二十世纪上半期社会主义经济核算论战研究
摘要
二十世纪上半期,奥地利学派和社会主义者,围绕着社会主义经济核算问题,展开了一场论战。奥地利学派的领军人物是米塞斯和哈耶克,而泰勒、多布和兰格等人,则为社会主义阵营的主要代表。对社会主义经济核算论战进行相对系统的研究,在很多方面具有重要的意义。从理论的角度来看,有助于我们更多的了解奥地利学派和西方马克思主义,同时也可以为我们更好的理解市场与计划的关系等相关问题,提供理论上的思考。从实践的角度来看,社会主义国家改革过程涉及到的市场如何定价、资源如何有效配置和利用等问题,都是论战中的重要主题,通过梳理围绕这些相关主题进行的讨论,有利于我们更好的理解改革开放的进程,进而为改革的进一步深化提供一定的借鉴。
关于这场论战,目前国内学界的相关研究,主要呈现出两个特点：第一,零散性的介绍相对较多,例如市场社会主义的研究者,在研究市场社会主义的发展脉络时,经常提到这场论战,奥地利学派的研究者,在研究米塞斯和哈耶克等人的思想,以及研究奥地利学派在二十世纪的发展脉络时,也会涉及到这场论战,但是对贯穿全部论战过程的整体性研究,则一直处于空白状态；第二,在现存的研究当中,对论战过程的描述也缺乏准确性和完整性,例如人们通常认为,米塞斯率先向社会主义发起了挑战,认为社会主义在理论上是不可能进行经济核算的,因此必然导致失败,由于巴罗尼等人早在世纪初就表明了,社会主义能够实现瓦尔拉斯的一般均衡,所以罗宾斯和哈耶克奥地利学派撤退到第二条战线,即承认社会主义在理论上是可能的,转而论证社会主义在实践中的不可能性：兰格和勒纳等人最终提出了市场社会主义的方案,成功的回应了奥地利学派的挑战,从而赢得了论战。但是这样的描述,忽略了很多重要的方面,例如二十世纪初考茨基和皮尔逊之间的争论,泰勒在1928年提出的试错法,以及社会主义者内部存在的争论等等,这些重要的问题都被忽视了。介于当前的研究现状,本文主要解决以下三个问题：第一,全面介绍社会主义经济核算论战的过程,为人们提供整个论战的全貌；第二,站在中立的立场上,对相关人物、相关主题进行分析,从而使我们相对客观的理解这场论战；第三,市场与计划之间的关系,一直是学术界关注的焦点,同样也是这场论战中的核心问题之一,通过对论战过程描述和分析,从论战的角度来探讨市场和计划之间的关系。
从上述三个问题出发,本文主要包括七章,在介绍论战的背景和前奏的基础上,重点讨论论战过程,分别是以下三个部分：奥地利学派对中央计划经济的批评、社会主义者对奥地利学派的回应和奥地利学派对市场社会主义的批评,然后分析论战的影响,最后对论战进行思考。整篇文章主要以论战的主题为线索,在讨论每一主题的过程中,则基本按照时间的顺序来写作。
第一章介绍论战的背景。本章主要探讨社会主义经济核算论战的理论背景和现实背景。理论背景中,又分为社会主义和奥地利学派两部分。首先分析马克思的社会主义观,针对马克思提出的生产资料公有制、计划经济和按劳分配,对原初的社会主义思想进行评析。然后结合着奥地利学派创始入门格尔的代表作《国民经济学原理》,分析奥地利学派的主观主义和个人主义方法论,并结合着论战中涉及的一些问题,对门格尔的思想进行评价。最后,介绍社会主义经济核算论战发生的时代背景,即社会主义国家的建立,资本主义世界的大萧条等。通过对论战背景的介绍,使我们从整体上把握社会主义经济核算论战。
第二章介绍论战的前奏。本章主要涉及戈森、纽拉特、考茨基和皮尔逊等人。在社会主义经济核算论战爆发之前,一些心智比较敏锐的自由主义思想家,就感觉到社会主义理论存在着问题,例如他们觉察到,马克思对资本主义的认识值得商榷,社会主义共同体并不能避免对市场和货币的利用等,从而站在自由主义的立场上,对社会主义的相关问题进行批判。而另一些信奉或者支持社会主义的人士,则坚决的对社会主义经济理论进行捍卫。可以说,事实上,在米塞斯挑起社会主义经济核算论战之前,双方不仅针对某些问题展开了隐形的对话,而且有直接的论战。通过梳理论战之前的这些争论,可以让我们更清晰的看到社会主义经济核算论战的历史渊源,从而更好的理解双方的观点。
第三章介绍奥地利学派对中央计划经济的批评。本章主要涉及米塞斯、哈耶克和罗宾斯三个人物。社会主义经济核算的论战,是由奥地利学派的米塞斯率先挑起的。1920年,米塞斯发表了题为《社会主义共同体的经济核算》的文章,重点讨论了社会主义的经济核算问题,1922年,又出版《社会主义》这部专著,对社会主义制度进行全面的批评,断言社会主义的中央计划体制是不可能的。米塞斯的核心论点是,社会主义取消了市场、货币和价格,必然无法在众多政策之间进行选择,只能进行盲目的计划,从而导致混乱不堪。从1935年开始,奥地利学派的另一位主将哈耶克,加入了这场论战,对论战过程进行了梳理,并从知识论的角度,对中央计划经济体制进一步的提出了批评。著名的英国经济学家罗宾斯,深受奥地利学派的影响,在1935年发表的《大萧条》和1937年发表的《经济计划和国际秩序》等作品中,也对中央计划经济进行了批评。
第四章介绍社会主义者对奥地利学派的回应。本章主要涉及巴罗尼、泰勒、兰格等社会主义者。在米塞斯和哈耶克等奥地利学派学者批评社会主义的同时,泰勒、迪金森、多布和兰格等很多支持或信奉社会主义的经济学家,从不同的角度,设计出不同的经济核算方案,对奥地利学派作出回应。针对米塞斯的观点,很多经济学家认为,巴罗尼早在1908年发表的《集体主义国家的生产管理》一文,就已经论证了社会主义制度下,可以通过数学计算的方式,成功的解决资源配置问题。1928年,美国经济学家泰勒,在当选美国经济学会会长的演说中,发表了《社会主义国家中的生产管理》,提出了社会主义可以采用试错的方法,逐步实现经济体系的均衡。而著名的市场社会主义者兰格,从1936年开始,相继发表了一系列的文章,对社会主义的经济计算问题进行理论建构。兰格认为,社会主义的确需要利用市场,在生产要素公有制的范围内,通过模拟竞争和试错法,同样能够发现均衡价格,社会主义经济体系同样能够实现均衡。在应对奥地利学派挑战的同时,社会主义阵营内部也发生了激烈的争论,例如迪金森和多布之间的争论,多布和勒纳之间的分歧等等。
第五章介绍奥地利学派对兰格模式的批评。本章主要涉及哈耶克和米塞斯两人。针对兰格提出的市场社会主义模式,哈耶克于1940年发表文章,从知识论的角度讨论兰格模式内在的问题,并对市场社会主义模式的现实可行性问题进行了分析。继哈耶克之后,米塞斯也在1949年发表的最为重要的代表作《人类行为》中,对兰格模式进行批评。哈耶克和米塞斯批评的重点,涉及试错法、均衡分析以及人造市场等方面。通过分析米塞斯与哈耶克对兰格模式的批评,我们可以更加清晰的看到奥地利学派与新古典主义经济学之间的差异。
第六章介绍论战的延续。本章主要涉及米塞斯、哈耶克、布鲁斯和罗默等人。作为二十世纪思想史上最为壮观的一幕,二十到四十年代爆发的社会主义经济核算的论战,无论对奥地利学派,还是对社会主义,都发生了深刻的影响。在论战结束之后,无论是奥地利学派,还是后来的社会主义者,都从不同的角度,对论战中各自的观点重新进行阐述。从奥地利学派一方来看,在论战结束之后,米塞斯更清晰的阐述了市场过程理论、企业家理论以及激励问题,而对哈耶克而言,论战的经历,使其学术兴趣发生了重大转移,开始思考为什么他无法接受的社会主义观念,会受到众多学者的支持。从这一问题出发,哈耶克以论战中提出的知识论为理论基石,开始探讨政治哲学、法律哲学等其他社会科学思想。从社会主义一方来看,尽管社会主义经济核算论战未能对社会主义国家的实践产生直接的影响,但是对于社会主义理论,尤其是市场社会主义理论,影响深远。布鲁斯、罗默等社会主义思想家,不断的从兰格模式中汲取资源,推动了市场社会主义理论的发展。
第七章,对论战的思考。通过对社会主义经济核算论战过程的梳理,以及对论战主题的分析,从中我们得以进行一些思考。首先是关于论战的过程,之前关于论战过程的描述,存在着众多错误,并且对于重要人物有所遗漏,因此,我们首先尝试着,对论战过程进行一个全面的客观的描述。其次,对于论战过程中涉及到的最为主要的主题,即市场与计划,市场体制与计划体制,我们进行了理论上的分析,在详细比较的前提下,厘清各自的适用范围。最后,从社会主义经济核算论战的角度,我们对中国改革开放进程进行回顾。
虽然社会主义经济核算论战涉及到自由主义与社会主义的意识形态之争,但是,通过对论战的回顾,我们可以发现,论战中的主要参与者,如奥地利学派的米塞斯、哈耶克,支持社会主义的泰勒、迪金森等人,都是站在中立的立场上,表达自己的观点。这样的论战态度,或许比论战涉及的问题本身,更值得我们关注。也正是从这样的角度出发,笔者认为,社会主义经济核算论战,对于双方而言,都提供了丰富的经验和教训。对社会主义者而言,他们需要认识到,从整体上说,社会主义计划经济在资源配置的效率、促进知识的利用等方面,的确存在着一些问题,而这正是奥地利学派的批评之所在。对于这些问题保持清醒的头脑,是社会主义改革取得成功的重要条件之一。而对于奥地利学派而言,他们对市场的论证固然充分,但是与此同时,他们也必须认识到市场内在的缺陷。如何在现代民主政治制度下,缓和贫富差异给人们带来的冲击,是奥地利学派必须重视的问题。另外,在论战中,奥地利学派的观点之所以没有被西方主流经济学界所接受,很大程度上归因于他们对数理经济学的拒斥,论战为他们提供的最大的经验教训,就是如何能够与主流经济学接轨,或者说,如何摆脱其始终处于边缘的境地。
社会主义经济核算的论战,已经是上个世纪的历史了,但是围绕这些主题的争论还在进行,而且还将继续。摒弃意识形态的纷争,从一个客观而理性的角度,重新审视社会主义经济核算论战,当能为我们的理论思考提供更多的启迪,为我们的改革实践提供更多的借鉴。
During the first half of the twentieth century,there was a Socialist Calculation Debate between Austrian School,the leaders of which were Mises and Hayek,and socialists, of which Dobb and Lange were considered as the main representatives.The systemic research on Socialist Calculation Debate is of great significance in many fields.Theoretically,this kind of research can help us to learn more about Austrian School and western Marxism,but also to get a better understanding of the relationship between market and planning,as well as other related issues.Practically,the reform processes of socialist countries involve how the market fixes a price,how to effectively distribute and untilize resource,which are all important themes in the debate.Therefore,the research on the debate around these themes is helpful for us to promote the understanding of the progress of reform and openness,and then will also provide references for further deepening reform.
The present research on this debate by domestic scholars is characterised by two features.Firstly,most introductions are scattered.For example,researchers of market socialism would like to mention about this debate when combing the development vein of market socialism,at the same time,this debate also was referred to by researchers of Austrian school when they were focused on the thought of Mises and Hayek and the developing vein of Austrian school in the twentieth century. Contrarily,thorough research on this debate is still in a blank. Secondly,among the existing research,the description of the process of this debate is in lack of accuracy and integrity.For example,Mises is believed as the first to challenge the Socialism.He argued that Socialism was bound to lead to failure because of the theoretic impossibility of socialist economic calculation. While Barone and others indicated that Socialism could achieve Walrasian General Equilibrium at the beginning of the century,therefore,Robbins and Hayek retreated to the second front,admitting that Socialism was theoretically possible,while arguing its practical impossibility in turn.Finally,Lange,Lerner and others put forward the scheme of market socialism,because of which they succeeded in responding to the challenge and winning the debate.However,this kind of description ignored many important aspects,such as the debate between Kautsky and Pierson at the beginning of twentieth century,trial-and-error method proposed by Taylor in1982, and the debates among socialists,etc.Considering present state of research,this dissertation is devoted to solute three main issues:firstly,thoroughly introduce the process of Socialist Calculation Debate,to provide a full view of this debate,secondly,neutrally analyse some related figures and themes,in order to comparatively objectively understand this debate;thirdly,since the relationship between market and planning is always the focues of academic concerns,which is also one of the core problems of this debate,this dissertation explore the relationship between market and planning from the angle of debate,by describing and analysing the process of the debate.
In the view of the three questions above,this dissertation mainly includes seven chapters.On the basis of introduction of background and prelude of the debate, this dissertation emphasizes the process of the debate,which can be divided into three parts as follows:Austrian School's criticism to Centrally Planned Economy,the response of socialists to Austrian School and Austrian School's criticism to market socialism,and then analyse the influence of the debate,and at last reflect on the debate.The whole dissertation uses the theme of debate as clue,while,when talking about every single theme, it is written based on time.
Chapter One introduces the background of the debate.In this chapter,the theoretic and practical background of Socialism Calculation Debate are mainly discussed,beween which,theoretic background can be divided into Socialism and Austrian School.First of all, this chapter analyses the Marx's thought of Socialism,and gives some comments on primary socialist thoughts,aiming at public ownership of the means of production,planned economy,and distribution according to labour presented by Marx.Further more,combing with Menger's masterpiece,who is the founder of Austrian School,this chapter analyses Austrian School's subjectivism and methodological individualism,but also comments on Menger's thought,with some related issues in the debate.Finally,this chapter describes the background of times,during which some socialist counties were established,and the Great Depress in capitalist world broke out.By the introduction of the background of the debate,we can thoroughly understand Socialist Calculation Debate.
Chapter Two describes the prelude of the debate. Gosson, Newurath,Kautsky, Pierson, etc. are mainly involved in this chapter.Before the outbreak of Socialist Calculation Debate,some keen-minded liberal thinkers were conscious of the problems existing in the theory of Socialism.For example,they perceived that the opinions of Marx on Capitalism were questionable,and that socialist community could not avoid utilizing market and currency. So they criticized some problems related to Socialism in Liberalism's position.While,others,who believed in or supported Socialism,firmly protected the theory of socialist economy.In fact,it is true that before Mises started Socialist Calculation Debate,there were not only invisible conversations but also direct arguments between the two sides.By combing these arguments before the debate,we can see the historical origin of Socialist Calculation Debate more clearly,thereby promoting the understanding of the thoughts of both sides.
Chapter Three introduces Austrian School's criticism to Centrally Planned Economy.This chapter refers to three figures,such as Mises,Hayek and Robbins.This Socialist Calculation Debate was started by Mises from Austrian School.In 1920,Mises published an article named,paying attention to discuss the issue of Socialist Economic Calculation. And in 1922,he published a monograph,in which he thoroughly criticized socialist system,and asserted that it was impossible to realize socialist centrally planned system.According the core arguments of Mises,Socialism abolished market,currency and price,and that was why it could not make any choice between numerous policies,but carried on planning blindly,thereby leading to utter disorder.From 1935 onwards,Hayek,another key figures of Austrian School,joined in this debate.He combed the process of the debate and further criticized Centrally Planned Economic System from the view of Epistemology.Robbins,a famous British Economist,who was deeply influenced by Austrian School,also criticized Centrally Planned Economy,in his works published in 1935,and in published in 1935,etc..
Chapter Four discusses the responses of socialists to Austrian School.In this chapter some socialists such as Barone,Taylor and Lange are mainly involved. While Mises,Hayek and other scholars of Austrian School criticized Socialism,many economists, who believed in or supported Socialism,such as Barone,Dickinson,Taylor and Lange, designed numerous different economic calculation scheme as responses to Austrian School.As for Mises' points of view,many economists believed that the article,written by Barone and published in 1908,had demonstrated that the problem of resource distribution could be solved under socialist system by the means of mathematical calculation.In 1928,American Economist Taylor,addressed a speech of when he was selected as the president of American Economic Association,in which he put forth that Socialism could use trial-and-error method to realize the balance of the economic system.Since 1936,Lange, a well-known market socialist,published a series of articles to carry out theoretic construct of Socialist Economic Calculation issue.Lange argued that Socialism did need to take advantage of market,and that within the framework of public ownership of means of production,by simulating competition and trial-and-error method,it was also possible to find the equilibrium price and to achieve balance for socialist economic system.At the same time of responsing to the challenge from Austrian School,there were also fierce debates within socialist camp,taking the arguments between Dickinson and Dobb, and difference between Dobb and Lerner for examples.
Chapter Five analyses the criticism of Austrian School to Lange's model,relating to Hayek and Mises.For Lange's socialist model,Hayek published articles to discuss the inherent problem of Lange's model,and to analyse the feasibility of market socialism model. After Hayek,Mises also published his most important work to criticized Lange's model.The focus of Hayek and Mises' criticism involved trial-and-error method,equilibrium analysis,as well as artificial market and other aspects.By analysing the criticism of Mises and Hayek to Lange's Model,we can clearly see the differences between Austrian School and Neo-classic Economics.
Chapter Six is still related to the debate,mainly dealing with Mise,Hayek,Bruce and Romer,etc..As the most spectacular scene of intellectual history of the twentieth century,Socialist Calculation Debate,occurring between twenties and forties, has profound influences both to Austrian School and Socialism.After the debate,both Austrian School and subsequent socialists re-explained their former opinions from different perspectives.From Austrian School's point of view,Mises illustrated Market Process Theory,Entrepreneurship Theory and issues of motivation.While as for Hayek,with the experience of the debate,his academic interest underwent a major change.He began to think about why Socialism,which he could not agree with,otherwise, would be supported by so many scholars.Further more, proceeding from this problem,with the theoretical foundation of epistemology promoted in the debate, Hayek began to explore political philosophy,legal philosophy and other social scientific thoughts.On the other hand,from socialist point of view,although Socialist Calculation Debate could not exert any direct influence to the practice of socialist countries,it did have profound impact on socialist theory especially on market socialist theory.Bruce,Romer,and other socialist thinkers constantly learned from Lange's Model,to promote development of market socialism theory.
Chapter Seven,the reflect on this debate.Through combing the process of Socialist Calculation Debate,as well as the analysis of the theme of the debate,we can carry out some thgoughts.The first thought is about the process of the debate.Since previous description of the process has made some mistakes and ignored some important figures,therefore,we are the first to try on the comprehensive and objective description of
the process. Secondly, as for the most important themes, namely market and planning,
Market System and Planning System,we conduct a theoretical analysis,to clarify the respective scopes of application,under the premise of a detailed comparison.Finally,from the perspective of Socialist Calculation Debate,we review the process of China's reform and opening up.
While Socialist Calculation Debate involves the Socialist-Liberal ideological struggle,
through the review of the debate,we can find that the main participants of the debate,such as Mises and Hayek of Austrian School,as well as Taylor and Dickinson who supported Socialism,all expressed their opinions in a neutral position.Perhaps,this attitude of the debate,is worthy of our attention rather than the debate itself. Just in this perspective, We believe that,for both sides,Socialist Calculation Debate provides a wealth of experience and lessons.For socialists,they needed to realize that,generally,socialist planned economy indeed had some problems in resource distribution,promotion to the advance of knowledge and other aspects.And that was just what Austrian School criticized for.Also,remaining sober-minded to these issues is essential for socialist reform to achieve success.While,for Austrian School,it is true that their arguments on the market were adequate,but at the same time,they also needed to recognize that market was inherently flawed.How to relieve the impact caused by difference between the rich and poor,under modern democratic political system was a problem that Austrian School must pay attention to.In addition,during the debate,the points of view of Austrian School were not accepted by western mainstream economics,and that was partly because of their rejection of mathematical Economics.The most significant lesson the debate provided to them was how to line with mainstream economics,or how to get rid of its marginalized position.
Socialist Calculation Debate has been the history of last century,but the arguments around these themes are still going on.abandoning ideological disputes and studying from an objective and rational perspective, it would not only bring us with much more inspirations for our theoretical thoughts,but also with more references for our reform practice.
