F. A.

Hayek: Economics, Political

Economy and Social Philosophy Peter
J. Boettke
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/f-a-hayek-economics-political-economy-and-social-ph
ilosophy-peter-j-boettke/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

F. A. Hayek: Economics, Political Economy and Social

Philosophy 1st ed. Edition Peter J. Boettke

https://ebookmass.com/product/f-a-hayek-economics-political-
economy-and-social-philosophy-1st-ed-edition-peter-j-boettke/

James M. Buchanan: A Theorist of Political Economy and

Social Philosophy 1st ed. Edition Richard E. Wagner

https://ebookmass.com/product/james-m-buchanan-a-theorist-of-
political-economy-and-social-philosophy-1st-ed-edition-richard-e-
wagner/

The Nature of the Economy: Aristotelian Essays on the

Philosophy and Epistemology of Economics Ricardo F.
Crespo

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-nature-of-the-economy-
aristotelian-essays-on-the-philosophy-and-epistemology-of-
economics-ricardo-f-crespo/

Cicero: Political Philosophy (Founders of Modern

Political and Social Thought) Malcolm Schofield

https://ebookmass.com/product/cicero-political-philosophy-
founders-of-modern-political-and-social-thought-malcolm-
schofield/
Overcoming Uncertainty in Ancient Greek Political
Philosophy J. Noel Hubler

https://ebookmass.com/product/overcoming-uncertainty-in-ancient-
greek-political-philosophy-j-noel-hubler/

Fueling Resistance: The Contentious Political Economy

of Biofuels and Fracking Kate J. Neville

https://ebookmass.com/product/fueling-resistance-the-contentious-
political-economy-of-biofuels-and-fracking-kate-j-neville/

A Good Life on a Finite Earth: The Political Economy of

Green Growth Daniel J. Fiorino

https://ebookmass.com/product/a-good-life-on-a-finite-earth-the-
political-economy-of-green-growth-daniel-j-fiorino/

Medieval Philosophy: A History Of Philosophy Without

Any Gaps Peter Adamson

https://ebookmass.com/product/medieval-philosophy-a-history-of-
philosophy-without-any-gaps-peter-adamson/

Byzantine and Renaissance Philosophy Peter Adamson

https://ebookmass.com/product/byzantine-and-renaissance-
philosophy-peter-adamson/
GREAT THINKERS IN ECONOMICS
Series Editor: A.P.Thirlwall

F. A. HAYEK
Economics, Political Economy
and Social Philosophy

Peter J. Boettke
 Great Thinkers in Economics

Series Editor
A.P. Thirlwall
School of Economics
University of Kent
Canterbury, UK

“An intellectual historian discussing an eminent figure in social theory must not
only be sensitive to the subtle nuances of that theorist’s own contributions, he
must be able to relate those nuances to the complex, shifting intellectual fash-
ions against which that theorist was rebelling. Peter Boettke’s skillful treatment
of Hayek’s intellectual journey brilliantly and provocatively succeeds in achiev-
ing this standard of excellence. This is a book that will be recognized as path-
breakingly important for many decades to come.”
—Israel M. Kirzner, New York University, USA

“Among mid-twentieth century economists, only Hayek’s work enabled us to

understand what I found truly astonishing. People in my market experiments
quickly discovered the efficient equilibrium outcomes hidden in their dispersed
knowledge of individual item values that I had assigned them privately. For
Hayek, prices convey the coordinating information that incentivizes perfor-
mance by harnessing dispersed knowledge like no other known system. Boettke
brings this towering intellect into your own thinking. Hayek’s deep insights
extend far beyond economics and into jurisprudence, social and political phi-
losophy. Read Boettke’s Hayek and soar.”
—Vernon L. Smith, Nobel Laureate Chapman University, USA

“Boettke advocates a humane and cosmopolitan liberalism as an antidote to the

nationalist and populist enthusiasms so evident today on the left and the right.
Hayek fought the same battles, of course, against similar foes. Boettke deftly
brings Hayek’s main contributions in the areas of economics, political economy,
and social philosophy into conversation with current concerns and recent writers.
On the way he corrects some egregious misreadings. It is a fine achievement.”
—Bruce Caldwell, Duke University, USA
The famous historian, E.H. Carr once said that in order to understand
history it is necessary to understand the historian writing it. The same
could be said of economics. Famous economists often remark that spe-
cific episodes in their lives, or particular events that took place in their
formative years attracted them to economics. Great Thinkers in Economics
is designed to illuminate the economics of some of the great historical
and contemporary economists by exploring the interaction between their
lives and work, and the events surrounding them.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15026
 Peter J. Boettke

F. A. Hayek
Economics, Political Economy and
Social Philosophy
Peter J. Boettke
Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, USA
F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study
in Philosophy, Politics and Economics
Mercatus Center, George Mason University
Fairfax, VA, USA

Great Thinkers in Economics

ISBN 978-1-137-41159-4    ISBN 978-1-137-41160-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-41160-0

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018946249

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Granger Historical Picture Archive / Alamy Stock Photo

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Limited
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
Pictured left to right: Jack High, Don Lavoie, F. A. Hayek, John Egger, Karen
Vaughn, Thomas DiLorenzo, and Richard Fink. At George Mason University in
1983
To Richard Fink, Karen Vaughn, and in memory of Donald Lavoie
 Acknowledge Permission to Utilize
Content From

