> the economy thateconometricians can only estimate with uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty (Sargent1993:21). The examples <strong>of</strong> Keynes <strong>and</strong> rational expectationshelp to show that we should prefer economic arguments thatcomb<strong>in</strong>e <strong>and</strong> correlate plausible treatments <strong>of</strong> both psychological<strong>and</strong> dispositional expectations.Dist<strong>in</strong>guish<strong>in</strong>g dispositional <strong>and</strong> psychological expectationshelps us to see how we might fit Schutz <strong>and</strong> Hayek <strong>in</strong>to a consistenttheory <strong>of</strong> expectations. The Big Players theory suggests the utility <strong>of</strong>do<strong>in</strong>g so. The proposed <strong>in</strong>tegration seems to yield testablehypotheses. It may be true, then, that <strong>in</strong>tegrat<strong>in</strong>g Schutz <strong>and</strong> Hayekwill help to solve the Lachmann problem.ConclusionThe Lachmann problem was stated at least as early as 1943. For themost part it has rema<strong>in</strong>ed unsolved. Some progress has been madeby Lachmann <strong>and</strong> others through the recognition <strong>of</strong> theco-ord<strong>in</strong>ative function <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>stitutions, ‘nodal po<strong>in</strong>ts’ <strong>of</strong>co-ord<strong>in</strong>ation as Lachmann called them. But much rema<strong>in</strong>s to bedone. I conjecture that this <strong>in</strong>tractability has been due <strong>in</strong> part to atendency by researchers follow<strong>in</strong>g Lachmann to look for eitherKeynesian or Misesian solutions. If <strong>in</strong>stead we try to placeconsiderations <strong>of</strong> anonymity raised by Schutz <strong>in</strong> a Hayekian context<strong>of</strong> social evolution, we may make more progress.AcknowledgementsI thank William Butos for useful comments. Any deficiencies <strong>of</strong> thetext are my fault.77
ROGER KOPPLNotes1 For an <strong>in</strong>terest<strong>in</strong>g discussion <strong>of</strong> ‘Vision’ <strong>and</strong> analysis <strong>in</strong> economics seeBoettke 1992.2 Today the term ideal type is commonly used only for the typification <strong>of</strong>science, especially social science. In his Phenomenology <strong>of</strong> the SocialWorld (1932) Schutz used the term ‘ideal type’ to refer to both thetypifkations <strong>of</strong> common sense <strong>and</strong> those <strong>of</strong> science.3 I have been ignor<strong>in</strong>g the difference between the thoughts <strong>of</strong> agents <strong>and</strong>our representations <strong>of</strong> those thoughts. This difference can matter. Asfar as I can tell, however, it doesn’t matter for the po<strong>in</strong>ts be<strong>in</strong>g made <strong>in</strong>this paper.ReferencesBoettke, P.J. (1992) ‘<strong>Analysis</strong> <strong>and</strong> vision <strong>in</strong> economic discourse’, Journal <strong>of</strong>the History <strong>of</strong> <strong>Economic</strong> Thought, 14 (1):84–95.Butos, W.N. (1997) ‘Toward an Austrian theory <strong>of</strong> expectations’, Advances<strong>in</strong> Austrian <strong>Economic</strong>s’, 4:75–94.Butos, W.N. <strong>and</strong> Koppl, R.G. (1993) ‘Hayekian expectations: theory <strong>and</strong>empirical applications’, Constitutional Political Economy, 4 (3):303–29.——(1997) ‘The varieties <strong>of</strong> subjectivism: Keynes <strong>and</strong> Hayek onexpectations’, History <strong>of</strong> Political Economy, 29 (2):327–59.Keynes, J.M. ([1921] 1972) Collected Writ<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> John Maynard Keynes,vol. VIII, A Treatise on Probability, London: Macmillan.——([1936] 1972) Collected Writ<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>of</strong> John Maynard Keynes, vol. VII,The General Theory <strong>of</strong> Money, Employment, <strong>and</strong> Interest, London:Macmillan.Knight, F.H. ([1921] 1971) Risk, Uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty <strong>and</strong> Pr<strong>of</strong>it, Chicago: TheUniversity <strong>of</strong> Chicago Press.Koppl, R.G. (1991) ‘Animal spirits’, Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Economic</strong> Perspectives, 5(3): 203–10.——(1997) ‘Mises <strong>and</strong> Schutz on ideal types’, Cultural Dynamics, 9 (1):63–76.Koppl, R. <strong>and</strong> Yeager, L. (1996) ‘Big players <strong>and</strong> herd<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> asset markets: acase <strong>of</strong> the Russian ruble’, Explorations <strong>in</strong> <strong>Economic</strong> History, 33: 367–83.Lachmann, L. ([1943] 1977) ‘The role <strong>of</strong> expectations <strong>in</strong> economics as asocial science’, <strong>in</strong> Lachmann, L., Capital, Expectations, <strong>and</strong> the MarketProcess, ed. by Gr<strong>in</strong>der, W.E., Kansas City, Missouri: Sheed Andrews<strong>and</strong> McMeel, pp. 65–80.——([1969] 1977) ‘Methodological <strong>in</strong>dividualism <strong>and</strong> the marketeconomy’, <strong>in</strong> Lachmann, L., Capital, Expectations, <strong>and</strong> the MarketProcess ed. by Gr<strong>in</strong>der, W.E., Kansas City, Missouri: Sheed Andrews <strong>and</strong>McMeel, pp. 149–65.——(1976) ‘From Mises to Shackle: an essay on Austrian economics <strong>and</strong>the Kaleidic Society’, Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>Economic</strong> Literature, 14 (1): 54–62.Lakatos, I. (1976) Pro<strong>of</strong>s <strong>and</strong> Refutations: The Logic <strong>of</strong> MathematicalDiscovery, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.78