关于这场论战,目前国内学界的相关研究,主要呈现出两个特点：第一,零散性的介绍相对较多,例如市场社会主义的研究者,在研究市场社会主义的发展脉络时,经常提到这场论战,奥地利学派的研究者,在研究米塞斯和哈耶克等人的思想,以及研究奥地利学派在二十世纪的发展脉络时,也会涉及到这场论战,但是对贯穿全部论战过程的整体性研究,则一直处于空白状态；第二,在现存的研究当中,对论战过程的描述也缺乏准确性和完整性,例如人们通常认为,米塞斯率先向社会主义发起了挑战,认为社会主义在理论上是不可能进行经济核算的,因此必然导致失败,由于巴罗尼等人早在世纪初就表明了,社会主义能够实现瓦尔拉斯的一般均衡,所以罗宾斯和哈耶克奥地利学派撤退到第二条战线,即承认社会主义在理论上是可能的,转而论证社会主义在实践中的不可能性：兰格和勒纳等人最终提出了市场社会主义的方案,成功的回应了奥地利学派的挑战,从而赢得了论战。但是这样的描述,忽略了很多重要的方面,例如二十世纪初考茨基和皮尔逊之间的争论,泰勒在1928年提出的试错法,以及社会主义者内部存在的争论等等,这些重要的问题都被忽视了。介于当前的研究现状,本文主要解决以下三个问题：第一,全面介绍社会主义经济核算论战的过程,为人们提供整个论战的全貌；第二,站在中立的立场上,对相关人物、相关主题进行分析,从而使我们相对客观的理解这场论战；第三,市场与计划之间的关系,一直是学术界关注的焦点,同样也是这场论战中的核心问题之一,通过对论战过程描述和分析,从论战的角度来探讨市场和计划之间的关系。
从上述三个问题出发,本文主要包括七章,在介绍论战的背景和前奏的基础上,重点讨论论战过程,分别是以下三个部分：奥地利学派对中央计划经济的批评、社会主义者对奥地利学派的回应和奥地利学派对市场社会主义的批评,然后分析论战的影响,最后对论战进行思考。整篇文章主要以论战的主题为线索,在讨论每一主题的过程中,则基本按照时间的顺序来写作。
第一章介绍论战的背景。本章主要探讨社会主义经济核算论战的理论背景和现实背景。理论背景中,又分为社会主义和奥地利学派两部分。首先分析马克思的社会主义观,针对马克思提出的生产资料公有制、计划经济和按劳分配,对原初的社会主义思想进行评析。然后结合着奥地利学派创始入门格尔的代表作《国民经济学原理》,分析奥地利学派的主观主义和个人主义方法论,并结合着论战中涉及的一些问题,对门格尔的思想进行评价。最后,介绍社会主义经济核算论战发生的时代背景,即社会主义国家的建立,资本主义世界的大萧条等。通过对论战背景的介绍,使我们从整体上把握社会主义经济核算论战。
第二章介绍论战的前奏。本章主要涉及戈森、纽拉特、考茨基和皮尔逊等人。在社会主义经济核算论战爆发之前,一些心智比较敏锐的自由主义思想家,就感觉到社会主义理论存在着问题,例如他们觉察到,马克思对资本主义的认识值得商榷,社会主义共同体并不能避免对市场和货币的利用等,从而站在自由主义的立场上,对社会主义的相关问题进行批判。而另一些信奉或者支持社会主义的人士,则坚决的对社会主义经济理论进行捍卫。可以说,事实上,在米塞斯挑起社会主义经济核算论战之前,双方不仅针对某些问题展开了隐形的对话,而且有直接的论战。通过梳理论战之前的这些争论,可以让我们更清晰的看到社会主义经济核算论战的历史渊源,从而更好的理解双方的观点。
第三章介绍奥地利学派对中央计划经济的批评。本章主要涉及米塞斯、哈耶克和罗宾斯三个人物。社会主义经济核算的论战,是由奥地利学派的米塞斯率先挑起的。1920年,米塞斯发表了题为《社会主义共同体的经济核算》的文章,重点讨论了社会主义的经济核算问题,1922年,又出版《社会主义》这部专著,对社会主义制度进行全面的批评,断言社会主义的中央计划体制是不可能的。米塞斯的核心论点是,社会主义取消了市场、货币和价格,必然无法在众多政策之间进行选择,只能进行盲目的计划,从而导致混乱不堪。从1935年开始,奥地利学派的另一位主将哈耶克,加入了这场论战,对论战过程进行了梳理,并从知识论的角度,对中央计划经济体制进一步的提出了批评。著名的英国经济学家罗宾斯,深受奥地利学派的影响,在1935年发表的《大萧条》和1937年发表的《经济计划和国际秩序》等作品中,也对中央计划经济进行了批评。
第四章介绍社会主义者对奥地利学派的回应。本章主要涉及巴罗尼、泰勒、兰格等社会主义者。在米塞斯和哈耶克等奥地利学派学者批评社会主义的同时,泰勒、迪金森、多布和兰格等很多支持或信奉社会主义的经济学家,从不同的角度,设计出不同的经济核算方案,对奥地利学派作出回应。针对米塞斯的观点,很多经济学家认为,巴罗尼早在1908年发表的《集体主义国家的生产管理》一文,就已经论证了社会主义制度下,可以通过数学计算的方式,成功的解决资源配置问题。1928年,美国经济学家泰勒,在当选美国经济学会会长的演说中,发表了《社会主义国家中的生产管理》,提出了社会主义可以采用试错的方法,逐步实现经济体系的均衡。而著名的市场社会主义者兰格,从1936年开始,相继发表了一系列的文章,对社会主义的经济计算问题进行理论建构。兰格认为,社会主义的确需要利用市场,在生产要素公有制的范围内,通过模拟竞争和试错法,同样能够发现均衡价格,社会主义经济体系同样能够实现均衡。在应对奥地利学派挑战的同时,社会主义阵营内部也发生了激烈的争论,例如迪金森和多布之间的争论,多布和勒纳之间的分歧等等。
第五章介绍奥地利学派对兰格模式的批评。本章主要涉及哈耶克和米塞斯两人。针对兰格提出的市场社会主义模式,哈耶克于1940年发表文章,从知识论的角度讨论兰格模式内在的问题,并对市场社会主义模式的现实可行性问题进行了分析。继哈耶克之后,米塞斯也在1949年发表的最为重要的代表作《人类行为》中,对兰格模式进行批评。哈耶克和米塞斯批评的重点,涉及试错法、均衡分析以及人造市场等方面。通过分析米塞斯与哈耶克对兰格模式的批评,我们可以更加清晰的看到奥地利学派与新古典主义经济学之间的差异。
第六章介绍论战的延续。本章主要涉及米塞斯、哈耶克、布鲁斯和罗默等人。作为二十世纪思想史上最为壮观的一幕,二十到四十年代爆发的社会主义经济核算的论战,无论对奥地利学派,还是对社会主义,都发生了深刻的影响。在论战结束之后,无论是奥地利学派,还是后来的社会主义者,都从不同的角度,对论战中各自的观点重新进行阐述。从奥地利学派一方来看,在论战结束之后,米塞斯更清晰的阐述了市场过程理论、企业家理论以及激励问题,而对哈耶克而言,论战的经历,使其学术兴趣发生了重大转移,开始思考为什么他无法接受的社会主义观念,会受到众多学者的支持。从这一问题出发,哈耶克以论战中提出的知识论为理论基石,开始探讨政治哲学、法律哲学等其他社会科学思想。从社会主义一方来看,尽管社会主义经济核算论战未能对社会主义国家的实践产生直接的影响,但是对于社会主义理论,尤其是市场社会主义理论,影响深远。布鲁斯、罗默等社会主义思想家,不断的从兰格模式中汲取资源,推动了市场社会主义理论的发展。
第七章,对论战的思考。通过对社会主义经济核算论战过程的梳理,以及对论战主题的分析,从中我们得以进行一些思考。首先是关于论战的过程,之前关于论战过程的描述,存在着众多错误,并且对于重要人物有所遗漏,因此,我们首先尝试着,对论战过程进行一个全面的客观的描述。其次,对于论战过程中涉及到的最为主要的主题,即市场与计划,市场体制与计划体制,我们进行了理论上的分析,在详细比较的前提下,厘清各自的适用范围。最后,从社会主义经济核算论战的角度,我们对中国改革开放进程进行回顾。
虽然社会主义经济核算论战涉及到自由主义与社会主义的意识形态之争,但是,通过对论战的回顾,我们可以发现,论战中的主要参与者,如奥地利学派的米塞斯、哈耶克,支持社会主义的泰勒、迪金森等人,都是站在中立的立场上,表达自己的观点。这样的论战态度,或许比论战涉及的问题本身,更值得我们关注。也正是从这样的角度出发,笔者认为,社会主义经济核算论战,对于双方而言,都提供了丰富的经验和教训。对社会主义者而言,他们需要认识到,从整体上说,社会主义计划经济在资源配置的效率、促进知识的利用等方面,的确存在着一些问题,而这正是奥地利学派的批评之所在。对于这些问题保持清醒的头脑,是社会主义改革取得成功的重要条件之一。而对于奥地利学派而言,他们对市场的论证固然充分,但是与此同时,他们也必须认识到市场内在的缺陷。如何在现代民主政治制度下,缓和贫富差异给人们带来的冲击,是奥地利学派必须重视的问题。另外,在论战中,奥地利学派的观点之所以没有被西方主流经济学界所接受,很大程度上归因于他们对数理经济学的拒斥,论战为他们提供的最大的经验教训,就是如何能够与主流经济学接轨,或者说,如何摆脱其始终处于边缘的境地。
社会主义经济核算的论战,已经是上个世纪的历史了,但是围绕这些主题的争论还在进行,而且还将继续。摒弃意识形态的纷争,从一个客观而理性的角度,重新审视社会主义经济核算论战,当能为我们的理论思考提供更多的启迪,为我们的改革实践提供更多的借鉴。
During the first half of the twentieth century,there was a Socialist Calculation Debate between Austrian School,the leaders of which were Mises and Hayek,and socialists, of which Dobb and Lange were considered as the main representatives.The systemic research on Socialist Calculation Debate is of great significance in many fields.Theoretically,this kind of research can help us to learn more about Austrian School and western Marxism,but also to get a better understanding of the relationship between market and planning,as well as other related issues.Practically,the reform processes of socialist countries involve how the market fixes a price,how to effectively distribute and untilize resource,which are all important themes in the debate.Therefore,the research on the debate around these themes is helpful for us to promote the understanding of the progress of reform and openness,and then will also provide references for further deepening reform.
The present research on this debate by domestic scholars is characterised by two features.Firstly,most introductions are scattered.For example,researchers of market socialism would like to mention about this debate when combing the development vein of market socialism,at the same time,this debate also was referred to by researchers of Austrian school when they were focused on the thought of Mises and Hayek and the developing vein of Austrian school in the twentieth century. Contrarily,thorough research on this debate is still in a blank. Secondly,among the existing research,the description of the process of this debate is in lack of accuracy and integrity.For example,Mises is believed as the first to challenge the Socialism.He argued that Socialism was bound to lead to failure because of the theoretic impossibility of socialist economic calculation. While Barone and others indicated that Socialism could achieve Walrasian General Equilibrium at the beginning of the century,therefore,Robbins and Hayek retreated to the second front,admitting that Socialism was theoretically possible,while arguing its practical impossibility in turn.Finally,Lange,Lerner and others put forward the scheme of market socialism,because of which they succeeded in responding to the challenge and winning the debate.However,this kind of description ignored many important aspects,such as the debate between Kautsky and Pierson at the beginning of twentieth century,trial-and-error method proposed by Taylor in1982, and the debates among socialists,etc.Considering present state of research,this dissertation is devoted to solute three main issues:firstly,thoroughly introduce the process of Socialist Calculation Debate,to provide a full view of this debate,secondly,neutrally analyse some related figures and themes,in order to comparatively objectively understand this debate;thirdly,since the relationship between market and planning is always the focues of academic concerns,which is also one of the core problems of this debate,this dissertation explore the relationship between market and planning from the angle of debate,by describing and analysing the process of the debate.
In the view of the three questions above,this dissertation mainly includes seven chapters.On the basis of introduction of background and prelude of the debate, this dissertation emphasizes the process of the debate,which can be divided into three parts as follows:Austrian School's criticism to Centrally Planned Economy,the response of socialists to Austrian School and Austrian School's criticism to market socialism,and then analyse the influence of the debate,and at last reflect on the debate.The whole dissertation uses the theme of debate as clue,while,when talking about every single theme, it is written based on time.
Chapter One introduces the background of the debate.In this chapter,the theoretic and practical background of Socialism Calculation Debate are mainly discussed,beween which,theoretic background can be divided into Socialism and Austrian School.First of all, this chapter analyses the Marx's thought of Socialism,and gives some comments on primary socialist thoughts,aiming at public ownership of the means of production,planned economy,and distribution according to labour presented by Marx.Further more,combing with Menger's masterpiece
Chapter Two describes the prelude of the debate. Gosson, Newurath,Kautsky, Pierson, etc. are mainly involved in this chapter.Before the outbreak of Socialist Calculation Debate,some keen-minded liberal thinkers were conscious of the problems existing in the theory of Socialism.For example,they perceived that the opinions of Marx on Capitalism were questionable,and that socialist community could not avoid utilizing market and currency. So they criticized some problems related to Socialism in Liberalism's position.While,others,who believed in or supported Socialism,firmly protected the theory of socialist economy.In fact,it is true that before Mises started Socialist Calculation Debate,there were not only invisible conversations but also direct arguments between the two sides.By combing these arguments before the debate,we can see the historical origin of Socialist Calculation Debate more clearly,thereby promoting the understanding of the thoughts of both sides.
Chapter Three introduces Austrian School's criticism to Centrally Planned Economy.This chapter refers to three figures,such as Mises,Hayek and Robbins.This Socialist Calculation Debate was started by Mises from Austrian School.In 1920,Mises published an article named
Chapter Four discusses the responses of socialists to Austrian School.In this chapter some socialists such as Barone,Taylor and Lange are mainly involved. While Mises,Hayek and other scholars of Austrian School criticized Socialism,many economists, who believed in or supported Socialism,such as Barone,Dickinson,Taylor and Lange, designed numerous different economic calculation scheme as responses to Austrian School.As for Mises' points of view,many economists believed that the article
Chapter Five analyses the criticism of Austrian School to Lange's model,relating to Hayek and Mises.For Lange's socialist model,Hayek published articles to discuss the inherent problem of Lange's model,and to analyse the feasibility of market socialism model. After Hayek,Mises also published his most important work
Chapter Six is still related to the debate,mainly dealing with Mise,Hayek,Bruce and Romer,etc..As the most spectacular scene of intellectual history of the twentieth century,Socialist Calculation Debate,occurring between twenties and forties, has profound influences both to Austrian School and Socialism.After the debate,both Austrian School and subsequent socialists re-explained their former opinions from different perspectives.From Austrian School's point of view,Mises illustrated Market Process Theory,Entrepreneurship Theory and issues of motivation.While as for Hayek,with the experience of the debate,his academic interest underwent a major change.He began to think about why Socialism,which he could not agree with,otherwise, would be supported by so many scholars.Further more, proceeding from this problem,with the theoretical foundation of epistemology promoted in the debate, Hayek began to explore political philosophy,legal philosophy and other social scientific thoughts.On the other hand,from socialist point of view,although Socialist Calculation Debate could not exert any direct influence to the practice of socialist countries,it did have profound impact on socialist theory especially on market socialist theory.Bruce,Romer,and other socialist thinkers constantly learned from Lange's Model,to promote development of market socialism theory.
Chapter Seven,the reflect on this debate.Through combing the process of Socialist Calculation Debate,as well as the analysis of the theme of the debate,we can carry out some thgoughts.The first thought is about the process of the debate.Since previous description of the process has made some mistakes and ignored some important figures,therefore,we are the first to try on the comprehensive and objective description of
the process. Secondly, as for the most important themes, namely market and planning,
Market System and Planning System,we conduct a theoretical analysis,to clarify the respective scopes of application,under the premise of a detailed comparison.Finally,from the perspective of Socialist Calculation Debate,we review the process of China's reform and opening up.
While Socialist Calculation Debate involves the Socialist-Liberal ideological struggle,
through the review of the debate,we can find that the main participants of the debate,such as Mises and Hayek of Austrian School,as well as Taylor and Dickinson who supported Socialism,all expressed their opinions in a neutral position.Perhaps,this attitude of the debate,is worthy of our attention rather than the debate itself. Just in this perspective, We believe that,for both sides,Socialist Calculation Debate provides a wealth of experience and lessons.For socialists,they needed to realize that,generally,socialist planned economy indeed had some problems in resource distribution,promotion to the advance of knowledge and other aspects.And that was just what Austrian School criticized for.Also,remaining sober-minded to these issues is essential for socialist reform to achieve success.While,for Austrian School,it is true that their arguments on the market were adequate,but at the same time,they also needed to recognize that market was inherently flawed.How to relieve the impact caused by difference between the rich and poor,under modern democratic political system was a problem that Austrian School must pay attention to.In addition,during the debate,the points of view of Austrian School were not accepted by western mainstream economics,and that was partly because of their rejection of mathematical Economics.The most significant lesson the debate provided to them was how to line with mainstream economics,or how to get rid of its marginalized position.
Socialist Calculation Debate has been the history of last century,but the arguments around these themes are still going on.abandoning ideological disputes and studying from an objective and rational perspective, it would not only bring us with much more inspirations for our theoretical thoughts,but also with more references for our reform practice.
引文
1约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第一卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：160.
1马克思恩格斯选集[M].第四卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：390.
2本段统计资料及美国前总统克林顿的评论引自张卓元等著《论中国所有制改革》,江苏人民出版社2001年版，89-91.
1马克思恩格斯选集[M].第3卷．北京：人民出版社,1995：303.
2同上，633.
1马克思恩格斯选集[M].第3卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：303-305.
2同上,660.
1庞巴维克著,彭定鼎译.奥地利学派经济学家[J].美国政治与社会科学院年刊,1891,1.
2约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：470.
3劳伦斯．怀特.奥地利学派经济学的方法论,出自门格尔著,姚中秋译,《经济学方法论探究》,新星出版社,2007年,297.
4门格尔著,姚中秋译.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：268.
1 Joseph T. Salerno, "Carl Menger:The Founder of the Austrian School." Ludwig von Mises Institute.
2 Principle of Economics, Carl Menger, Translated by James Dingwalland and Bert F Hoselitz, Ludwig von Mises Institute,007, p.7.
3文章中的黑体字均为作者原文所注。
4门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：3.
5同上,2.
1门格尔著,刘絜敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：3.
1门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海.上海世纪出版集团,2005：52.
2同上.52.
3按照门格尔的解释,所谓的高度福利,是指在同一强度下,持久性较长的为高度；在同一持久性下,强度较大的为高度。
4门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：66.
1门格尔著,刘絜敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：100.
1门格尔著，刘絜敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：112.
2 Joseph T. Salerno, "Carl Menger:The Founder of the Austrian School," Ludwig von Mises Institute.
3 A. Oakley, the Revival of Modern Austrian Economics, Edward Elgar,1999,p22.
1门格尔著,刘絜敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：2.
1门格尔著，姚中秋译.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：133.
2同上,142,148.
3格里高利·克里斯坦森.方法论个人主义.出自门格尔著.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：260.
1劳伦斯·怀特.奥地利学派经济学的方法论.出自门格尔著.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：303.
1门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：15.
2同上,20.
1米塞斯著,冯克利译.有计划的混乱[J].当代世界社会主义问题,2008,(2)：28.
1帕尔默,科尔顿著,孙福生等译.近现代世界史[M]．北京：商务印书馆,1988：1050.
2罗斯巴德著,谢华育译.美国大萧条[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2003：459.
1帕尔默,科尔顿著,孙福生等译.近现代世界史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1988：1054.
2转引自考德维尔著,冯克利译.哈耶克评传[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2007：277.
1门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：3.
1戈森著,陈秀山译.人类交换规律与人类行为准则的发展[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：7,9,16.
2同上,134,161.
3同上,271.
4 E.Cannon, A History of Theories of Production and Distribution, (1983;3d, ed.,1917), p.305.转引自F.A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons, 1935,p26.
1关于纽拉特生平的介绍,参考考德维尔著,冯克利译.哈耶克评传[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007：136—137.
1 Thomas E. Uebel, Introduction:Neurath's Economics in Critical Context, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, edited by Robert S.Cohen, Thomas E.Uebel, Springer Netherlands,2005,pp9-10.
2 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, edited by Robert S.Cohen, Thomas E.Uebel, Springer Netherlands,2005,p300.
1 Otto Neurath. Socialist Utility Calculation and Capitalist Profit Calculation, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, edited by Robert S.Cohen, Thomas E.Uebel, Springer Netherlands,2005,p468.
2 Otto Neurath, Empiricism and Sociology, edited by Marie Neurath and Robert S. Cohen, Dordrecht:Reidel,1973, pp349,363.
3 Otto Neurath, Empiricism and Sociology, edited by Marie Neurath and Robert S. Cohen, Dordrecht:Reidel,1973, p346.
4 Otto Neurath, Economics Plan and Calculation in Kind, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, edited by Robert S.Cohen, Thomas E.Uebel, Springer Netherlands,2005,p432.
1 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, p302.
1 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, p305.
1 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, p 307.
1 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, pp304,310.
2同上,303.
1马克思恩格斯全集[M].第38卷.北京：人民出版社,1972：186.
2在米塞斯的《社会主义》、哈耶克的《集体主义计划经济》以及兰格的《社会主义经济计算》等作品中,都不同程度的谈到了皮尔逊与考茨基的论战。
1参见The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.27, No.4 (Aug.,1913), pp.651-655. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 18, No.4 (Dec.,1903), pp.706-710. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.22, The United States and Latin America (Jul.,1903), pp.234-236等杂志。
2 N·G·Pierson, Principles of Economics, Vol 1,, transled by A.A.Wotzel, macmillan and co,London,p 51.
3同上，47.
1 N·G·Pierson, Principles of Economics, Vol I,, transled by A.A. Wotzel, macmillan and co,London,p 53.
2同上,54.
3参见卡尔·门格尔,刘肇敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2005：52-80.
1 Frank A. Fetter, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.11, No.4 (Sep.,1903), pp.660.弗兰克.费特(1863-1947),19世纪末20世纪初美国经济学界的领军人物。参见熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：186-187.
2米塞斯著,王建民、冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：114.注释7；另见Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p701.
1 N.G.Pierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism,ed.by F.A.von Hayek.London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p51.
2同上,43.
3伊藤诚著,鲁永学译.现代社会主义问题[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1996：68.
4 N.G.Pierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,p59.
5同上,59.
1 N.GPierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p70.
2同上,60.
3同上,77.
1 N.GPierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p75.
2转引自S. J. Chapman, The Economic Journal, Vol.23, No.89 (Mar.,1913), pp.71.
1考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：79.
2 N.G.Pierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. yon Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p52.
3考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：82.
1 N.G.Pierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p81.
2考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：86.
3同上,89.
4约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷．北京：经济科学出版社,1996：18.
5考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：89.
1考茨基著,无产阶级专政[J].出自王学东编.考茨基文选[M].北京：人民出版社,2008：389.
2参见Otto Nuerath, Through War Economy to Economy in Kind, from Boettke edited, Socialism and the Market,The Socialist Calculation Debate Revisited, Routledge, vol I,2001,p553-587。
3考茨基的德文版《无产阶级革命及其纲领》发表于1922年,两年后被翻译成英文,题为《劳动革命》。参见Karl Kautsky, transled by H.J. Stenning,《Labour Revolution》,1924, ALLEN & UNWIN,London, pp260-267.
1奥斯卡.兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：43.
2 Otto Neurath, Empiricism and Sociology, edited by Marie Neurath and Robert S.Cohen, p425.
3 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War PEconomics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, p303.
4参见J. W. N. Watkins, Reviewed work: Empiricism and Sociology by O. Neurath; Marie Neurath; Robert S. Cohen, pp347-48。
1参见格雷戈里,斯图尔特著,葛奇等译．比较经济制度学[M].北京：知识出版社,1988：121-25.
2 Mises, Ludwig von Mises, Notes and Recollections, Translated, and with a postscript, by Hans F. Sennholz, South Holland, Libertarian,1978, p40.
3 Mises, Nation, State, and Economy:Contributions to the Politics and History of Our Time, New York University Press, 1983, p140.
1约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷,北京：经济科学出版社,1996：938.
1参见David Ramsay Steele, Posing the Problem:The Impossibility of Economic Calculation under Socialism, The Jounal of Libertarian Studies, Vol V, No.1(Winter 1981), p12.
2 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London: George Routledge & Sons,1935,pp27-28.
1米塞斯著,王建民、冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：24.
2同上,29.
3 Ludwig Von Mises, Selected Writings of Ludwig Von Mises, Liberty Fund,2002, Vol 2, p351.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p3.
2同上,39.
3米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：79,80.
4门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：34-51.
1诺夫著,唐雪葆译.可行的社会主义经济[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988：22,23.
2低级财货与高级财货的划分,始于门格尔的《国民经济学原理》。这一划分在奥地利学派的思想中,占据着重要的地位,很多理论都与这一划分密切相关,如生产周期理论,对经济危机的理解等等。
3 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London: George Routledge & Sons,1935,p95.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p204.
1 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London: George Routledge & Sons,1935,p 96.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：177.
3同上,162.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,pp219,222.
2米塞斯著，王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：81.
3 A. Oakley, The Revival of Modern Austrian Economics,Edward Elgar,1999,p22.
4米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：81.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：80.
1 Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press, 1985, p54.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：84.
1 Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Socialism:A Property or Knowledge Problem? The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.9, No.1, 1996,p143.
2 Ludwig Von Mises. Human Action:a treatise on economics,p214.
3同上,218.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：87.
2 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p207.
1米塞斯著,姚中秋译.反资本主义心态[M]．北京：新星出版社,2007：111.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：89.
1韦伯著,康乐,简惠美译.经济行动与社会团体[M].北京：广西师范大学出版社,2004：36-45.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：167.
3柯兹纳.资本理论[J].出自埃德温.多兰主编,王文玉译.现代奥地利学派经济学的基础[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008年,127.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p p269-272.
2 Israel M. Kirzner, MISES AND HIS UNDERSTAING OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM,Cato Journal, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 1999), p220.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p 100.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：169.
3参见Kirzner, Method, Process andAustrain Economics, Lexington Books,1982.
Ludwig Von Mises. Human Action:a treatise on economics,p 273.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：173,84.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p 224.
2同上,224.
1柯兹纳.均衡与市场过程[J].出自埃德温·多兰主编.现代奥地利学派经济学的基础[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：105-113.
2 Mises, A Critique of Interventionism, Crown Pub,1977, p139.
3参见罗斯巴德著,谢华育译.美国大萧条[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2003：51-56.
1 David Ramsay Steele, Posing the Problem:The Impossibility of Economic Calculation Under Socialism, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.V, No.1,1981, p9.
2米塞斯著，王建民，冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：18.
3参见Mises, Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism, Planning for Freedom and Other Essays and Addresses, South Holland, Ⅲ.:Libertarian Press,1952.
1王建民.路德维希.冯.米塞斯社会主义观述评[J].山东大学学报,2007,6：3.
2马克思恩格斯全集[M].第20卷.北京：人民出版社,1974：334.
1考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：101.
2马克思恩格斯选集[M].第4卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：633.
3米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：168,177.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：171.
2同上,98.
1 Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：100.Press,1985, p67.
3同上,101.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：169.
2同上,87,102.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：102.
2阿兰·艾伯斯坦著,秋风译.哈耶克传[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003：29.
3拉特瑙(W.Rathenau),二十世纪上半期德国著名的经济学家,提倡在德国建立“社会化委员会”,研究如何在保持竞争活力的同时,对个体产业进行社会化等问题。
4 Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Friedrich A von Hayek, Oral History Progran, University of Calfornia at Los Angles, 1983, p11.
1转引自考德维尔著,冯克利译.哈耶克评传[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007：277.
2哈耶克曾经回答说,在他的一生中,给其影响最大的是两本书,一本是门格尔的《国民经济学原理》,另一本则是米塞斯的《社会主义》。前者让他坚定的走上了经济学研究的道理,后者则让他逐渐走向自由市场经济。
3米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：4.
4 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George: Routledge & Sons,1935,p16.
1 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p 2,3.
2 F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep.,1945),p520.
1哈耶克著,王明毅等译.通往奴役之路[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997：39-40.
1哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M]．北京：三联书店,2003：68.
1这篇讲稿指的是哈耶克于1936年11月10日,在伦敦经济学俱乐部所做的主席就职演讲,题目为《经济学与知识》,并于次年发表在《经济学》杂志上。
2 Nobel Prize Winning Economist,edited by Armen Alchian,1983, pp425-26.
3拉齐恩·萨丽等著,秋风译.哈耶克与古典自由主义[M].贵阳：贵州人民出版社,2003：239.
4何信全著.哈耶克自由理论研究[M]．北京：北京大学出版社,2004：20.
1 A. Oakley, the Revival of Modern Austrian Economics,Edward Elgar,1999,p22.
2门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：13.
1门格尔著，刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：121.
2哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：57.
1哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：54.
1亚当·斯密著,王亚南译.国民财富的性质和原因的研究[M].上卷.北京：商务印书馆,2002：1.
2门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：19.
3同上,20.
4哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：74.
1参见阿兰.艾伯斯坦著,秋风译.哈耶克传[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003：113.
1考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M]．北京：人民出版社,1980：101.
2奥塔.希克著,张斌译.第三条道路[M].北京：人民出版社,1982：141.
1 Hayek, Scientism and the Study of Society, Economica, vol.IX, August 1942.p35.
2哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：416.
3哈耶克著,邓正来译．自由秩序原理[M]．北京：三联书店,1997：80.
4哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：524.
1 F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep.,1945),p525.
F. A. H1 ayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep.,1945),p528.
2哈耶克著,冯克利译.科学的反革命——理性滥用之研究[M].南京：译林出版社,2003：87.
1莱昂内尔·罗宾斯著,朱泱译.经济科学的性质和意义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005：17,27.
2 Lionel Robbins, The Great Depression,London:Macmillan&Co.Ltd,1935,p148.
3 Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, London:Macmillan& Co Ltd, p194.
1 Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, London:Macmillan& Co Ltd, p197.
2同上,201.
1 Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, London:Macmillan& Co Ltd, p191.
2同上,8.
1卡伦.沃恩著,朱全红等译.奥地利学派在美国——一个传统的迁入[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：42．
1参见Eric Crampton, Robust Analytical Egalitarianism:Worst-case Political Economy and the Socialist Calculation Debate, Dickson College,2005, p4.
2哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M]．北京：三联书店,2003：177.
1转引自W. Paul Cockshott and Allin F. Cottrell, Information and Economics:A Critique of Hayek,November 1996.
2冯克利.用观念战胜观念[J].尤利西斯的自缚[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2004：215.
1关于巴罗尼的生平及介绍,参见约翰.伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：210.
2同上.210.
3熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：344.
4参见兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：2.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：14.
2马克思恩格斯选集[M].第一卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：286.
3马克思恩格斯选集[M].第四卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：390.
4马克思恩格斯选集[M].第三卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：633.
5同上,303-305.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935, p245.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State, 出自 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935, p246.
2 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p247.
3萨缪尔森著,甘华鸣等译.经济分析基础[M].北京：北京经济学院出版社,1990：217.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p256.
1萨缪尔森著,甘华鸣等译.经济分析基础[M].北京：北京经济学院出版社,1990：218.
2 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p265.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p275.
2同上,289.
3埃德蒙.惠特克著,徐宗士译.经济思想流派[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1974：462.关于卡塞尔的这种观点,哈耶克在《社会主义的计算：问题的性质与历史》中同样谈到过。参见F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p29.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p286.
2熊彼特著,杨敬年译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2001：348.
3格雷戈里,斯特尔特著,葛奇等译.比较经济制度学[M].北京：知识出版社,1988：102.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p245.
2约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：210.
3 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p29.
4 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p287.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p288.
2霍华德·金著,顾海良等译.马克思主义经济学史[M]．北京：中央编译出版社,2003：367.
1巴德汉,罗默著,李春放编译.市场社会主义思想轨迹[J].当代世界与社会主义,1998,4：117.
2熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：348.
1例如吕薇洲于1997年在《马克思主义研究》杂志上发表的《市场社会主义理论的历史回顾——两次论战和两种模式》、李春放教授1999年在《当代世界与社会主义》杂志上发表的《关于二三十年代社会主义经济计算大辩论的解读和反思》、余文烈教授等人于2008年合著的《市场社会主义：历史、理论与模式》等作品中,都不同程度的涉及了这场论战。但是,这些介绍,无论从论战过程的完整性,还是对论战人物的理论观点,都不是十分全面。
2关于泰勒的生平,参见约翰·伊特韦尔等编．新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M1.第四卷.北京:经济科学出版社,1996：661.
1例如,社会主义经济核算论战中,社会主义一方的主将兰格,在论文中曾明确指出,在巴罗尼之后,泰勒对社会主义经济理论,作出了重大贡献。
2 F. M. Taylor, Principles of Economics,The Ronald Press Company,eighth edition,1922,p542.
1 Murray N.Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed, The Ludwig von Mises Institute,1994, p100.
2 F. M. Taylor, The Final Report of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission,The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.6, No. 3 (Jun.,1898), p322.
3 F. M. Taylor, Principles of Economics, p40.
4 F. M. Taylor, Reviewed work(s):Outlines of Economics by Richard T.Ely, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 17, No.5 (May,1909), p 303.
1 F. M. Taylor, Principles of Economics, pp519-20.
2 F.M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State,The American Economic Review, Vol.19,No.1 (Mar., 1929), p2.
3 F. M. Taylor, Principles of Economics, p11.
1 F.M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State, p1.
2同上,5.
1 F. M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State, p3.
2 F. M. Taylor, The Next Decade of Economic Theory:Discussion, Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol.2, No.1 (Feb.,1901),p251.
3 F. M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State, p6.
1 F. M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State, p6.
2同上,8.
1转引自Louis Leo Snyder, Review work, On the Economic Theory of Socialism, Annals fo the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.199, Sep.1938, p268.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：102.
3哈耶克在七十年代的访谈中说道,“有时我私下里说,我在社会科学中有一个发现、两项发明：这个发现就是利用分散知识的方法,这是我对的简单表述：我取得的两项发明是货币的非国家化和我的民主理论……”。参见考德维尔著,冯克利译,《哈耶克评传》,商务印书馆,2007年,245.
3哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：78.
4约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：133.
1在熊彼特的赞扬中,还包括维塞尔。维塞尔在《自然价值》中指出,共产主义经济,就像资本主义经济一样,都需要经济衡量标准和计算。参见熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：346.
2 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist Stare, 出自 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p246。
3 DW MacKenzie, Institutional Analysis in the Socialist Calculation Debate, History of Political Economy,2007,p13.
1兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：2,3.
2关于广义价格的参数性质和客观性质,参见布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：32.
1兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：118.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.l (Oct.,1936),p57.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, p64.
2约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：139.
3 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, p64.
4 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part Two,The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.2 (Feb., 1937),p123.
1约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：140.
2 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part Two,p128.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part Two,p 129-130.
2同上,132.
3转引自陈云卿等编.外国学者论社会主义市场经济[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1993：134-135.
4 Abram Bergson, Marjket Socialism Revisted, Journal of Political Economy,1967,75,655-73.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：34.
2 Gray, J, The Moral Foundation of Market Institutions, London,1992, p19.
1哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：336.
2 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. p307.
3 Alfred Schuller, Does Market Socialism Work? London,1988, p62,转引自皮尔森著,姜辉译.新市场社会主义[M].上海：东方出版社,1999：164.
4参见迈克尔.波兰尼著,彭峰等译.社会、经济和哲学——波兰尼文选[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006：169-171.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, p64.
2转引自·Guinevere Nell, Atomistic Decentralization and the Misunderstood Socialist Calculation Debate, p2.出自http://www.economicliberty.net/Atomistic edited.pdf。
1 Abram Bergson, Market Socialism Revisited; The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.75, No.5 (Oct.,1967), pp661.
2 Paul Craig Roberts, Oskar Lange's Theory of Socialist Planning, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.79, No.3 (May-Jun.,1971), p568.
1 Frank H.Knight,Reviewed work,On the Economic Theory of Socialism, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.44, No.4 (Jan.,1939),p600.
1劳伦斯.A.博兰著,王铁生等译.批评的经济学方法论[M]．北京：经济科学出版社,2000：254.
2同上,255.
3 Murray N. Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises and Economic Calculation Under Socialism,出自The Economics of Ludwig von Mises:Toward a Critical Reappraisal, ed. with an Introduction by Laurence S. Moss (Kansas City:Sheed and Ward, 1976,p72。
4参见FA. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep., 1945),pp519-530。
1 Paul Craig Roberts, Oskar Lange's Theory of Socialist Planning,p570.
2参见O'Driscoll, Gerald P Jr and Rizzo,Mario J, The Economics of Time and Ignorance,Basil Blackwell,1985, p60-62.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, p64.
2 Guinevere Nell, Atomistic Decentralization and the Misunderstood Socialist Calculation Debate, p5.
1 Edgar Z. Palmer, Reviewed work, On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor; Benjamin E. Lippincott, Southern Economic Journal, Vol.5, No.2 (Oct.,1938),p233.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：102.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Price Formation in a Socialist Community, The Economic Journal, VoL 43, No.170 (Jun.,1933), p238.
2同上,239.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Price Formation in a Socialist Community, p240.
2同上,241.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Price Formation in a Socialist Community, p242.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Price Formation in a Socialist Community, p247.
2同上,250.
3参见约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第一卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：987.
4 Maurice Dobb, Politicl Economy and Capitalism:Some Essays in Economic Traditon,London:Routledge, p21.
1 Maurice Dobb, The Significance of the Five Year Plan, The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol.10, No.28(Jun., 1931), p80.
2同上,85.
1 Maurice Dobb, Economic Theory and the Problems of a Socialist Economy, The Economic Journal, Vol.43, No.172 (Dec.,1933), p588.
2同上,590.
3同上,592.
1 Maurice Dbbb, Economic Theory and the Problems of a Socialist Economy, p592.
2同上,597.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Problems of a Socialist Economy, The Economic Journal, Vol.44,No.173 (Mar.,1934),p.152.
2 C. J. Hitch, Economics of Socialism. by H.D.Dickinson, The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.200(Dec.,1940), p484.
1关于勒纳的生平介绍,参见约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：181.以及范恒山著.国外25中经济模式[M].北京：改革出版社,1983：139.
2 A. P. Lemer, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.1 (Oct.,1934), p53.
1 A. P. Lerner, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.1 (Oct.,1934), p 54.
2同上,p55.
3同上,p57.
1 L. D. Trotsky, Soviet Economy in Danger, Pioneer Publishers, New York, pp.29-33.转引自A. P. Lerner, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy, p59.
2 A. P. Lerner, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy, p60.
1 Maurice Dobb, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy:A Reply, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.2 (Feb.,1935), p141.
2同上,146.
3同上,147.
1萨缪尔森著,甘华鸣等译.经济分析基础[M].北京：北京经济学院出版社,1990：218.
2 N.GPierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community, 出自 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,,p80.
1 F. A. Hayek， The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep., 1945),p530.
2关于论战过程的“标准”解释,参见Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning。 The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press,1985,第10-20.
1 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p207.
2 F. M. Taylor, The Final Report of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.6, No. 3 (Jun.,1898), p295.
3 Z. Clark Dickinson, Fred M. Taylor's Views on Socialism, Economica, New Series, Vol.27, No.105 (Feb.,1960), pp51-2.
1皮尔森著,姜辉译．新市场社会主义[M].上海：东方出版社,1999：274.
2P．特纳,C.科林斯著.计划经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：18.
3朱庭光著.外国历史名人传[M](补遗本).北京：中国社会科学出版社,1985：83.
4皮尔森著,姜辉译：新市场社会主义[M].上海：东方出版社,1999：275.
1王建民.路德维希.冯.米塞斯社会主义观述评[J]．山东大学学报,2007,6：11.
2 Paul Craig Roberts, Oskar Lange's Theory of Socialist Planning,p571.
1 F. A. v. Hayek, Socialist Calculation:The Competitive Solution , Economica, New Series, Vol Ⅶ,No.26(May 1940),p129.
1霍华德·金著,顾海良等译.马克思主义经济学史1929—1990[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2003：372.
1参见布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：41-42.
1关于论战过程的“标准”解释,参见Don Lavoie, Rivalry arid Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press,1985,第10—20.
2米塞斯对兰格模式的批评主要包括以下作品：《作为经济核算问题之出路的人造市场》,《数理经济学的均衡与社会主义国家的经济核算问题》，《社会主义经济核算的不可能性》。关于米塞斯对市场社会主义的批评,另文论述。
1 Richard Ebling,'An Interview with Friedrich Hayek', Libertarian Review (September,1977),p11.
2参见Boris Brutzkus, Economic Planning in Soviet Russia, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,pp8-10..
1 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p20.
1海约克.物价与生产[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1958：35.
2 F. A.Hayek, Monetariy Theory and the Trade Cycle. Clifton, New Jersey:A. M. Kelley,1933,p42.
3 Daniel Shapino, Reviving the Socialist Calculation Debate:A Defense of Hayek Against Lange, Social Philosophy & Policy, Vol.6 Issue 2,1987, p102.
4 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, p208.
1，F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, p25.
2兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：3.
3 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p209.
4同上,210.
1兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：2-5.
2 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935, p287.
1 F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep.,1945),p530.
2 F. A. v. Hayek, Socialist Calculation:The Competitive Solution', Economica, New Series, pp129-130.
3参见Dob, Economic Theory and the Problem of a Socialist Economy, Economic Journal, December,1933.
1 F.Y.Edgeworth, Colleted Paper, Ⅰ, p.138,转引自哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：237.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：105.
2 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities ofSocialism,p234.
1 F.A.V Hayek, Socialist Calculation:The Competitive'Solution', Economica, New Series,p138.
2同上，145.
3关于论战过程的“标准”解释,参见Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press,1985,第10—20.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：102.
2谢夫勒提出的社会税,其主要观点是：通过生产者协会和消费者协会的协商,中央计算委员会能够确定每一产品的成本,如果产品供过于求,就降低该产品的税率,反之则提高该产品的税率,以此来调整社会生产过程。
3参见Ludwig Von Mises, Selected Writings of Ludwig Von Mises, Liberty Fund,2002,Vol 2, p352.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Selected Writings of Ludwig Von Mises, Liberty Fund,2002, Vol 2, p353.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：488.
3兰格接受了很多勒纳的观点,然后进行了新的论证,出于篇幅的考虑,本文只简单介绍兰格的观点。
4兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：2,3.
1兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：15.
2同上.15.
3米塞斯后来以英文重写了这篇文章,但是他本人一直没有发表。英文版的文章见Mises, The Equations of Mathematical Economics And The Problem of Economic Calculation In A Socialist State, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economic, vol.3, no.1 (spring 2000):pp27-32.
4L.罗宾斯.过去和现在的政治经济学——对经济政策中的主要理论的考察[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：145.
1在熊彼特的赞扬中,还包括维塞尔。维塞尔在《自然价值》中指出,共产主义经济,就像资本主义经济一样,都需要经济衡量标准和计算。
2熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：346.
3关于巴罗尼对社会主义一般均衡的描述,可参见Enrino Barone, The Ministry of Production In The Collectivist State, from Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London: George Routledge & Sons,1935,
4 Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press, 1985,
5 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p701.
6 Mises, The Equations of Mathematical Economics And The Problem of Economic Calculation In A Socialist State, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economic, vol.3, no.l (spring 2000):p28.
1理查德.豪伊著,晏智杰译.边际效用学派的兴起[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999：46.
2约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：522.
1米塞斯著,梁小民译.经济学的认识论问题[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001：114.
2 Ludwig Von Mises. Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p702.
1埃德温·多兰主编.现代奥地利学派经济学的基础[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：106.
2 R.H.Coase,The Nature of The Firm, Economica,New Series,Vol.4,No.16.(Nov.,1937),p386.
1 Ludwig Von Mises. Human Action,p707.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：105.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action,p307.
2 Peter GKlein, Economic Calculation and the Limits of Organization, The Review ofAustrian Economics Vol.9, No.2 (1996),p3.
3 Murray N.Rothbard,The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited, The Review ofAustrian Economics Vol.5, No.2 (1991),p60.
4米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：106.
1关于官僚管理和利润管理的区分,参见米塞斯著,冯克利译.官僚体制[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：26-37.
2 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action,pp709-710.
3参见Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action,p704。
1 Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press, 1985, p169.
1哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：140.
2哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：112.
3 F. A.Hayek,, Studies in Philosophy,Politics,and Economics, Preface, B-13,1967, p. vii.
1门格尔本人对自然科学充满兴趣,他的弟弟以热衷数学闻名,其子是一名知名的数学家。见门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：4.
2参见R.H.Coase,The Nature of The Firm, Economica,New Series,Vol.4,No.16.(Nov.,1937),pp386-405。
1参见迈克尔.波兰尼著,彭锋等译.社会、经济和哲学——波兰尼文选[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006：167-176.
2参见哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：263-301.
3 Robert P. Murphy, Notes on the Socialist Calculation Debate,参见http://homepages.nyu.edu/-rpm213/files/Calc.pdf
1 Ivan Progracic, Austrian Economics and The End of Socialism, presented at the 6th Austrian Scholars Conference,Auburn, Alabama, March 24-25,2000.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：86.
2同上，162.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p257-58.
2 Mises, The Equations of Mathematical Economics And The Problem of Economic Calculation In A Socialist State, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economic, vol.3, no.1 (spring 2000):p28.
3沃恩著，朱全红等译.奥地利学派经济学在美国[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：90-91.
4米塞斯对第三种均衡的看法,与熊彼特十分相似。熊彼特曾指出,均衡状态是有一定环境制约的经济生活的循环流转。参见《经济发展理论》,,1997年,5页
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, p247.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：169.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, p254.
2柯兹纳等著,多兰编,王文玉译.现代奥地利学派的经济学基础[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：109.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：106.
2参见Eric Crampton, Andrew Farrant, Relaxing benevolence:public choice, socialist calculation, and planner self-interest, Rev Austrian Econ (2006) 19:81-93.
3兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：29.
4 Bruce Caldwell, Hayek and Socialism, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.35, No.4 (Dec.,1997), P1878.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, from F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p116.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：171-172.
3米塞斯著,冯克利译.官僚体制[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：7.
1米塞斯著,冯克利译.官僚体制[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：37.
2同上,52.
1阿兰·艾伯斯坦著,秋风译.哈耶克传[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003：6.
1哈耶克著,冯克利译.科学的反革命——理性滥用之研究[M].南京：译林出版社,2003：87.
1哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：132.
1哈耶克著,王明毅等译.通往奴役之路[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997：73.
2哈耶克著,杨玉生等译．自由宪章[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999：331.
1哈耶克著，邓正来译.法律、立法与自由[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000：427.
2哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店2003：27.
3哈耶克著,邓正来译.法律、立法与自由[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000：459.
1参见洪银兴等著.当代东欧经济学流派[M].北京：中国经济出版社,1988：151.
2布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：29,34.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：146-147.
2同上,65．
3同上,80.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：133.
2同上.145.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：150-158.
2同上,12.
3布鲁斯著,何作译.社会主义的政治与经济[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：52.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：3.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：3.
2同上,23.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：2.
2同上,12.
3同上,3.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：14.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：3.
2斯蒂格利茨著,周立群等译.社会主义向何处去[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,1998：91.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p287.
1林德布鲁姆著,耿修林译,《市场体制的秘密》,江苏人民出版色,2002年,第4页。
1约翰.伊特韦尔等编,《新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典》第三卷,经济科学出版社,1996年,第944页。
1考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：101.
1哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社，2007：317.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：48.
1哈耶克著,冯克利译.致命的自负[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000：11.
1科尔内著,张安译.社会主义体制[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2007：187.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：172.
阿兰·格鲁奇.比较经济体制[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1985.
阿兰、·艾伯斯坦.哈耶克传[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003.
埃岗·纽伯格.比较经济体制[M].北京：商务印书馆,1985.
埃里克·罗尔.经济思想史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1981.
安德鲁·甘布尔.自由的铁笼：哈耶克传[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2005.
奥肯.平等与效率[M].北京：华夏出版社,1987.
奥斯卡·兰格.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981.
彼得·桑德斯.资本主义——一项社会审视[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,.2005.
伯特尔·奥尔曼.市场社会主义——社会主义者之间的争论[M].北京：新华出版社,2000.
博恩斯坦.东西方计划经济[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
布鲁斯.从马克思到市场：社会主义对经济体制的求索[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1998.
布鲁斯.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984.
布鲁斯·考德威尔.哈耶克评传[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
范恒山.国外25种经济模式[M].北京：改革出版社,1993.
方福前.当代西方经济学主要流派[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
冯克利.尤利西斯的自缚[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2004.
高歌.从经济思想视角解读哈耶克[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007.
格尔哈德·帕普克.知识、自由与秩序[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2001.
哈耶克.法律、立法与自由[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000.
哈耶克.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003.
哈耶克.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007.
哈耶克.货币的非国家化[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
哈耶克.科学的反革命[M].北京：译林出版社,2003.
哈耶克.通往奴役之路[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997.
哈耶克.致命的自负[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000.
哈耶克.自由秩序原理[M].北京：三联书店,2003.
汉密尔顿等.联邦党人文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006.
赫尔曼·海因里希·戈森.人类交换规律与人类行为准则的发展[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
霍华德等.马克思主义经济学史[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2003.
卡尔·波普尔.开放社会及其敌人[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999.
卡尔·波普尔.客观知识——一个进化论的研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1987.
卡尔j波普尔.历史主义贫困论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
卡尔·门格尔.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005.
卡尔·门格尔.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
莱昂内尔·罗宾斯.经济科学的性质和意义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
勒纳.统制经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1965.
李兴耕,李宗禹等.当代国外经济学家论市场经济[M].北京：中共中央党校出版社,1994.
理查德·豪伊.边际效用学派的兴起[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999.
林德布鲁姆.市场体制的秘密[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2002.
林德布罗姆.政治与市场：世界各国的政治经济制度[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1994.
罗宾斯.过去和现在的政治经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
罗伯特·海尔布罗纳.几位著名经济思想家的生平、时代和思想[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994.
罗默.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997.
罗斯巴德.权力与市场[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
马克·史库森.朋友还是对手——奥地利学派与芝加哥学派之争[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2006.
马克斯·韦伯.经济行动与社会团体[M].北京：广西师范大学出版社,2004.
迈克尔·波兰尼.社会、经济和哲学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006.
迈克尔·波兰尼.社会、经济和哲学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006.
迈克尔·波兰尼.自由的逻辑[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2002.
迈克尔·博兰尼.自由的逻辑[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2002.
曼德尔.为社会主义计划辩护[M].北京：商务印书馆,1992.
米塞斯.官僚体制反资本主义的心态[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
米塞斯.货币、方法与市场过程[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
米塞斯.经济学的认识论问题[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001.
米塞斯.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008.
米塞斯.自由与繁荣的国度[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1995.
莫里斯·博恩施坦.东西方的经济计划[M].北京：商务印书馆,1995.
莫里斯·博恩施坦主编.比较经济体制[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,1988.
穆勒.政治经济学原理及其在社会哲学上的若干应用[M].北京：商务印书馆1997.
尼·布哈林.食利者政治经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
诺夫.可行的社会主义经济[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988.
皮尔森.新市场社会主义[M].上海：东方出版社,1999.
萨松.欧洲社会主义百年史[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007.
斯蒂格利茨.政府为什么干预经济[M].北京：中国物资出版社,1998.
斯威齐.资本主义发展论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
托马斯·莫尔.乌托邦[M].北京：商务印书馆,1959,
汪丁丁编..自由与秩序——中国学者的观点[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2002.
维塞尔.自然价值[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982.
亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因的研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,1974.
姚中秋主编.自发秩序与理性[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008.
伊藤诚.现代社会主义问题[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1996.
余文烈.市场社会主义：历史、理论与模式[M].北京：经济日报出版社,2008.
约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994.
约瑟夫·熊彼特.资本主义、社会主义和民主[M].北京：商务印书馆,1979.
[美]R·艾伯林.奥地利学派在20世纪世界经济思想发展中的作用[J].莫皆译自《经济学和数学方法》,1992.
[美]布鲁斯·考德威尔著,静虚编译.哈耶克与社会主义[J].马克思主义与现实,1999.
P·K·巴德汉,J·E·罗默著,李春放编译.市场社会主义思想轨迹[J].当代世界与社会主义,1998.
阿林·科特尔,W·保罗·科克肖特著,李陈华译,冯克利校.计算、复杂性与计划—再谈社会主义核算论战[J].当代世界社会主义问题,2007.
曹东勃.奥地利学派对理论经济学前提的追问—论米塞斯的经济认识论[J].经济问题，2008.
陈学明.评卡尔·考茨基的主要理论观点[J].马克思主义与现实,2008.
段忠桥.国外马克思主义者关于市场社会主义的争论[J].马克思主义与现实，2006.
傅耀.奥地利学派经济学方法论论旨[J].贵州社会科学,2008.
高保中.市场经济与竞争均衡：哈耶克的启示与超越[J].南开经济研究，2004.
高歌.从社会主义经济核算的论战看熊彼特与哈耶克的理论异同[J].当代世界与社,会主义,2008.
高歌.熊彼特与哈耶克对奥地利传统的批评与继承—以瓦尔拉斯均衡为切入点[J].云南财经大学学报,2008.
高歌,张红凤.熊彼特与哈耶克关于社会主义论战的立场比较—以瓦尔拉斯均衡为视角[J].山东经济,2008.
韩光明.自由主义与路德维希.冯.米塞斯[J].自由与秩序,中国社会科学出版社,2002.
胡义成.“劳动价值论一元论”的始作俑者是考茨基——对马克思主义价值理论演变史的非主流性考察(上)[J].陕西教育学院学报,2003.
胡义成.“劳动价值论一元论”的始作俑者是考茨基——对马克思主义价值理论演变史的非主流性考察(下)[J].陕西教育学院学报,2003.
贾根良.奥地利学派的解释学转向与演化经济学的综合[J].学术月刊,2005.
贾根良.奥地利学派的演进：传统与突变[J].社会科学战线,2004.
江宣林,余淼杰.兰格、布鲁斯经济思想与中国经济改革[J].中央财经大学学报,2000.
靳涛.两大经济思潮的碰撞与演进—历史学派和奥地利学派的思想追踪及对现代经济学的影响[J].江苏社会科学,2005.
景维民,孙景宇.奥地利学派对社会主义经济的诘难—文献综述及基于中国实践的一个回应[J].当代经济研究,2008.
李春放.关于二三十代社会主义经济计算大辩论的解读与反思[J].当代世界与社会主义,1999.
李春放.市场社会主义的源流[J].社会科学研究,1999.
李春放.市场社会主义的主要代表人物及其观点[J].探索,1999.
李华芳.维也纳的回声—关于奥地利学派的经济思想[J].读书,2008.
刘志铭.竞争性市场过程产业组织与经济增长奥地利经济学派的发展[J].南开经济研究,2001.
刘志铭.市场过程、产业组织与政府规制：奥地利学派的视角[J].经济评论,2002.
刘志铭.市场过程中的知识与外部性：现代奥地利学派的视角[J].南京社会科学,2004.
吕薇洲.市场社会主义理论的历史回顾——两次论战和两种模式[J].马克思主义研究,1997.
罗珉.奥地利学派租金理论述评[J].外国经济与管理,2006.
彭爱兰.奥地利学派消费规律理论及其对我们的启示[J].消费经济,1997.
宋萌荣.关于市场社会主义的若干问题——与大卫·施韦卡特的对话[J].国外理论动态,2005.
苏振华.新兴古典经济学与奥地利学派的理论渊源比较[J].求索,2005.
孙韶林.论兰格的“竞争解决”社会主义模式[J].当代世界与社会主义,2001.
万英,维钧.关于兰格社会主义经济理论的几个问题[J].经济科学,1989.
王建民.路德维希·冯·米瑟斯社会主义观述评[J].山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007.
王建民.中国的改革开放与社会主义观的变革[J].当代世界与社会主义问题,2008.
韦森.奥地利学派的方法论及其在当代经济科学中的意义及问题[J].学术月刊,2005.
卫兴华.价值理论研究中的热点难点问题探讨(上)[J].南京财经大学学报,2004
卫兴华.价值理论研究中的热点难点问题探讨(下)[J].南京财经大学学报,2004
奚兆永.对劳动价值论的马克思主义经济学史的考察—兼评胡义成先生“对马克思主义价值理论演变史的非主流性考察”[J].东方论坛,2004.
晏智杰：劳动价值论：反思与争论[J].经济评论,2004.
杨春学.米塞斯与奥地利学派经济学[J].云南财经大学学报,2008.
张文成.计划经济体制命运的预言者?—布鲁兹库斯及其《苏维埃俄国的经济计划》书[J].当代世界与社会主义,2002.
周瑞峰,刘立门.《经济学的哲学》中的芝加哥学派与奥地利学派[J].安徽文学,2008.
A. H. Murray. "Professor Hayek's Philosophy."Economica, New Series, Vol.12, No.47 (Aug.,1945), pp.149-162.
A. P. Lerner. "[Economic Theory and Socialist Economy]:A Rejoinder."The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.2 (Feb.,1935), pp.152-154.
A. P. Lerner. "A Note on Socialist Economics."The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.1 (Oct.,1936), pp.72-76.
A. P. Lerner. "From Vulgar Political Economy to Vulgar Marxism."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.47, No.4 (Aug.,1939), pp.557-567.
A. P. Lerner. "Statics and Dynamics in Socialist Economics,"The Economic Journal, Vol. 47, No.186 (Jun.,1937), pp.253-270.
A. P. Lerner. "Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics."The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.6, No.1 (Oct.,1938), pp.71-75.
A. P. Lerner. " Economic Theory and Socialist Economy. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.1 (Oct.,1934),51-61.
A. P. Lerner.Reviewed work(s):Diminishing Returns and Planned Economy by George M. Peterson.The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.46, No.6 (Dec.,1938), pp.887-890.
Abba P. Lerner. "The Economics and Politics of Consumer Sovereignty."The American Economic Review, Vol.62, No.1/2 (Mar.1,1972), pp.258-266.
Abba P. Lerner.Reviewed work(s):Employment and Equilibrium by A. C. Pigou.The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.24, No.2 (May,1942), pp.87-92.
Abram Bergson. "Communist Economic Efficiency Revisited."The American Economic Review, Vol.82, No.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May,1992), pp.27-30.
Abram Bergson. "Market Socialism Revisited."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.75, No.5 (Oct.,1967), pp.655-673.
Alan Richardson.Reviewed work(s):Otto Neurath:Philosophy between Science and Politics by Nancy Cartwright; Jordi Cat; Lola Fleck; Thomas E. Uebel. Philosophy of Science, Vol.65, No.2 (Jun.,1998), pp.369-370.
Allin Cottrell,W. Paul Cockshott."Calculation, Complexity And Planning:The Socialist Calculation Debate Once Again."Review of Political Economy,Vol.5, No. 1(July 1993),73-112.
B. M. Anderson, Jr. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. Political Science Quarterly, Vol.30, No.1 (Mar.,1915),145-147.
Bettina Bien Greaves:Economic Policy Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow (Third Edition).Auburn:Ludwig von Mises Institute,2006.
Boris Brutzkus.Economic Planning in Soviet Russia London:George Routledge & Sons; 1935.
Bruce Caldwell."Hayek and Socialism."Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.35, No.4 (Dec.,1997),1856-1890.
Bruce Caldwell."Hayek and Socialism."Journal of Economic Literature,Vol.35 (December 1997),1856-1890.
By Donald C. Lavoie. "The Development of the Misesian Theory of Interventionism." Method, Process, and Austrian Economics.Edited by Israel
C. J. Hitch.Reviewed work(s):Economics of Socialism. by H. D. Dickinson.The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.200 (Dec.,1940), pp.484-486.
C. P. S. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol.76, No.3 (Feb.,1913),337-338.
C. P. Sanger. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. The Economic Journal, Vol.13, No.49 (Mar.,1903),98-99.
Carl Menger.Principles Of Economics. Translated by James Dingwalland and Bert F Hoselitz, Ludwig von Mises Institute,2007.
Dan Greenwood."Commensurability and Beyond:From Mises and Neurath to The future of the Socialist Calculation Debate,"Economy and Society,Vol,35.No.1(Feb.,2006),65-90.
David Ramsay Steele."Posing the Problem:The Impossibility of Economic Calculation under Socialism."Journal of Liberation Studies, Vol.5,No.1 (Winter 1981),7-22.
Dennis A. Sperduto."'The Forgotten contribution:Murray Rothbard on Socialism in Theory and in Practice'and the Reinterpretation of the Socialist Calculation Debate:A Comment. "The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.8,No.1 (Spring 2005),75-80.
Don Lavoie. "A Critique of the Standard Account of the Socialist Calculation Debate."Journal of Liberation Studies,Vol 5, No.1 (Winter 1981),41-87.
Dudley F. Pegrum."Economic Planning and the Science of Economics."The American Economic Review,Vol. 31,No.2 (Jun.,1941),298-307.
E. F. M. Durbin."Professor Hayek on Economic Planning and Political Liberty." The Economic Journal, Vol.55, No.220 (Dec,1945), pp.357-370.
E. R. A. Seligman,C. A. Tuttle, F. M. Taylor, E. A. Ross. "The Next Decade of Economic Theory:Discussion. "Publications of the American Economic Association,3rd Series, Vol. 2, No.1 (Feb.,1901), pp.247-253.
Edgar Z. Palmer. Reviewed work:On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor; Benjamin E. Lippincott. Southern Economic Journal, Vol.5, No.2 (Oct., 1938), pp.232-233.
Eduard Heimann. "Professor Hayek on German Socialism." The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.5 (Dec.,1945),935-937.
Eduard Heimann."The Future of Free Enterprise. "American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.3, No.3, Essays in Memory of Franz Oppenheimer,1864-1943 (Apr., 1944),435-442.
Elisabeth L. Tamedly:Socialism and International Economic Order.Caldwell:The Caxton Printers,Ltd.,1969.
Eric Crampton,Andrew Farrant. "Relaxing Benevolence:Public Choice, Socialist Calculation,
F. A. Hayek. "The Use of Knowledge in Society."The American Economic Review, Vol. 35, No.4 (Sep.,1945), pp.519-530.
F. A. Hayek.Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935.
F. A. Hayek,Reviewed work(s):Essai sur la nature du commerce en gnrai by Richard Cantillon; Henry Higgs.The, Economic Journal, Vol.42, No.165 (Mar.,1932), pp.61-63.
F. A. v. Hayek. " Socialist Calculation:The Competitive 'Solution'." Economica, New Series, Vol.7, No.26 (May,1940),125-149.
F. M. Taylor. "The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State."The American Economic Review, Vol.19, No.1 (Mar.,1929), pp.1-8.
F. M. Taylor. " The Objects and Methods of Currency Reform in the United States." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.12, No.3 (Apr.,1898), pp.307-342.
F. M. Taylor. "Monetary Reform in the United States." The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No. 32 (Dec.,1898), pp.579-586.
F. M. Taylor. "The Elasticity of Note Issue under the New Currency Law."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.22, No.5 (May,1914), pp.453-463.
F. M. Taylor. "The Final Report of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission;"The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.6, No.3 (Jun.,1898), pp.293-322.
F. M. Taylor. " Methods of Teaching Elementary Economics at the University of Michigan. " The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.17, No.10 (Dec.,1909), pp. 688-703.
F.M. Taylor.Reviewed work(s):Introductory Economics by A. S. Johnson.The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.16, No.7 (Jul.,1908), pp.459-461.
F. M. Taylor.Reviewed work(s):Outlines of Economics by Richard T. Ely. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.17, No.5 (May,1909), pp.301-303.
F. M. Taylor.Reviewed work(s):The History and Theory of Money, by Sidney Sherwood.Political Science Quarterly, Vol.8, No.3 (Sep.,1893), pp.557-558.
F-A-Hayek.Collectivist Economic Planning.London:Routledge,Kegan Paul LTD,1935. Franco Donzelli."The influence of the Socialist Calculation Debate on Hayek's View of General Equilibrium Theory.Revue Europeenne des Sciences Sociales,Vol.31,No.96(1993),47-83.
Frank A. Fetter. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.11, No.4 (Sep.,1903),659-661.
Frank H. Knight. "Professor Hayek and the Theory of Investment. "The Economic Journal, Vol.45, No.177 (Mar.,1935), pp.77-94.
Frank H. Knight. "The Place of Marginal Economics in a Collectivist System." The American Economic Review, Vol.26, No.1, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (Mar.,1936), pp. 255-266.
Frank H. Knight. Reviewed work:On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Papers by Oskar Lange and Fred M. Taylor. by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor; Benjamin E. Lippincott. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.44, No.4 (Jan.,1939), p.600.
Fritz Machlup. "Friedrich Von Hayek's Contribution to Economics."The Swedish Journal of Economics, Vol.76, No.4 (Dec.,1974), pp.498-531.
Gary S. Becker,Kevin M. Murphy. "The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge."The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.107, No.4 (Nov.,1992), pp. 1137-1160.
Gene Callahan:Economics for Real People:An Introduction to the Austrian School(Second Edition).Auburn:Ludwig von Mises Institute,2004.
George A. Reisch. " Planning Science:Otto Neurath and the'International Encyclopedia of Unified Science'. " The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol.27, No.2 (Jun., 1994), pp.153-175.
George Reisman. "Environmentalism In The Light Of Menger And Mises. "The Quarterly Journal Of Austrian Economics Vol.5, No.2 (Summer 2002):3-15.
Gert H. Mueller,Max Weber."Socialism and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber."The British Journal of Sociology, Vol.33, No.2 (Jun.,1982),151-171.
H. D. Dickinson. "Price Formation in a Socialist Community."The Economic Journal, Vol. 43, No.170 (Jun.,1933), pp.237-250.
H. D. Dickinson. "Problems of a Socialist Economy."The Economic Journal, Vol.44, No. 173 (Mar.,1934), p.152.
H. D. Dickinson.Reviewed work(s):Economic Calculation in Socialist Societies. by Trygve J. B. Hoff.The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.198/199 (Jun.-Sep.,1940), pp. 270-274.
H.D. Dickinson.Reviewed work(s):The Distribution of Income and Property. by J. Van Der Wijk.The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.198/199 (Jun.-Sep.,1940), pp.274-276.
H. D. Dickinson. Reviewed work:Economic Calculation in Socialist Societies. by Trygve J. B. Hoff. The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.198/199 (Jun.-Sep.,1940),270-274.
H. M. Kallen. " Postscript:Otto Neurath,1882-1945. " Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol.6, No.4 (Jun.,1946), pp.529-533.
H. Parker Willis. Reviewed work:The Principles of Economics. Volume I. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.22, The United States and Latin America (Jul.,1903),234-236.
Henry R. Seager. " Review:The Second Volume of Pierson's Principles of Economics." Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. Leerboek der Slaathuishovdkunde. by N. G. Pierson, A. A. Wotzel. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.27, No.4 (Aug.,1913), 651-655.
Henry R. Seager. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. Political Science Quarterly, Vol.18, No.4 (Dec.,1903),706-710.
Irvin Sobel."Abba Petachya Lerner,1903-1982:Six Decades of Achievement."Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.6, No.1 (Autumn,1983),3-19.
Israel M. Kirzner. "Mises and His Understanding Of The Capitalist System. "Cato Journal, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 1999),PP.215-232.
Israel M.Kirzner."Reflections on the Misesian Legacy in Economics."The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.9,No.2 (1996),143-154.
J. C. Rees. "Hayek on Liberty."Philosophy, Vol.38, No.146 (Oct.,1963), pp.346-360. J. W. N. Watkins. "Review:Otto Neurath. "Reviewed work(s):Empiricism and Sociology by O. Neurath; Marie Neurath; Robert S. Cohen. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.25, No.4 (Dec.,1974), pp.343-352.
Jack Wiseman."Uncertainty, Costs, and Collectivist Economic Planning. "Economica, New Series, Vol.20, No.78 (May,1953),118-128.
James A. Yunker."Post-Lange Market Socialism:An Evaluation of Profit-Oriented Proposals."Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.29, No.3 (Sep.,1995),683-717.
James A. Yunker."The Microeconomic Efficiency Argument for Socialism Revisited." Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.13, No.1 (Mar.,1979),73-112.
James-A-Yunker. "The Equity-Efficiency Tradeoff under Capitalism and Market Socialism."Eastern Economic Journal, Vol.XVII,No.1 January-March 1991,pp.31-44.
Janos Kornai."What the Change of System from Socialism to Capitalism Does and Does Not Mean."The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.14, No.1 (Winter,2000),27-42. John Braland."Toward a Calculational Theory and Policy of Intergenerational Sustainability."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.9,No.2(Summer 2006),13-45.
John Gray. "Hayek on Liberty, Rights, and Justice."Ethics, Vol.92, No.1, Special Issue on Rights (Oct.,1981), pp.73-84.
John H. Kautsky.Reviewed work(s):Karl Kautsky,1854-1938:Marxism in the Classical Years by Gary P. Steenson Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution,1880-1938 by Jon Rothschild; Massimo Salvadori.The American Political Science Review, Vol.75, No.3 (Sep.,1981),pp.752-754.
John O'Nell."'Radical Subjectivism':Not Radical,Not Subjectivist."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.3,No.2(Summer 2000),21-30.
John P. Bonin.Reviewed work(s):Rivalry and Central Planning:The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered. by Don Lavoie Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.25, No.2 (Jun., 1987), pp.751-752.
John P. Bonin.Reviewed work(s):Rivalry and Central Planning:The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered. by Don Lavoie.Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.25, No.2 (Jun., 1987),751-752.
John·N·Gray. "F-A-Hayek on Liberty and Tradition." The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.Ⅳ,No.2(Spring 1980),pp.119-137.
Joseph Persky. "Retrospectives:Lange and von Mises, Large-Scale Enterprises, and the Economic Case for Socialism."The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.5, No.4 (Autumn,1991), pp.229-236.
Joseph T. Salerno."Mises and Hayek Dehomogenized."The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.6, No.2 (1993),113-146.
Joseph T. Salerno."Ludwig von Mises as Social Rationalist." The Review of Austrian Economics. Vol.4,1990, pp.26-54.
Joseph T.Salerno."A Final Word:Calculation, Knowledge, and Appraisement." The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.9,No.1 (1996),141-142.
Joseph T.Salerno."Reply to Leland B. Yeager on'Mises and Hayek on Calculation and Knowledge'." The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.7, No.2 (1994),111-125.
Karen I. Vaughn. "The Relevance of Subjective Costs:Reply."Southern Economic Journal, Vol.48, No.1 (Jul.,1981), pp.222-226.
Kenneth E. Boulding. "The Economics of Knowledge and the Knowledge of Economics." The American Economic Review, Vol.56, No.1/2 (Mar.1,1966), pp.1-13.
Kenneth J. Arrow. "Limited Knowledge and Economic Analysis."The American Economic Review, Vol.64,No.1 (Mar.,1974),pp.xiii-xiv+1-10.
Kenneth J. Arrow. "Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge."The American Economic Review, Vol.84, No.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May,1994), pp.1-9.
Lawrence A. Boland. "Knowledge and the Role of Institutions in Economic Theory." Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.13, No.4, Methodology in Economics. Symposium Issue: Part I (Dec.,1979), pp.957-972.
Lawrence J. Connin. "Hayek, Liberalism and Social Knowledge."Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol.23, No.2 (Jun.,1990), pp. 297-315.
Lawrence White:The Methodology of the Austrian School Economists New York:Lawrence H. White,1984.
Leland B. Yeager."Caculation and Konwledge:Let's Write Finits."The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.10,No.1 (1997),133-136.
Leland B. Yeager."Mises and Hayek on Calculation and Knowledge."The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.7, No.2,93-109.
Louis Leo Snyder. Reviewed work:On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.199, Better City Government (Sep.,1938),267-268.
Ludwig Von Mises."The Equations of Mathematical Economics and the Problem of Economic Calculation in a Socialist State."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics,Vol.3, No.1 (Spring 2000),27-32.
Mateusz Machaj."Market Socialism and the Property Problem:Different Perspective of the Socialist Calculation Debate."Quart JAustrian Econ,vol.10,(2007),257-280.
Maurice Dobb." Economic Theory and Socialist Economy:A Reply. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.2 (Feb.,1935),144-151.
Maurice Dobb. " Problems of Soviet Finance." The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol.11, No.33 (Apr.,1933),522-529.
Maurice Dobb. " The Significance of the Five Year Plan. " The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol.10, No.28 (Jun.,1931),80-89.
Maurice Dobb. Reviewed work:Essays in Socialism and Planning in Honor of Carl Landauer. by G. Grossman. The Economic Journal, Vol.81, No.323 (Sep.,1971), 695-696.
Michael Ellman." The Fundamental Problem of Socialist Planning." Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, Vol.30, No.2 (Jul.,1978),249-262.
Murray N. Rothbard. "Praxeology:The Methodology of Austrian Economics. " The Logic of Action One:Method, Money, and the Austrian Schoo. by Murray N. Rothbard (Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar,1997),pp.58-77.
Murray N. Rothbard. "The Myth of Efficiency."The Logic of Action One:Method, Money, and the Austrian School (Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar,1997), pp.266-273.
Murray N. Rothbard." The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited."The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.5, No.2 (1991),51-76.
Murray N. Rothbard. "Karl Marx:Communist as Religious Eschatologist."The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.4,1990,123-179.
Murray N. Rothbard.."Egalitarianism and the Elites. "The Review of Austrian Economic. Vol.8, No.2 (1995):39-57.
Murray N. Rothbard."The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited." The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.5, No.2 (1991):51-76.
Murray N.Rothbard."How and How Not to Desocialize." The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.6, No.1 (1992),65-77.
Murry N.Rothbard:Man,Economy, and State:A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and Market government and the Economy (Scholar's Edition).Auburn:Ludwig von Mises Institute,2004.
Odd J. Stalebrink."The Hayk and Mises Controversy:Bridging Differences."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.7,No.1(Srping 2004),27-38.
Oscar Lange."The Practice of Economic Planning and The Optimum Allocation of Resources. " Econometrica, Vol.17, Supplement:Report of the Washington Meeting (Jul., 1949),166-171.
Oskar Lange. " Mr. Lerner's Note on Socialist Economics. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.2 (Feb.,1937),143-144.
Oskar Lange. " On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.1 (Oct.,1936), pp.53-71.
Oskar Lange. " On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part Two. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.2 (Feb.,1937), pp.123-142.
Oskar Lange. Reviewed work(s):Political Economy and Capitalism:Some Essays in Economic Tradition by Maurice Dobb. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne d'Economique et de Science politique, Vol.4, No.2 (May, 1938),262-267.
P. R. Brahmananda. "Hayek's Nobel Prize."Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.37, No.6 (Feb.9-15,2002), pp.510+588.
Paul Craig Roberts. "Oskar Lange's Theory of Socialist Planning."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.79, No.3 (May-Jun.,1971), pp.562-577.
Paul Weindling. Reviewed work(s):Otto Neurath. Philosophy between Science and Politics by Nancy Cartwright;Jordi Cat;Lola Fleck;Thomas E. Uebel. The English Historical Review, Vol.113, No.450 (Feb.,1998), p.239.
Peter G. Klein."Economic Calculation and the Limits of Organization."The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.9, No.2 (1996),3-28.
Peter J. Boettke,Christopher J. Coyne."The Forgotten Contribution:Murray Rothbard on Socialism in Theory and in Practice."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.7,No.2(Summer 2004),71-89.
Peter Lewin."The Firm,Money,and Economic Calculations:Considering the Institutional Nexus of Market Production. "American Journal of Economics and Sociology,Vol.57,No.4(Oct.,1998),499-512.
Peter Lewin.Reviewed work(s):Subjectivism and Economic Analysis:Essays in Memory of Ludwing M. Lachmann by Roger Koppl and Gary Mongiovi.The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics,,Vol.4,No.1 (Spring 2001),75-80.
Peter Lewin.Reviewed work(s):The Evolution of Austrian economics:From Menger to Lachmann by Sandye gloria-Palermo. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.4,No.4(Winter 2001),71-82.
Peter·J·Boettke,Christopher·J·Coyne. "The forgotten contribution:Murray Rothbard on socialism." The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.Vol.7, No.2 (Summer 2004):71-89.
Peter·J·Boettke.2001. Calculation and Coordination. London:Routledge.
Pham Chung."Clarence E. Ayres and the Socialist Planning Debate. "Journal of Economic Issues,Vol.12, No.1 (Mar.,1978),115-123.
R. A. Gonce.Reviewed work(s):Ludwig von Mises:The Man and His Economics by Kirzner,Israel M.American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.62, No.3 (July, 2003),633-636.
R. H. Coase."The Marginal Cost Controversy."Economica, New Series, Vol.13, No.51 (Aug.,1946),169-182.
R. H. Coase."The Nature of the Firm."Economica, New Series, Vol.4, No.16. (Nov., 1937),386-405.
Ralph Raico."The Austrian School and Classical Liberalism."Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol.2A(1995),3-38.
Reinhard Stiebler."A Pre-history of Misesian Calculation:The contribution of Adolphe Thiers." Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics,Vol. 2, No.4 (Winter 1999):,41-47. Robert Bradley,Jr.."Market Socialism:A Subjectivist Evaluation."Journal of Liberation Studies,Vol.5, No.1 (Winter 1981),23-39.
Robert P. Murphy. "Cantor's Diagonal Argument:An Extension on the Socialist Calculation Debate."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.9,No.2(Summer 2006),3-11.
Roberto Marchionatti,Enrico Gambino. "Pareto and Political Economy as a Science: Methodological Revolution and Analytical Advances in Economic Theory in the 1890s."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.105, No.6 (Dec.,1997), pp.1322-1348.
S. J. Chapman. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. The Economic Journal, Vol.23, No.89 (Mar.,1913),70-72.
Sanford Ikeda. "Market-Process Theory and "Dynamic" Theories of the Market." Southern Economic Journal, Vol.57, No.1 (Jul.,1990),75-92.
Sheldon L. Richman."War Communism to NEP:The Road from Serfdom."Journal of Liberation Studies,Vol.5, No.1 (Winter 1981),89-97.
T.Cowen.Reviewed work(s):Informatioin,Incentives,and the Economics of Control:A Reexamination of the Socialist Calculation Debate by G.C.Archibald.Journal of International and Comparative Economics,Vol.4(1995),243-249.
Tibor Scitovsky."Lerner's Contribution to Economics."Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.22, No.4 (Dec.,1984),1547-1571.
V. W. Bladen. Reviewed work:On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor; Benjamin E. Lippincott. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne d'Economique et de Science politique, Vol.6, No.1 (Feb.,1940), pp.119-120.
Vernon L. Smith. "Reflections On Human Action After 50 Years. "Cato Journal, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 1999).PP.195-214.
W. Paul Cockshott,Allin F. Cottrell."Information and Economics:A Critique of Hayek."Research in Political Economy, Vol.16,1997,177-202.
Walter D. Fisher. " Oskar Ryszard Lange,1904-1965. " Econometrica, Vol.34, No.4 (Oct.,1966),733-738.
Walton H. Hamilton. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson. The American Economic Review, Vol.4, No.3 (Sep.,1914),614-617.
William Henry Chamberlin:Collectivism:A False Utopia.New York:The Mecmillan Company.1973.
William L.Anderson."Austrian Economics and the "Market Test":A Comment on Laband and Tollison."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.3,No.3(Fall 2000),63-73.
William N. Butos. "Hayek and General Equilibrium Analysis."Southern Economic Journal, Vol.52, No.2 (Oct.,1985), pp.332-343.
Yuri Maltsev. "Murray N. Rothbard As a Critic of Socialism. "Journal of Liberation Studies,Vol.12,No.l(Spring 1996),99-119.
Z. Clark Dickinson. "Fred M. Taylor's Views on Socialism. "Economica, New Series, Vol. 27, No.105 (Feb.,1960),42-52.
1马克思恩格斯选集[M].第四卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：390.
2本段统计资料及美国前总统克林顿的评论引自张卓元等著《论中国所有制改革》,江苏人民出版社2001年版，89-91.
1马克思恩格斯选集[M].第3卷．北京：人民出版社,1995：303.
2同上，633.
1马克思恩格斯选集[M].第3卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：303-305.
2同上,660.
1庞巴维克著,彭定鼎译.奥地利学派经济学家[J].美国政治与社会科学院年刊,1891,1.
2约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：470.
3劳伦斯．怀特.奥地利学派经济学的方法论,出自门格尔著,姚中秋译,《经济学方法论探究》,新星出版社,2007年,297.
4门格尔著,姚中秋译.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：268.
1 Joseph T. Salerno, "Carl Menger:The Founder of the Austrian School." Ludwig von Mises Institute.
2 Principle of Economics, Carl Menger, Translated by James Dingwalland and Bert F Hoselitz, Ludwig von Mises Institute,007, p.7.
3文章中的黑体字均为作者原文所注。
4门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：3.
5同上,2.
1门格尔著,刘絜敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：3.
1门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海.上海世纪出版集团,2005：52.
2同上.52.
3按照门格尔的解释,所谓的高度福利,是指在同一强度下,持久性较长的为高度；在同一持久性下,强度较大的为高度。
4门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：66.
1门格尔著,刘絜敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：100.
1门格尔著，刘絜敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：112.
2 Joseph T. Salerno, "Carl Menger:The Founder of the Austrian School," Ludwig von Mises Institute.
3 A. Oakley, the Revival of Modern Austrian Economics, Edward Elgar,1999,p22.
1门格尔著,刘絜敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：2.
1门格尔著，姚中秋译.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：133.
2同上,142,148.
3格里高利·克里斯坦森.方法论个人主义.出自门格尔著.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：260.
1劳伦斯·怀特.奥地利学派经济学的方法论.出自门格尔著.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：303.
1门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：15.
2同上,20.
1米塞斯著,冯克利译.有计划的混乱[J].当代世界社会主义问题,2008,(2)：28.
1帕尔默,科尔顿著,孙福生等译.近现代世界史[M]．北京：商务印书馆,1988：1050.
2罗斯巴德著,谢华育译.美国大萧条[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2003：459.
1帕尔默,科尔顿著,孙福生等译.近现代世界史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1988：1054.
2转引自考德维尔著,冯克利译.哈耶克评传[M]．北京：商务印书馆，2007：277.
1门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：3.
1戈森著,陈秀山译.人类交换规律与人类行为准则的发展[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：7,9,16.
2同上,134,161.
3同上,271.
4 E.Cannon, A History of Theories of Production and Distribution, (1983;3d, ed.,1917), p.305.转引自F.A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons, 1935,p26.
1关于纽拉特生平的介绍,参考考德维尔著,冯克利译.哈耶克评传[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007：136—137.
1 Thomas E. Uebel, Introduction:Neurath's Economics in Critical Context, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, edited by Robert S.Cohen, Thomas E.Uebel, Springer Netherlands,2005,pp9-10.
2 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, edited by Robert S.Cohen, Thomas E.Uebel, Springer Netherlands,2005,p300.
1 Otto Neurath. Socialist Utility Calculation and Capitalist Profit Calculation, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, edited by Robert S.Cohen, Thomas E.Uebel, Springer Netherlands,2005,p468.
2 Otto Neurath, Empiricism and Sociology, edited by Marie Neurath and Robert S. Cohen, Dordrecht:Reidel,1973, pp349,363.
3 Otto Neurath, Empiricism and Sociology, edited by Marie Neurath and Robert S. Cohen, Dordrecht:Reidel,1973, p346.
4 Otto Neurath, Economics Plan and Calculation in Kind, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, edited by Robert S.Cohen, Thomas E.Uebel, Springer Netherlands,2005,p432.
1 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, p302.
1 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, p305.
1 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, p 307.
1 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War Economics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, pp304,310.
2同上,303.
1马克思恩格斯全集[M].第38卷.北京：人民出版社,1972：186.
2在米塞斯的《社会主义》、哈耶克的《集体主义计划经济》以及兰格的《社会主义经济计算》等作品中,都不同程度的谈到了皮尔逊与考茨基的论战。
1参见The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.27, No.4 (Aug.,1913), pp.651-655. Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 18, No.4 (Dec.,1903), pp.706-710. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.22, The United States and Latin America (Jul.,1903), pp.234-236等杂志。
2 N·G·Pierson, Principles of Economics, Vol 1,, transled by A.A.Wotzel, macmillan and co,London,p 51.
3同上，47.
1 N·G·Pierson, Principles of Economics, Vol I,, transled by A.A. Wotzel, macmillan and co,London,p 53.
2同上,54.
3参见卡尔·门格尔,刘肇敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2005：52-80.
1 Frank A. Fetter, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.11, No.4 (Sep.,1903), pp.660.弗兰克.费特(1863-1947),19世纪末20世纪初美国经济学界的领军人物。参见熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：186-187.
2米塞斯著,王建民、冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：114.注释7；另见Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p701.
1 N.G.Pierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism,ed.by F.A.von Hayek.London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p51.
2同上,43.
3伊藤诚著,鲁永学译.现代社会主义问题[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1996：68.
4 N.G.Pierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,p59.
5同上,59.
1 N.GPierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p70.
2同上,60.
3同上,77.
1 N.GPierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p75.
2转引自S. J. Chapman, The Economic Journal, Vol.23, No.89 (Mar.,1913), pp.71.
1考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：79.
2 N.G.Pierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. yon Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p52.
3考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：82.
1 N.G.Pierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p81.
2考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：86.
3同上,89.
4约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷．北京：经济科学出版社,1996：18.
5考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：89.
1考茨基著,无产阶级专政[J].出自王学东编.考茨基文选[M].北京：人民出版社,2008：389.
2参见Otto Nuerath, Through War Economy to Economy in Kind, from Boettke edited, Socialism and the Market,The Socialist Calculation Debate Revisited, Routledge, vol I,2001,p553-587。
3考茨基的德文版《无产阶级革命及其纲领》发表于1922年,两年后被翻译成英文,题为《劳动革命》。参见Karl Kautsky, transled by H.J. Stenning,《Labour Revolution》,1924, ALLEN & UNWIN,London, pp260-267.
1奥斯卡.兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：43.
2 Otto Neurath, Empiricism and Sociology, edited by Marie Neurath and Robert S.Cohen, p425.
3 Otto Neurath, Economics in Kind, Calculation in Kind and Their Relation to War PEconomics, from Otto Neurath Economic Writings Selections 1904-1945, p303.
4参见J. W. N. Watkins, Reviewed work: Empiricism and Sociology by O. Neurath; Marie Neurath; Robert S. Cohen, pp347-48。
1参见格雷戈里,斯图尔特著,葛奇等译．比较经济制度学[M].北京：知识出版社,1988：121-25.
2 Mises, Ludwig von Mises, Notes and Recollections, Translated, and with a postscript, by Hans F. Sennholz, South Holland, Libertarian,1978, p40.
3 Mises, Nation, State, and Economy:Contributions to the Politics and History of Our Time, New York University Press, 1983, p140.
1约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷,北京：经济科学出版社,1996：938.
1参见David Ramsay Steele, Posing the Problem:The Impossibility of Economic Calculation under Socialism, The Jounal of Libertarian Studies, Vol V, No.1(Winter 1981), p12.
2 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London: George Routledge & Sons,1935,pp27-28.
1米塞斯著,王建民、冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：24.
2同上,29.
3 Ludwig Von Mises, Selected Writings of Ludwig Von Mises, Liberty Fund,2002, Vol 2, p351.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p3.
2同上,39.
3米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：79,80.
4门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：34-51.
1诺夫著,唐雪葆译.可行的社会主义经济[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988：22,23.
2低级财货与高级财货的划分,始于门格尔的《国民经济学原理》。这一划分在奥地利学派的思想中,占据着重要的地位,很多理论都与这一划分密切相关,如生产周期理论,对经济危机的理解等等。
3 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London: George Routledge & Sons,1935,p95.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p204.
1 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London: George Routledge & Sons,1935,p 96.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：177.
3同上,162.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,pp219,222.
2米塞斯著，王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：81.
3 A. Oakley, The Revival of Modern Austrian Economics,Edward Elgar,1999,p22.
4米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：81.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：80.
1 Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press, 1985, p54.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：84.
1 Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Socialism:A Property or Knowledge Problem? The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.9, No.1, 1996,p143.
2 Ludwig Von Mises. Human Action:a treatise on economics,p214.
3同上,218.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：87.
2 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p207.
1米塞斯著,姚中秋译.反资本主义心态[M]．北京：新星出版社,2007：111.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：89.
1韦伯著,康乐,简惠美译.经济行动与社会团体[M].北京：广西师范大学出版社,2004：36-45.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：167.
3柯兹纳.资本理论[J].出自埃德温.多兰主编,王文玉译.现代奥地利学派经济学的基础[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008年,127.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p p269-272.
2 Israel M. Kirzner, MISES AND HIS UNDERSTAING OF THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM,Cato Journal, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 1999), p220.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p 100.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：169.
3参见Kirzner, Method, Process andAustrain Economics, Lexington Books,1982.
Ludwig Von Mises. Human Action:a treatise on economics,p 273.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：173,84.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics,p 224.
2同上,224.
1柯兹纳.均衡与市场过程[J].出自埃德温·多兰主编.现代奥地利学派经济学的基础[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：105-113.
2 Mises, A Critique of Interventionism, Crown Pub,1977, p139.
3参见罗斯巴德著,谢华育译.美国大萧条[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2003：51-56.
1 David Ramsay Steele, Posing the Problem:The Impossibility of Economic Calculation Under Socialism, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.V, No.1,1981, p9.
2米塞斯著，王建民，冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：18.
3参见Mises, Middle-of-the-Road Policy Leads to Socialism, Planning for Freedom and Other Essays and Addresses, South Holland, Ⅲ.:Libertarian Press,1952.
1王建民.路德维希.冯.米塞斯社会主义观述评[J].山东大学学报,2007,6：3.
2马克思恩格斯全集[M].第20卷.北京：人民出版社,1974：334.
1考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：101.
2马克思恩格斯选集[M].第4卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：633.
3米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：168,177.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：171.
2同上,98.
1 Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：100.Press,1985, p67.
3同上,101.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：169.
2同上,87,102.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：102.
2阿兰·艾伯斯坦著,秋风译.哈耶克传[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003：29.
3拉特瑙(W.Rathenau),二十世纪上半期德国著名的经济学家,提倡在德国建立“社会化委员会”,研究如何在保持竞争活力的同时,对个体产业进行社会化等问题。
4 Nobel Prize-Winning Economist Friedrich A von Hayek, Oral History Progran, University of Calfornia at Los Angles, 1983, p11.
1转引自考德维尔著,冯克利译.哈耶克评传[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007：277.
2哈耶克曾经回答说,在他的一生中,给其影响最大的是两本书,一本是门格尔的《国民经济学原理》,另一本则是米塞斯的《社会主义》。前者让他坚定的走上了经济学研究的道理,后者则让他逐渐走向自由市场经济。
3米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：4.
4 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George: Routledge & Sons,1935,p16.
1 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p 2,3.
2 F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep.,1945),p520.
1哈耶克著,王明毅等译.通往奴役之路[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997：39-40.
1哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M]．北京：三联书店,2003：68.
1这篇讲稿指的是哈耶克于1936年11月10日,在伦敦经济学俱乐部所做的主席就职演讲,题目为《经济学与知识》,并于次年发表在《经济学》杂志上。
2 Nobel Prize Winning Economist,edited by Armen Alchian,1983, pp425-26.
3拉齐恩·萨丽等著,秋风译.哈耶克与古典自由主义[M].贵阳：贵州人民出版社,2003：239.
4何信全著.哈耶克自由理论研究[M]．北京：北京大学出版社,2004：20.
1 A. Oakley, the Revival of Modern Austrian Economics,Edward Elgar,1999,p22.
2门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：13.
1门格尔著，刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：121.
2哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：57.
1哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：54.
1亚当·斯密著,王亚南译.国民财富的性质和原因的研究[M].上卷.北京：商务印书馆,2002：1.
2门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：19.
3同上,20.
4哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：74.
1参见阿兰.艾伯斯坦著,秋风译.哈耶克传[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003：113.
1考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M]．北京：人民出版社,1980：101.
2奥塔.希克著,张斌译.第三条道路[M].北京：人民出版社,1982：141.
1 Hayek, Scientism and the Study of Society, Economica, vol.IX, August 1942.p35.
2哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：416.
3哈耶克著,邓正来译．自由秩序原理[M]．北京：三联书店,1997：80.
4哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：524.
1 F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep.,1945),p525.
F. A. H1 ayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep.,1945),p528.
2哈耶克著,冯克利译.科学的反革命——理性滥用之研究[M].南京：译林出版社,2003：87.
1莱昂内尔·罗宾斯著,朱泱译.经济科学的性质和意义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2005：17,27.
2 Lionel Robbins, The Great Depression,London:Macmillan&Co.Ltd,1935,p148.
3 Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, London:Macmillan& Co Ltd, p194.
1 Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, London:Macmillan& Co Ltd, p197.
2同上,201.
1 Lionel Robbins, Economic Planning and International Order, London:Macmillan& Co Ltd, p191.
2同上,8.
1卡伦.沃恩著,朱全红等译.奥地利学派在美国——一个传统的迁入[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：42．
1参见Eric Crampton, Robust Analytical Egalitarianism:Worst-case Political Economy and the Socialist Calculation Debate, Dickson College,2005, p4.
2哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M]．北京：三联书店,2003：177.
1转引自W. Paul Cockshott and Allin F. Cottrell, Information and Economics:A Critique of Hayek,November 1996.
2冯克利.用观念战胜观念[J].尤利西斯的自缚[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2004：215.
1关于巴罗尼的生平及介绍,参见约翰.伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：210.
2同上.210.
3熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：344.
4参见兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：2.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：14.
2马克思恩格斯选集[M].第一卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：286.
3马克思恩格斯选集[M].第四卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：390.
4马克思恩格斯选集[M].第三卷.北京：人民出版社,1995：633.
5同上,303-305.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935, p245.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State, 出自 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935, p246.
2 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p247.
3萨缪尔森著,甘华鸣等译.经济分析基础[M].北京：北京经济学院出版社,1990：217.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p256.
1萨缪尔森著,甘华鸣等译.经济分析基础[M].北京：北京经济学院出版社,1990：218.
2 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p265.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p275.
2同上,289.
3埃德蒙.惠特克著,徐宗士译.经济思想流派[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1974：462.关于卡塞尔的这种观点,哈耶克在《社会主义的计算：问题的性质与历史》中同样谈到过。参见F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p29.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p286.
2熊彼特著,杨敬年译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2001：348.
3格雷戈里,斯特尔特著,葛奇等译.比较经济制度学[M].北京：知识出版社,1988：102.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p245.
2约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：210.
3 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p29.
4 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p287.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p288.
2霍华德·金著,顾海良等译.马克思主义经济学史[M]．北京：中央编译出版社,2003：367.
1巴德汉,罗默著,李春放编译.市场社会主义思想轨迹[J].当代世界与社会主义,1998,4：117.
2熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：348.
1例如吕薇洲于1997年在《马克思主义研究》杂志上发表的《市场社会主义理论的历史回顾——两次论战和两种模式》、李春放教授1999年在《当代世界与社会主义》杂志上发表的《关于二三十年代社会主义经济计算大辩论的解读和反思》、余文烈教授等人于2008年合著的《市场社会主义：历史、理论与模式》等作品中,都不同程度的涉及了这场论战。但是,这些介绍,无论从论战过程的完整性,还是对论战人物的理论观点,都不是十分全面。
2关于泰勒的生平,参见约翰·伊特韦尔等编．新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M1.第四卷.北京:经济科学出版社,1996：661.
1例如,社会主义经济核算论战中,社会主义一方的主将兰格,在论文中曾明确指出,在巴罗尼之后,泰勒对社会主义经济理论,作出了重大贡献。
2 F. M. Taylor, Principles of Economics,The Ronald Press Company,eighth edition,1922,p542.
1 Murray N.Rothbard, The Case Against the Fed, The Ludwig von Mises Institute,1994, p100.
2 F. M. Taylor, The Final Report of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission,The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.6, No. 3 (Jun.,1898), p322.
3 F. M. Taylor, Principles of Economics, p40.
4 F. M. Taylor, Reviewed work(s):Outlines of Economics by Richard T.Ely, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 17, No.5 (May,1909), p 303.
1 F. M. Taylor, Principles of Economics, pp519-20.
2 F.M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State,The American Economic Review, Vol.19,No.1 (Mar., 1929), p2.
3 F. M. Taylor, Principles of Economics, p11.
1 F.M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State, p1.
2同上,5.
1 F. M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State, p3.
2 F. M. Taylor, The Next Decade of Economic Theory:Discussion, Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol.2, No.1 (Feb.,1901),p251.
3 F. M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State, p6.
1 F. M. Taylor, The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State, p6.
2同上,8.
1转引自Louis Leo Snyder, Review work, On the Economic Theory of Socialism, Annals fo the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.199, Sep.1938, p268.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：102.
3哈耶克在七十年代的访谈中说道,“有时我私下里说,我在社会科学中有一个发现、两项发明：这个发现就是利用分散知识的方法,这是我对的简单表述：我取得的两项发明是货币的非国家化和我的民主理论……”。参见考德维尔著,冯克利译,《哈耶克评传》,商务印书馆,2007年,245.
3哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：78.
4约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：133.
1在熊彼特的赞扬中,还包括维塞尔。维塞尔在《自然价值》中指出,共产主义经济,就像资本主义经济一样,都需要经济衡量标准和计算。参见熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：346.
2 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist Stare, 出自 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p246。
3 DW MacKenzie, Institutional Analysis in the Socialist Calculation Debate, History of Political Economy,2007,p13.
1兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：2,3.
2关于广义价格的参数性质和客观性质,参见布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：32.
1兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：118.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.l (Oct.,1936),p57.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, p64.
2约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：139.
3 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, p64.
4 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part Two,The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.2 (Feb., 1937),p123.
1约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：140.
2 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part Two,p128.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part Two,p 129-130.
2同上,132.
3转引自陈云卿等编.外国学者论社会主义市场经济[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1993：134-135.
4 Abram Bergson, Marjket Socialism Revisted, Journal of Political Economy,1967,75,655-73.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：34.
2 Gray, J, The Moral Foundation of Market Institutions, London,1992, p19.
1哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：336.
2 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. p307.
3 Alfred Schuller, Does Market Socialism Work? London,1988, p62,转引自皮尔森著,姜辉译.新市场社会主义[M].上海：东方出版社,1999：164.
4参见迈克尔.波兰尼著,彭峰等译.社会、经济和哲学——波兰尼文选[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006：169-171.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, p64.
2转引自·Guinevere Nell, Atomistic Decentralization and the Misunderstood Socialist Calculation Debate, p2.出自http://www.economicliberty.net/Atomistic edited.pdf。
1 Abram Bergson, Market Socialism Revisited; The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.75, No.5 (Oct.,1967), pp661.
2 Paul Craig Roberts, Oskar Lange's Theory of Socialist Planning, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.79, No.3 (May-Jun.,1971), p568.
1 Frank H.Knight,Reviewed work,On the Economic Theory of Socialism, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.44, No.4 (Jan.,1939),p600.
1劳伦斯.A.博兰著,王铁生等译.批评的经济学方法论[M]．北京：经济科学出版社,2000：254.
2同上,255.
3 Murray N. Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises and Economic Calculation Under Socialism,出自The Economics of Ludwig von Mises:Toward a Critical Reappraisal, ed. with an Introduction by Laurence S. Moss (Kansas City:Sheed and Ward, 1976,p72。
4参见FA. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep., 1945),pp519-530。
1 Paul Craig Roberts, Oskar Lange's Theory of Socialist Planning,p570.
2参见O'Driscoll, Gerald P Jr and Rizzo,Mario J, The Economics of Time and Ignorance,Basil Blackwell,1985, p60-62.
1 Oskar Lange, On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One, p64.
2 Guinevere Nell, Atomistic Decentralization and the Misunderstood Socialist Calculation Debate, p5.
1 Edgar Z. Palmer, Reviewed work, On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor; Benjamin E. Lippincott, Southern Economic Journal, Vol.5, No.2 (Oct.,1938),p233.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：102.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Price Formation in a Socialist Community, The Economic Journal, VoL 43, No.170 (Jun.,1933), p238.
2同上,239.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Price Formation in a Socialist Community, p240.
2同上,241.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Price Formation in a Socialist Community, p242.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Price Formation in a Socialist Community, p247.
2同上,250.
3参见约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第一卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：987.
4 Maurice Dobb, Politicl Economy and Capitalism:Some Essays in Economic Traditon,London:Routledge, p21.
1 Maurice Dobb, The Significance of the Five Year Plan, The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol.10, No.28(Jun., 1931), p80.
2同上,85.
1 Maurice Dobb, Economic Theory and the Problems of a Socialist Economy, The Economic Journal, Vol.43, No.172 (Dec.,1933), p588.
2同上,590.
3同上,592.
1 Maurice Dbbb, Economic Theory and the Problems of a Socialist Economy, p592.
2同上,597.
1 H. D. Dickinson, Problems of a Socialist Economy, The Economic Journal, Vol.44,No.173 (Mar.,1934),p.152.
2 C. J. Hitch, Economics of Socialism. by H.D.Dickinson, The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.200(Dec.,1940), p484.
1关于勒纳的生平介绍,参见约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：181.以及范恒山著.国外25中经济模式[M].北京：改革出版社,1983：139.
2 A. P. Lemer, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.1 (Oct.,1934), p53.
1 A. P. Lerner, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.1 (Oct.,1934), p 54.
2同上,p55.
3同上,p57.
1 L. D. Trotsky, Soviet Economy in Danger, Pioneer Publishers, New York, pp.29-33.转引自A. P. Lerner, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy, p59.
2 A. P. Lerner, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy, p60.
1 Maurice Dobb, Economic Theory and Socialist Economy:A Reply, The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.2 (Feb.,1935), p141.
2同上,146.
3同上,147.
1萨缪尔森著,甘华鸣等译.经济分析基础[M].北京：北京经济学院出版社,1990：218.
2 N.GPierson,The Problem of Value in The Socialist Community, 出自 Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,,p80.
1 F. A. Hayek， The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep., 1945),p530.
2关于论战过程的“标准”解释,参见Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning。 The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press,1985,第10-20.
1 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p207.
2 F. M. Taylor, The Final Report of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission, The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.6, No. 3 (Jun.,1898), p295.
3 Z. Clark Dickinson, Fred M. Taylor's Views on Socialism, Economica, New Series, Vol.27, No.105 (Feb.,1960), pp51-2.
1皮尔森著,姜辉译．新市场社会主义[M].上海：东方出版社,1999：274.
2P．特纳,C.科林斯著.计划经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982：18.
3朱庭光著.外国历史名人传[M](补遗本).北京：中国社会科学出版社,1985：83.
4皮尔森著,姜辉译：新市场社会主义[M].上海：东方出版社,1999：275.
1王建民.路德维希.冯.米塞斯社会主义观述评[J]．山东大学学报,2007,6：11.
2 Paul Craig Roberts, Oskar Lange's Theory of Socialist Planning,p571.
1 F. A. v. Hayek, Socialist Calculation:The Competitive Solution , Economica, New Series, Vol Ⅶ,No.26(May 1940),p129.
1霍华德·金著,顾海良等译.马克思主义经济学史1929—1990[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2003：372.
1参见布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：41-42.
1关于论战过程的“标准”解释,参见Don Lavoie, Rivalry arid Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press,1985,第10—20.
2米塞斯对兰格模式的批评主要包括以下作品：《作为经济核算问题之出路的人造市场》,《数理经济学的均衡与社会主义国家的经济核算问题》，《社会主义经济核算的不可能性》。关于米塞斯对市场社会主义的批评,另文论述。
1 Richard Ebling,'An Interview with Friedrich Hayek', Libertarian Review (September,1977),p11.
2参见Boris Brutzkus, Economic Planning in Soviet Russia, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,pp8-10..
1 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p20.
1海约克.物价与生产[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1958：35.
2 F. A.Hayek, Monetariy Theory and the Trade Cycle. Clifton, New Jersey:A. M. Kelley,1933,p42.
3 Daniel Shapino, Reviving the Socialist Calculation Debate:A Defense of Hayek Against Lange, Social Philosophy & Policy, Vol.6 Issue 2,1987, p102.
4 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, p208.
1，F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, p25.
2兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M],北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：3.
3 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p209.
4同上,210.
1兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：2-5.
2 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,出自Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London:George Routledge & Sons,1935, p287.
1 F. A. Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society, The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.4 (Sep.,1945),p530.
2 F. A. v. Hayek, Socialist Calculation:The Competitive Solution', Economica, New Series, pp129-130.
3参见Dob, Economic Theory and the Problem of a Socialist Economy, Economic Journal, December,1933.
1 F.Y.Edgeworth, Colleted Paper, Ⅰ, p.138,转引自哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：237.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：105.
2 F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities ofSocialism,p234.
1 F.A.V Hayek, Socialist Calculation:The Competitive'Solution', Economica, New Series,p138.
2同上，145.
3关于论战过程的“标准”解释,参见Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press,1985,第10—20.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：102.
2谢夫勒提出的社会税,其主要观点是：通过生产者协会和消费者协会的协商,中央计算委员会能够确定每一产品的成本,如果产品供过于求,就降低该产品的税率,反之则提高该产品的税率,以此来调整社会生产过程。
3参见Ludwig Von Mises, Selected Writings of Ludwig Von Mises, Liberty Fund,2002,Vol 2, p352.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Selected Writings of Ludwig Von Mises, Liberty Fund,2002, Vol 2, p353.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：488.
3兰格接受了很多勒纳的观点,然后进行了新的论证,出于篇幅的考虑,本文只简单介绍兰格的观点。
4兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：2,3.
1兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：15.
2同上.15.
3米塞斯后来以英文重写了这篇文章,但是他本人一直没有发表。英文版的文章见Mises, The Equations of Mathematical Economics And The Problem of Economic Calculation In A Socialist State, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economic, vol.3, no.1 (spring 2000):pp27-32.
4L.罗宾斯.过去和现在的政治经济学——对经济政策中的主要理论的考察[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997：145.
1在熊彼特的赞扬中,还包括维塞尔。维塞尔在《自然价值》中指出,共产主义经济,就像资本主义经济一样,都需要经济衡量标准和计算。
2熊彼特著,朱泱等译.经济分析史[M].第三卷,北京：商务印书馆,2005：346.
3关于巴罗尼对社会主义一般均衡的描述,可参见Enrino Barone, The Ministry of Production In The Collectivist State, from Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, ed. by F. A. von Hayek. London: George Routledge & Sons,1935,
4 Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press, 1985,
5 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p701.
6 Mises, The Equations of Mathematical Economics And The Problem of Economic Calculation In A Socialist State, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economic, vol.3, no.l (spring 2000):p28.
1理查德.豪伊著,晏智杰译.边际效用学派的兴起[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999：46.
2约翰·伊特韦尔等编.新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典[M].第三卷.北京：经济科学出版社,1996：522.
1米塞斯著,梁小民译.经济学的认识论问题[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001：114.
2 Ludwig Von Mises. Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p702.
1埃德温·多兰主编.现代奥地利学派经济学的基础[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：106.
2 R.H.Coase,The Nature of The Firm, Economica,New Series,Vol.4,No.16.(Nov.,1937),p386.
1 Ludwig Von Mises. Human Action,p707.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：105.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action,p307.
2 Peter GKlein, Economic Calculation and the Limits of Organization, The Review ofAustrian Economics Vol.9, No.2 (1996),p3.
3 Murray N.Rothbard,The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited, The Review ofAustrian Economics Vol.5, No.2 (1991),p60.
4米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：106.
1关于官僚管理和利润管理的区分,参见米塞斯著,冯克利译.官僚体制[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：26-37.
2 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action,pp709-710.
3参见Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action,p704。
1 Don Lavoie, Rivalry and Central Planning, The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered, Cambrige University Press, 1985, p169.
1哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：140.
2哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007：112.
3 F. A.Hayek,, Studies in Philosophy,Politics,and Economics, Preface, B-13,1967, p. vii.
1门格尔本人对自然科学充满兴趣,他的弟弟以热衷数学闻名,其子是一名知名的数学家。见门格尔著,刘絮敖译.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005：4.
2参见R.H.Coase,The Nature of The Firm, Economica,New Series,Vol.4,No.16.(Nov.,1937),pp386-405。
1参见迈克尔.波兰尼著,彭锋等译.社会、经济和哲学——波兰尼文选[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006：167-176.
2参见哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：263-301.
3 Robert P. Murphy, Notes on the Socialist Calculation Debate,参见http://homepages.nyu.edu/-rpm213/files/Calc.pdf
1 Ivan Progracic, Austrian Economics and The End of Socialism, presented at the 6th Austrian Scholars Conference,Auburn, Alabama, March 24-25,2000.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：86.
2同上，162.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, Yale University,4th rev. ed, p257-58.
2 Mises, The Equations of Mathematical Economics And The Problem of Economic Calculation In A Socialist State, The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economic, vol.3, no.1 (spring 2000):p28.
3沃恩著，朱全红等译.奥地利学派经济学在美国[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：90-91.
4米塞斯对第三种均衡的看法,与熊彼特十分相似。熊彼特曾指出,均衡状态是有一定环境制约的经济生活的循环流转。参见《经济发展理论》,,1997年,5页
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, p247.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：169.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Human Action:a treatise on economics, p254.
2柯兹纳等著,多兰编,王文玉译.现代奥地利学派的经济学基础[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008：109.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：106.
2参见Eric Crampton, Andrew Farrant, Relaxing benevolence:public choice, socialist calculation, and planner self-interest, Rev Austrian Econ (2006) 19:81-93.
3兰格著,王宏昌译.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：29.
4 Bruce Caldwell, Hayek and Socialism, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.35, No.4 (Dec.,1997), P1878.
1 Ludwig Von Mises, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, from F. A. Hayek, Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935,p116.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：171-172.
3米塞斯著,冯克利译.官僚体制[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：7.
1米塞斯著,冯克利译.官僚体制[M].北京：新星出版社,2007：37.
2同上,52.
1阿兰·艾伯斯坦著,秋风译.哈耶克传[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003：6.
1哈耶克著,冯克利译.科学的反革命——理性滥用之研究[M].南京：译林出版社,2003：87.
1哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003：132.
1哈耶克著,王明毅等译.通往奴役之路[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997：73.
2哈耶克著,杨玉生等译．自由宪章[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999：331.
1哈耶克著，邓正来译.法律、立法与自由[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000：427.
2哈耶克著,邓正来译.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店2003：27.
3哈耶克著,邓正来译.法律、立法与自由[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000：459.
1参见洪银兴等著.当代东欧经济学流派[M].北京：中国经济出版社,1988：151.
2布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：29,34.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：146-147.
2同上,65．
3同上,80.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：133.
2同上.145.
1布鲁斯著,周亮勋等译.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984：150-158.
2同上,12.
3布鲁斯著,何作译.社会主义的政治与经济[M]．北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981：52.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：3.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：3.
2同上,23.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：2.
2同上,12.
3同上,3.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：14.
1罗默著,余文烈等译.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997：3.
2斯蒂格利茨著,周立群等译.社会主义向何处去[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,1998：91.
1 Enrico Barone, The Ministry of Production in the Collectivist State,p287.
1林德布鲁姆著,耿修林译,《市场体制的秘密》,江苏人民出版色,2002年,第4页。
1约翰.伊特韦尔等编,《新帕尔格雷夫经济学大辞典》第三卷,经济科学出版社,1996年,第944页。
1考茨基著,何江等译.社会革命[M].北京：人民出版社,1980：101.
1哈耶克著,冯克利译.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社，2007：317.
2米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：48.
1哈耶克著,冯克利译.致命的自负[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000：11.
1科尔内著,张安译.社会主义体制[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2007：187.
1米塞斯著,王建民,冯克利等译.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008：172.
阿兰·格鲁奇.比较经济体制[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1985.
阿兰、·艾伯斯坦.哈耶克传[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2003.
埃岗·纽伯格.比较经济体制[M].北京：商务印书馆,1985.
埃里克·罗尔.经济思想史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1981.
安德鲁·甘布尔.自由的铁笼：哈耶克传[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2005.
奥肯.平等与效率[M].北京：华夏出版社,1987.
奥斯卡·兰格.社会主义经济理论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1981.
彼得·桑德斯.资本主义——一项社会审视[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,.2005.
伯特尔·奥尔曼.市场社会主义——社会主义者之间的争论[M].北京：新华出版社,2000.
博恩斯坦.东西方计划经济[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
布鲁斯.从马克思到市场：社会主义对经济体制的求索[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1998.
布鲁斯.社会主义经济的运行问题[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1984.
布鲁斯·考德威尔.哈耶克评传[M].北京：商务印书馆,2007.
范恒山.国外25种经济模式[M].北京：改革出版社,1993.
方福前.当代西方经济学主要流派[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
冯克利.尤利西斯的自缚[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2004.
高歌.从经济思想视角解读哈耶克[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2007.
格尔哈德·帕普克.知识、自由与秩序[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2001.
哈耶克.法律、立法与自由[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2000.
哈耶克.个人主义与经济秩序[M].北京：三联书店,2003.
哈耶克.哈耶克文选[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2007.
哈耶克.货币的非国家化[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
哈耶克.科学的反革命[M].北京：译林出版社,2003.
哈耶克.通往奴役之路[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1997.
哈耶克.致命的自负[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2000.
哈耶克.自由秩序原理[M].北京：三联书店,2003.
汉密尔顿等.联邦党人文集[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006.
赫尔曼·海因里希·戈森.人类交换规律与人类行为准则的发展[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
霍华德等.马克思主义经济学史[M].北京：中央编译出版社,2003.
卡尔·波普尔.开放社会及其敌人[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999.
卡尔·波普尔.客观知识——一个进化论的研究[M].上海：上海译文出版社,1987.
卡尔j波普尔.历史主义贫困论[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1998.
卡尔·门格尔.国民经济学原理[M].上海：上海世纪出版集团,2005.
卡尔·门格尔.经济学方法论探究[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
莱昂内尔·罗宾斯.经济科学的性质和意义[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
勒纳.统制经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1965.
李兴耕,李宗禹等.当代国外经济学家论市场经济[M].北京：中共中央党校出版社,1994.
理查德·豪伊.边际效用学派的兴起[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1999.
林德布鲁姆.市场体制的秘密[M].南京：江苏人民出版社,2002.
林德布罗姆.政治与市场：世界各国的政治经济制度[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1994.
罗宾斯.过去和现在的政治经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,1997.
罗伯特·海尔布罗纳.几位著名经济思想家的生平、时代和思想[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994.
罗默.社会主义的未来[M].重庆：重庆出版社,1997.
罗斯巴德.权力与市场[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
马克·史库森.朋友还是对手——奥地利学派与芝加哥学派之争[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2006.
马克斯·韦伯.经济行动与社会团体[M].北京：广西师范大学出版社,2004.
迈克尔·波兰尼.社会、经济和哲学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006.
迈克尔·波兰尼.社会、经济和哲学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2006.
迈克尔·波兰尼.自由的逻辑[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2002.
迈克尔·博兰尼.自由的逻辑[M].长春：吉林人民出版社,2002.
曼德尔.为社会主义计划辩护[M].北京：商务印书馆,1992.
米塞斯.官僚体制反资本主义的心态[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
米塞斯.货币、方法与市场过程[M].北京：新星出版社,2007.
米塞斯.经济学的认识论问题[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2001.
米塞斯.社会主义[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2008.
米塞斯.自由与繁荣的国度[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1995.
莫里斯·博恩施坦.东西方的经济计划[M].北京：商务印书馆,1995.
莫里斯·博恩施坦主编.比较经济体制[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,1988.
穆勒.政治经济学原理及其在社会哲学上的若干应用[M].北京：商务印书馆1997.
尼·布哈林.食利者政治经济学[M].北京：商务印书馆,2002.
诺夫.可行的社会主义经济[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,1988.
皮尔森.新市场社会主义[M].上海：东方出版社,1999.
萨松.欧洲社会主义百年史[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,2007.
斯蒂格利茨.政府为什么干预经济[M].北京：中国物资出版社,1998.
斯威齐.资本主义发展论[M].北京：商务印书馆,2000.
托马斯·莫尔.乌托邦[M].北京：商务印书馆,1959,
汪丁丁编..自由与秩序——中国学者的观点[M].北京：中国社会科学出版社,2002.
维塞尔.自然价值[M].北京：商务印书馆,1982.
亚当·斯密.国民财富的性质和原因的研究[M].北京：商务印书馆,1974.
姚中秋主编.自发秩序与理性[M].杭州：浙江大学出版社,2008.
伊藤诚.现代社会主义问题[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社,1996.
余文烈.市场社会主义：历史、理论与模式[M].北京：经济日报出版社,2008.
约瑟夫·熊彼特.经济分析史[M].北京：商务印书馆,1994.
约瑟夫·熊彼特.资本主义、社会主义和民主[M].北京：商务印书馆,1979.
[美]R·艾伯林.奥地利学派在20世纪世界经济思想发展中的作用[J].莫皆译自《经济学和数学方法》,1992.
[美]布鲁斯·考德威尔著,静虚编译.哈耶克与社会主义[J].马克思主义与现实,1999.
P·K·巴德汉,J·E·罗默著,李春放编译.市场社会主义思想轨迹[J].当代世界与社会主义,1998.
阿林·科特尔,W·保罗·科克肖特著,李陈华译,冯克利校.计算、复杂性与计划—再谈社会主义核算论战[J].当代世界社会主义问题,2007.
曹东勃.奥地利学派对理论经济学前提的追问—论米塞斯的经济认识论[J].经济问题，2008.
陈学明.评卡尔·考茨基的主要理论观点[J].马克思主义与现实,2008.
段忠桥.国外马克思主义者关于市场社会主义的争论[J].马克思主义与现实，2006.
傅耀.奥地利学派经济学方法论论旨[J].贵州社会科学,2008.
高保中.市场经济与竞争均衡：哈耶克的启示与超越[J].南开经济研究，2004.
高歌.从社会主义经济核算的论战看熊彼特与哈耶克的理论异同[J].当代世界与社,会主义,2008.
高歌.熊彼特与哈耶克对奥地利传统的批评与继承—以瓦尔拉斯均衡为切入点[J].云南财经大学学报,2008.
高歌,张红凤.熊彼特与哈耶克关于社会主义论战的立场比较—以瓦尔拉斯均衡为视角[J].山东经济,2008.
韩光明.自由主义与路德维希.冯.米塞斯[J].自由与秩序,中国社会科学出版社,2002.
胡义成.“劳动价值论一元论”的始作俑者是考茨基——对马克思主义价值理论演变史的非主流性考察(上)[J].陕西教育学院学报,2003.
胡义成.“劳动价值论一元论”的始作俑者是考茨基——对马克思主义价值理论演变史的非主流性考察(下)[J].陕西教育学院学报,2003.
贾根良.奥地利学派的解释学转向与演化经济学的综合[J].学术月刊,2005.
贾根良.奥地利学派的演进：传统与突变[J].社会科学战线,2004.
江宣林,余淼杰.兰格、布鲁斯经济思想与中国经济改革[J].中央财经大学学报,2000.
靳涛.两大经济思潮的碰撞与演进—历史学派和奥地利学派的思想追踪及对现代经济学的影响[J].江苏社会科学,2005.
景维民,孙景宇.奥地利学派对社会主义经济的诘难—文献综述及基于中国实践的一个回应[J].当代经济研究,2008.
李春放.关于二三十代社会主义经济计算大辩论的解读与反思[J].当代世界与社会主义,1999.
李春放.市场社会主义的源流[J].社会科学研究,1999.
李春放.市场社会主义的主要代表人物及其观点[J].探索,1999.
李华芳.维也纳的回声—关于奥地利学派的经济思想[J].读书,2008.
刘志铭.竞争性市场过程产业组织与经济增长奥地利经济学派的发展[J].南开经济研究,2001.
刘志铭.市场过程、产业组织与政府规制：奥地利学派的视角[J].经济评论,2002.
刘志铭.市场过程中的知识与外部性：现代奥地利学派的视角[J].南京社会科学,2004.
吕薇洲.市场社会主义理论的历史回顾——两次论战和两种模式[J].马克思主义研究,1997.
罗珉.奥地利学派租金理论述评[J].外国经济与管理,2006.
彭爱兰.奥地利学派消费规律理论及其对我们的启示[J].消费经济,1997.
宋萌荣.关于市场社会主义的若干问题——与大卫·施韦卡特的对话[J].国外理论动态,2005.
苏振华.新兴古典经济学与奥地利学派的理论渊源比较[J].求索,2005.
孙韶林.论兰格的“竞争解决”社会主义模式[J].当代世界与社会主义,2001.
万英,维钧.关于兰格社会主义经济理论的几个问题[J].经济科学,1989.
王建民.路德维希·冯·米瑟斯社会主义观述评[J].山东大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2007.
王建民.中国的改革开放与社会主义观的变革[J].当代世界与社会主义问题,2008.
韦森.奥地利学派的方法论及其在当代经济科学中的意义及问题[J].学术月刊,2005.
卫兴华.价值理论研究中的热点难点问题探讨(上)[J].南京财经大学学报,2004
卫兴华.价值理论研究中的热点难点问题探讨(下)[J].南京财经大学学报,2004
奚兆永.对劳动价值论的马克思主义经济学史的考察—兼评胡义成先生“对马克思主义价值理论演变史的非主流性考察”[J].东方论坛,2004.
晏智杰：劳动价值论：反思与争论[J].经济评论,2004.
杨春学.米塞斯与奥地利学派经济学[J].云南财经大学学报,2008.
张文成.计划经济体制命运的预言者?—布鲁兹库斯及其《苏维埃俄国的经济计划》书[J].当代世界与社会主义,2002.
周瑞峰,刘立门.《经济学的哲学》中的芝加哥学派与奥地利学派[J].安徽文学,2008.
A. H. Murray. "Professor Hayek's Philosophy."Economica, New Series, Vol.12, No.47 (Aug.,1945), pp.149-162.
A. P. Lerner. "[Economic Theory and Socialist Economy]:A Rejoinder."The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.2 (Feb.,1935), pp.152-154.
A. P. Lerner. "A Note on Socialist Economics."The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.1 (Oct.,1936), pp.72-76.
A. P. Lerner. "From Vulgar Political Economy to Vulgar Marxism."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.47, No.4 (Aug.,1939), pp.557-567.
A. P. Lerner. "Statics and Dynamics in Socialist Economics,"The Economic Journal, Vol. 47, No.186 (Jun.,1937), pp.253-270.
A. P. Lerner. "Theory and Practice in Socialist Economics."The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.6, No.1 (Oct.,1938), pp.71-75.
A. P. Lerner. " Economic Theory and Socialist Economy. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.1 (Oct.,1934),51-61.
A. P. Lerner.Reviewed work(s):Diminishing Returns and Planned Economy by George M. Peterson.The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.46, No.6 (Dec.,1938), pp.887-890.
Abba P. Lerner. "The Economics and Politics of Consumer Sovereignty."The American Economic Review, Vol.62, No.1/2 (Mar.1,1972), pp.258-266.
Abba P. Lerner.Reviewed work(s):Employment and Equilibrium by A. C. Pigou.The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.24, No.2 (May,1942), pp.87-92.
Abram Bergson. "Communist Economic Efficiency Revisited."The American Economic Review, Vol.82, No.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Fourth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May,1992), pp.27-30.
Abram Bergson. "Market Socialism Revisited."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.75, No.5 (Oct.,1967), pp.655-673.
Alan Richardson.Reviewed work(s):Otto Neurath:Philosophy between Science and Politics by Nancy Cartwright; Jordi Cat; Lola Fleck; Thomas E. Uebel. Philosophy of Science, Vol.65, No.2 (Jun.,1998), pp.369-370.
Allin Cottrell,W. Paul Cockshott."Calculation, Complexity And Planning:The Socialist Calculation Debate Once Again."Review of Political Economy,Vol.5, No. 1(July 1993),73-112.
B. M. Anderson, Jr. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. Political Science Quarterly, Vol.30, No.1 (Mar.,1915),145-147.
Bettina Bien Greaves:Economic Policy Thoughts for Today and Tomorrow (Third Edition).Auburn:Ludwig von Mises Institute,2006.
Boris Brutzkus.Economic Planning in Soviet Russia London:George Routledge & Sons; 1935.
Bruce Caldwell."Hayek and Socialism."Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.35, No.4 (Dec.,1997),1856-1890.
Bruce Caldwell."Hayek and Socialism."Journal of Economic Literature,Vol.35 (December 1997),1856-1890.
By Donald C. Lavoie. "The Development of the Misesian Theory of Interventionism." Method, Process, and Austrian Economics.Edited by Israel
C. J. Hitch.Reviewed work(s):Economics of Socialism. by H. D. Dickinson.The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.200 (Dec.,1940), pp.484-486.
C. P. S. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol.76, No.3 (Feb.,1913),337-338.
C. P. Sanger. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. The Economic Journal, Vol.13, No.49 (Mar.,1903),98-99.
Carl Menger.Principles Of Economics. Translated by James Dingwalland and Bert F Hoselitz, Ludwig von Mises Institute,2007.
Dan Greenwood."Commensurability and Beyond:From Mises and Neurath to The future of the Socialist Calculation Debate,"Economy and Society,Vol,35.No.1(Feb.,2006),65-90.
David Ramsay Steele."Posing the Problem:The Impossibility of Economic Calculation under Socialism."Journal of Liberation Studies, Vol.5,No.1 (Winter 1981),7-22.
Dennis A. Sperduto."'The Forgotten contribution:Murray Rothbard on Socialism in Theory and in Practice'and the Reinterpretation of the Socialist Calculation Debate:A Comment. "The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.8,No.1 (Spring 2005),75-80.
Don Lavoie. "A Critique of the Standard Account of the Socialist Calculation Debate."Journal of Liberation Studies,Vol 5, No.1 (Winter 1981),41-87.
Dudley F. Pegrum."Economic Planning and the Science of Economics."The American Economic Review,Vol. 31,No.2 (Jun.,1941),298-307.
E. F. M. Durbin."Professor Hayek on Economic Planning and Political Liberty." The Economic Journal, Vol.55, No.220 (Dec,1945), pp.357-370.
E. R. A. Seligman,C. A. Tuttle, F. M. Taylor, E. A. Ross. "The Next Decade of Economic Theory:Discussion. "Publications of the American Economic Association,3rd Series, Vol. 2, No.1 (Feb.,1901), pp.247-253.
Edgar Z. Palmer. Reviewed work:On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor; Benjamin E. Lippincott. Southern Economic Journal, Vol.5, No.2 (Oct., 1938), pp.232-233.
Eduard Heimann. "Professor Hayek on German Socialism." The American Economic Review, Vol.35, No.5 (Dec.,1945),935-937.
Eduard Heimann."The Future of Free Enterprise. "American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.3, No.3, Essays in Memory of Franz Oppenheimer,1864-1943 (Apr., 1944),435-442.
Elisabeth L. Tamedly:Socialism and International Economic Order.Caldwell:The Caxton Printers,Ltd.,1969.
Eric Crampton,Andrew Farrant. "Relaxing Benevolence:Public Choice, Socialist Calculation,
F. A. Hayek. "The Use of Knowledge in Society."The American Economic Review, Vol. 35, No.4 (Sep.,1945), pp.519-530.
F. A. Hayek.Collectivist Economic Planning:Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism, London:George Routledge & Sons,1935.
F. A. Hayek,Reviewed work(s):Essai sur la nature du commerce en gnrai by Richard Cantillon; Henry Higgs.The, Economic Journal, Vol.42, No.165 (Mar.,1932), pp.61-63.
F. A. v. Hayek. " Socialist Calculation:The Competitive 'Solution'." Economica, New Series, Vol.7, No.26 (May,1940),125-149.
F. M. Taylor. "The Guidance of Production in a Socialist State."The American Economic Review, Vol.19, No.1 (Mar.,1929), pp.1-8.
F. M. Taylor. " The Objects and Methods of Currency Reform in the United States." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.12, No.3 (Apr.,1898), pp.307-342.
F. M. Taylor. "Monetary Reform in the United States." The Economic Journal, Vol.8, No. 32 (Dec.,1898), pp.579-586.
F. M. Taylor. "The Elasticity of Note Issue under the New Currency Law."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.22, No.5 (May,1914), pp.453-463.
F. M. Taylor. "The Final Report of the Indianapolis Monetary Commission;"The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.6, No.3 (Jun.,1898), pp.293-322.
F. M. Taylor. " Methods of Teaching Elementary Economics at the University of Michigan. " The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.17, No.10 (Dec.,1909), pp. 688-703.
F.M. Taylor.Reviewed work(s):Introductory Economics by A. S. Johnson.The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.16, No.7 (Jul.,1908), pp.459-461.
F. M. Taylor.Reviewed work(s):Outlines of Economics by Richard T. Ely. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.17, No.5 (May,1909), pp.301-303.
F. M. Taylor.Reviewed work(s):The History and Theory of Money, by Sidney Sherwood.Political Science Quarterly, Vol.8, No.3 (Sep.,1893), pp.557-558.
F-A-Hayek.Collectivist Economic Planning.London:Routledge,Kegan Paul LTD,1935. Franco Donzelli."The influence of the Socialist Calculation Debate on Hayek's View of General Equilibrium Theory.Revue Europeenne des Sciences Sociales,Vol.31,No.96(1993),47-83.
Frank A. Fetter. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.11, No.4 (Sep.,1903),659-661.
Frank H. Knight. "Professor Hayek and the Theory of Investment. "The Economic Journal, Vol.45, No.177 (Mar.,1935), pp.77-94.
Frank H. Knight. "The Place of Marginal Economics in a Collectivist System." The American Economic Review, Vol.26, No.1, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-eighth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (Mar.,1936), pp. 255-266.
Frank H. Knight. Reviewed work:On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Papers by Oskar Lange and Fred M. Taylor. by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor; Benjamin E. Lippincott. The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.44, No.4 (Jan.,1939), p.600.
Fritz Machlup. "Friedrich Von Hayek's Contribution to Economics."The Swedish Journal of Economics, Vol.76, No.4 (Dec.,1974), pp.498-531.
Gary S. Becker,Kevin M. Murphy. "The Division of Labor, Coordination Costs, and Knowledge."The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.107, No.4 (Nov.,1992), pp. 1137-1160.
Gene Callahan:Economics for Real People:An Introduction to the Austrian School(Second Edition).Auburn:Ludwig von Mises Institute,2004.
George A. Reisch. " Planning Science:Otto Neurath and the'International Encyclopedia of Unified Science'. " The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol.27, No.2 (Jun., 1994), pp.153-175.
George Reisman. "Environmentalism In The Light Of Menger And Mises. "The Quarterly Journal Of Austrian Economics Vol.5, No.2 (Summer 2002):3-15.
Gert H. Mueller,Max Weber."Socialism and Capitalism in the Work of Max Weber."The British Journal of Sociology, Vol.33, No.2 (Jun.,1982),151-171.
H. D. Dickinson. "Price Formation in a Socialist Community."The Economic Journal, Vol. 43, No.170 (Jun.,1933), pp.237-250.
H. D. Dickinson. "Problems of a Socialist Economy."The Economic Journal, Vol.44, No. 173 (Mar.,1934), p.152.
H. D. Dickinson.Reviewed work(s):Economic Calculation in Socialist Societies. by Trygve J. B. Hoff.The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.198/199 (Jun.-Sep.,1940), pp. 270-274.
H.D. Dickinson.Reviewed work(s):The Distribution of Income and Property. by J. Van Der Wijk.The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.198/199 (Jun.-Sep.,1940), pp.274-276.
H. D. Dickinson. Reviewed work:Economic Calculation in Socialist Societies. by Trygve J. B. Hoff. The Economic Journal, Vol.50, No.198/199 (Jun.-Sep.,1940),270-274.
H. M. Kallen. " Postscript:Otto Neurath,1882-1945. " Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol.6, No.4 (Jun.,1946), pp.529-533.
H. Parker Willis. Reviewed work:The Principles of Economics. Volume I. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.22, The United States and Latin America (Jul.,1903),234-236.
Henry R. Seager. " Review:The Second Volume of Pierson's Principles of Economics." Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. Leerboek der Slaathuishovdkunde. by N. G. Pierson, A. A. Wotzel. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.27, No.4 (Aug.,1913), 651-655.
Henry R. Seager. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. Political Science Quarterly, Vol.18, No.4 (Dec.,1903),706-710.
Irvin Sobel."Abba Petachya Lerner,1903-1982:Six Decades of Achievement."Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Vol.6, No.1 (Autumn,1983),3-19.
Israel M. Kirzner. "Mises and His Understanding Of The Capitalist System. "Cato Journal, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 1999),PP.215-232.
Israel M.Kirzner."Reflections on the Misesian Legacy in Economics."The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.9,No.2 (1996),143-154.
J. C. Rees. "Hayek on Liberty."Philosophy, Vol.38, No.146 (Oct.,1963), pp.346-360. J. W. N. Watkins. "Review:Otto Neurath. "Reviewed work(s):Empiricism and Sociology by O. Neurath; Marie Neurath; Robert S. Cohen. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol.25, No.4 (Dec.,1974), pp.343-352.
Jack Wiseman."Uncertainty, Costs, and Collectivist Economic Planning. "Economica, New Series, Vol.20, No.78 (May,1953),118-128.
James A. Yunker."Post-Lange Market Socialism:An Evaluation of Profit-Oriented Proposals."Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.29, No.3 (Sep.,1995),683-717.
James A. Yunker."The Microeconomic Efficiency Argument for Socialism Revisited." Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.13, No.1 (Mar.,1979),73-112.
James-A-Yunker. "The Equity-Efficiency Tradeoff under Capitalism and Market Socialism."Eastern Economic Journal, Vol.XVII,No.1 January-March 1991,pp.31-44.
Janos Kornai."What the Change of System from Socialism to Capitalism Does and Does Not Mean."The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.14, No.1 (Winter,2000),27-42. John Braland."Toward a Calculational Theory and Policy of Intergenerational Sustainability."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.9,No.2(Summer 2006),13-45.
John Gray. "Hayek on Liberty, Rights, and Justice."Ethics, Vol.92, No.1, Special Issue on Rights (Oct.,1981), pp.73-84.
John H. Kautsky.Reviewed work(s):Karl Kautsky,1854-1938:Marxism in the Classical Years by Gary P. Steenson Karl Kautsky and the Socialist Revolution,1880-1938 by Jon Rothschild; Massimo Salvadori.The American Political Science Review, Vol.75, No.3 (Sep.,1981),pp.752-754.
John O'Nell."'Radical Subjectivism':Not Radical,Not Subjectivist."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.3,No.2(Summer 2000),21-30.
John P. Bonin.Reviewed work(s):Rivalry and Central Planning:The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered. by Don Lavoie Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.25, No.2 (Jun., 1987), pp.751-752.
John P. Bonin.Reviewed work(s):Rivalry and Central Planning:The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered. by Don Lavoie.Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.25, No.2 (Jun., 1987),751-752.
John·N·Gray. "F-A-Hayek on Liberty and Tradition." The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol.Ⅳ,No.2(Spring 1980),pp.119-137.
Joseph Persky. "Retrospectives:Lange and von Mises, Large-Scale Enterprises, and the Economic Case for Socialism."The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.5, No.4 (Autumn,1991), pp.229-236.
Joseph T. Salerno."Mises and Hayek Dehomogenized."The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.6, No.2 (1993),113-146.
Joseph T. Salerno."Ludwig von Mises as Social Rationalist." The Review of Austrian Economics. Vol.4,1990, pp.26-54.
Joseph T.Salerno."A Final Word:Calculation, Knowledge, and Appraisement." The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.9,No.1 (1996),141-142.
Joseph T.Salerno."Reply to Leland B. Yeager on'Mises and Hayek on Calculation and Knowledge'." The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.7, No.2 (1994),111-125.
Karen I. Vaughn. "The Relevance of Subjective Costs:Reply."Southern Economic Journal, Vol.48, No.1 (Jul.,1981), pp.222-226.
Kenneth E. Boulding. "The Economics of Knowledge and the Knowledge of Economics." The American Economic Review, Vol.56, No.1/2 (Mar.1,1966), pp.1-13.
Kenneth J. Arrow. "Limited Knowledge and Economic Analysis."The American Economic Review, Vol.64,No.1 (Mar.,1974),pp.xiii-xiv+1-10.
Kenneth J. Arrow. "Methodological Individualism and Social Knowledge."The American Economic Review, Vol.84, No.2, Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Sixth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May,1994), pp.1-9.
Lawrence A. Boland. "Knowledge and the Role of Institutions in Economic Theory." Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.13, No.4, Methodology in Economics. Symposium Issue: Part I (Dec.,1979), pp.957-972.
Lawrence J. Connin. "Hayek, Liberalism and Social Knowledge."Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, Vol.23, No.2 (Jun.,1990), pp. 297-315.
Lawrence White:The Methodology of the Austrian School Economists New York:Lawrence H. White,1984.
Leland B. Yeager."Caculation and Konwledge:Let's Write Finits."The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.10,No.1 (1997),133-136.
Leland B. Yeager."Mises and Hayek on Calculation and Knowledge."The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.7, No.2,93-109.
Louis Leo Snyder. Reviewed work:On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.199, Better City Government (Sep.,1938),267-268.
Ludwig Von Mises."The Equations of Mathematical Economics and the Problem of Economic Calculation in a Socialist State."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics,Vol.3, No.1 (Spring 2000),27-32.
Mateusz Machaj."Market Socialism and the Property Problem:Different Perspective of the Socialist Calculation Debate."Quart JAustrian Econ,vol.10,(2007),257-280.
Maurice Dobb." Economic Theory and Socialist Economy:A Reply. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.2, No.2 (Feb.,1935),144-151.
Maurice Dobb. " Problems of Soviet Finance." The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol.11, No.33 (Apr.,1933),522-529.
Maurice Dobb. " The Significance of the Five Year Plan. " The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol.10, No.28 (Jun.,1931),80-89.
Maurice Dobb. Reviewed work:Essays in Socialism and Planning in Honor of Carl Landauer. by G. Grossman. The Economic Journal, Vol.81, No.323 (Sep.,1971), 695-696.
Michael Ellman." The Fundamental Problem of Socialist Planning." Oxford Economic Papers, New Series, Vol.30, No.2 (Jul.,1978),249-262.
Murray N. Rothbard. "Praxeology:The Methodology of Austrian Economics. " The Logic of Action One:Method, Money, and the Austrian Schoo. by Murray N. Rothbard (Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar,1997),pp.58-77.
Murray N. Rothbard. "The Myth of Efficiency."The Logic of Action One:Method, Money, and the Austrian School (Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar,1997), pp.266-273.
Murray N. Rothbard." The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited."The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.5, No.2 (1991),51-76.
Murray N. Rothbard. "Karl Marx:Communist as Religious Eschatologist."The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.4,1990,123-179.
Murray N. Rothbard.."Egalitarianism and the Elites. "The Review of Austrian Economic. Vol.8, No.2 (1995):39-57.
Murray N. Rothbard."The End of Socialism and the Calculation Debate Revisited." The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.5, No.2 (1991):51-76.
Murray N.Rothbard."How and How Not to Desocialize." The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol.6, No.1 (1992),65-77.
Murry N.Rothbard:Man,Economy, and State:A Treatise on Economic Principles with Power and Market government and the Economy (Scholar's Edition).Auburn:Ludwig von Mises Institute,2004.
Odd J. Stalebrink."The Hayk and Mises Controversy:Bridging Differences."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.7,No.1(Srping 2004),27-38.
Oscar Lange."The Practice of Economic Planning and The Optimum Allocation of Resources. " Econometrica, Vol.17, Supplement:Report of the Washington Meeting (Jul., 1949),166-171.
Oskar Lange. " Mr. Lerner's Note on Socialist Economics. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.2 (Feb.,1937),143-144.
Oskar Lange. " On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part One. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.1 (Oct.,1936), pp.53-71.
Oskar Lange. " On the Economic Theory of Socialism:Part Two. " The Review of Economic Studies, Vol.4, No.2 (Feb.,1937), pp.123-142.
Oskar Lange. Reviewed work(s):Political Economy and Capitalism:Some Essays in Economic Tradition by Maurice Dobb. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne d'Economique et de Science politique, Vol.4, No.2 (May, 1938),262-267.
P. R. Brahmananda. "Hayek's Nobel Prize."Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.37, No.6 (Feb.9-15,2002), pp.510+588.
Paul Craig Roberts. "Oskar Lange's Theory of Socialist Planning."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.79, No.3 (May-Jun.,1971), pp.562-577.
Paul Weindling. Reviewed work(s):Otto Neurath. Philosophy between Science and Politics by Nancy Cartwright;Jordi Cat;Lola Fleck;Thomas E. Uebel. The English Historical Review, Vol.113, No.450 (Feb.,1998), p.239.
Peter G. Klein."Economic Calculation and the Limits of Organization."The Review of Austrian Economics,Vol.9, No.2 (1996),3-28.
Peter J. Boettke,Christopher J. Coyne."The Forgotten Contribution:Murray Rothbard on Socialism in Theory and in Practice."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.7,No.2(Summer 2004),71-89.
Peter Lewin."The Firm,Money,and Economic Calculations:Considering the Institutional Nexus of Market Production. "American Journal of Economics and Sociology,Vol.57,No.4(Oct.,1998),499-512.
Peter Lewin.Reviewed work(s):Subjectivism and Economic Analysis:Essays in Memory of Ludwing M. Lachmann by Roger Koppl and Gary Mongiovi.The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics,,Vol.4,No.1 (Spring 2001),75-80.
Peter Lewin.Reviewed work(s):The Evolution of Austrian economics:From Menger to Lachmann by Sandye gloria-Palermo. The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.4,No.4(Winter 2001),71-82.
Peter·J·Boettke,Christopher·J·Coyne. "The forgotten contribution:Murray Rothbard on socialism." The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.Vol.7, No.2 (Summer 2004):71-89.
Peter·J·Boettke.2001. Calculation and Coordination. London:Routledge.
Pham Chung."Clarence E. Ayres and the Socialist Planning Debate. "Journal of Economic Issues,Vol.12, No.1 (Mar.,1978),115-123.
R. A. Gonce.Reviewed work(s):Ludwig von Mises:The Man and His Economics by Kirzner,Israel M.American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol.62, No.3 (July, 2003),633-636.
R. H. Coase."The Marginal Cost Controversy."Economica, New Series, Vol.13, No.51 (Aug.,1946),169-182.
R. H. Coase."The Nature of the Firm."Economica, New Series, Vol.4, No.16. (Nov., 1937),386-405.
Ralph Raico."The Austrian School and Classical Liberalism."Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol.2A(1995),3-38.
Reinhard Stiebler."A Pre-history of Misesian Calculation:The contribution of Adolphe Thiers." Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics,Vol. 2, No.4 (Winter 1999):,41-47. Robert Bradley,Jr.."Market Socialism:A Subjectivist Evaluation."Journal of Liberation Studies,Vol.5, No.1 (Winter 1981),23-39.
Robert P. Murphy. "Cantor's Diagonal Argument:An Extension on the Socialist Calculation Debate."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.9,No.2(Summer 2006),3-11.
Roberto Marchionatti,Enrico Gambino. "Pareto and Political Economy as a Science: Methodological Revolution and Analytical Advances in Economic Theory in the 1890s."The Journal of Political Economy, Vol.105, No.6 (Dec.,1997), pp.1322-1348.
S. J. Chapman. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson; A. A. Wotzel. The Economic Journal, Vol.23, No.89 (Mar.,1913),70-72.
Sanford Ikeda. "Market-Process Theory and "Dynamic" Theories of the Market." Southern Economic Journal, Vol.57, No.1 (Jul.,1990),75-92.
Sheldon L. Richman."War Communism to NEP:The Road from Serfdom."Journal of Liberation Studies,Vol.5, No.1 (Winter 1981),89-97.
T.Cowen.Reviewed work(s):Informatioin,Incentives,and the Economics of Control:A Reexamination of the Socialist Calculation Debate by G.C.Archibald.Journal of International and Comparative Economics,Vol.4(1995),243-249.
Tibor Scitovsky."Lerner's Contribution to Economics."Journal of Economic Literature, Vol.22, No.4 (Dec.,1984),1547-1571.
V. W. Bladen. Reviewed work:On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange; Fred M. Taylor; Benjamin E. Lippincott. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne d'Economique et de Science politique, Vol.6, No.1 (Feb.,1940), pp.119-120.
Vernon L. Smith. "Reflections On Human Action After 50 Years. "Cato Journal, Vol.19, No.2 (Fall 1999).PP.195-214.
W. Paul Cockshott,Allin F. Cottrell."Information and Economics:A Critique of Hayek."Research in Political Economy, Vol.16,1997,177-202.
Walter D. Fisher. " Oskar Ryszard Lange,1904-1965. " Econometrica, Vol.34, No.4 (Oct.,1966),733-738.
Walton H. Hamilton. Reviewed work:Principles of Economics. by N. G. Pierson. The American Economic Review, Vol.4, No.3 (Sep.,1914),614-617.
William Henry Chamberlin:Collectivism:A False Utopia.New York:The Mecmillan Company.1973.
William L.Anderson."Austrian Economics and the "Market Test":A Comment on Laband and Tollison."The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.3,No.3(Fall 2000),63-73.
William N. Butos. "Hayek and General Equilibrium Analysis."Southern Economic Journal, Vol.52, No.2 (Oct.,1985), pp.332-343.
Yuri Maltsev. "Murray N. Rothbard As a Critic of Socialism. "Journal of Liberation Studies,Vol.12,No.l(Spring 1996),99-119.
Z. Clark Dickinson. "Fred M. Taylor's Views on Socialism. "Economica, New Series, Vol. 27, No.105 (Feb.,1960),42-52.