Boettke, Peter. 1990. The Theory of Spontaneous Order and Cultural

Evolution in the Social Theory of F. A. Hayek. Cultural Dynamics 3
(1): 1–11.
———. 2007. Hayek and Market Socialism. In Cambridge Companion
to Hayek, 51–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2016. Friedrich August von Hayek (1899–1992). In Handbook
on the History of Economic Analysis Volume I: Great Economists Since
Petty and Boisguilbert, ed. Gilbert Faccarello and Heinz D. Kurz,
557–567. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
———. 2018. Economic Policy of a Free Society. The Review of Austrian
Economics, forthcoming.
Boettke, Peter, and Liya Palagashvili. 2016. The Comparative Political
Economy of a Crisis. In Studies in Austrian Macroeconomics, Advances
in Austrian Economics, ed. Steven Horwitz, vol. 20, 235–263. Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Boettke, Peter, and Rosolino Candela. 2017. The Intellectual Context of
F. A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom. The Journal of Private Enterprise 32
(1): 29–44.

ix
x Acknowledge Permission to Utilize Content From

Boettke, Peter, Vlad Tarko, and Paul Aligica. 2016. Why Hayek Matters:
The Epistemic Dimension of Comparative Institutional Analysis. In
Revisiting Hayek’s Political Economy, Advances in Austrian Economics,
ed. Peter Boettke and Virgil Henry Storr, vol. 21, 163–185. Bingley:
Emerald Group Publishing.
 Preface

It is a great honor to be asked to write a book on F. A. Hayek for the Great

Thinkers in Economics series. For this opportunity, I owe my thanks to
series editor Tony Thirlwall of the University of Kent. In his introduction
to the general series, he writes: “The famous historian, E.H. Carr, once
said that in order to understand history it is necessary to understand the
historian writing it. The same could be said of economics. Famous econo-
mists often remark that specific episodes in their lives, or particular events
that took place in their formative years, attracted them to economics.
This new series, Great Thinkers in Economics, is designed to illuminate
the economics of some of the great historical and contemporary econo-
mists by exploring the interaction between their lives and work, and the
events surrounding them.” Hayek certainly lived an eventful life—one
filled with up close witnessing of man’s inhumanity in World War I, the
economic ruin of the Great Depression, and a dangerous game of brink-
manship with respect to Western civilization itself, with the rise of fas-
cism and communism in the 1930s and 1940s; of meteoric professional
success and crushing defeats that he often seemed to barely acknowledge
as he continued on with the honing of his craft as an economist, political
economist, and social philosopher; of personal relations torn asunder, as
well as lasting and loyal intellectual and personal friendships. How all this
impacts a thinker is for a historian to glean through devotion to archival
work and placing thinkers and their ideas in proper context.
xi
xii Preface

This book, however, is not a proper intellectual history. Part of this relates
to the fact that as I embarked on this project, I did a survey of the intellectual
landscape in what could be termed “Hayek studies.” A literal explosion in
this field has taken place since 1975 and I document this in material in the
appendices and in the “Living Bibliography of Works on Hayek” (https://
ppe.mercatus.org/essays/living-bibliography-works-hayek) that provides
bibliographic details on books, articles, dissertations, and citations. It is also
the case that I have been working with, and writing on, Hayek’s ideas since
the mid-1980s and have carved out a certain interpretative niche myself in
this literature. So, the principle of comparative advantage kicked in as this
project took shape the same way that it kicks in all our endeavors. As the
epigraph to Philip Wicksteed’s brilliant The Common-Sense of Political
Economy (1910) states, “we are all doing it, though none of us knows we are
doing it.” Well, sometimes we economists are more conscious of when our
behavior conforms to our theories than the average person. Still, it might
make sense to first explain what not to expect from this book.
As already stated, it is not a proper intellectual history of Hayek—for
that I recommend the works of Bruce Caldwell and in particular, not
only his excellent Hayek’s Challenge (2004), but the various editorial
introductions that Caldwell has written for the The Collected Works of
F. A. Hayek, as well as his own ongoing research in a historical biography
forthcoming on Hayek. Nor have I written a popular introduction to the
essential ideas of Hayek for economic and social understanding, the best
book for that in my judgment being my colleague and good friend Don
Boudreaux’s The Essential Hayek (2015)—and the multimedia educa-
tional tools that go with it. Don is a master communicator of the basic
principles of economics and he captures Hayek’s work on the price sys-
tem and the political, legal, and social order in as readable and as concise
a treatment as is humanly possible. My book is not an effort at attention
grabbing among lay readers either—for that, we have Alan Ebenstein’s
two works Friedrich Hayek (2001) and Hayek’s Journey (2003). I do not
have the singularity of praise for Ebenstein’s work as I do for Caldwell
and Boudreaux’s books, but I do recognize that there is much value to be
found in his books; I just think there are some subtle issues in philosophy
and technical economics that are ill-treated in such an effort at popular-
ization. Writing to a general audience always has this risk associated with
it, but those gaps in Ebenstein’s work have marred, for me, what I
 Preface
   xiii

o­ therwise would deem a valiant effort to communicate Hayek’s ideas to a

new audience and his relevance to a new time. Finally, my book, while
dealing with the critical debates that Hayek engaged in throughout his
long career of a methodological, analytical, and practical political econ-
omy nature, is not a proper history of economic controversy—for that, I
simply point the reader to my colleague Lawrence H. White’s The Clash
of Economic Ideas (2012).
So, enough telling you what my book is not; let me tell you what it
actually is, and how it fits into The Great Thinkers in Economics series. The
book seeks to clarify refinements in economics, political economy, and social
philosophy that Hayek was led to make during his career because of the con-
text of times and context of the argument. In the process, it is my hope to
clear up some general misconceptions about Hayek’s ideas that have, in
my humble opinion, served to block understanding the full implications
of his arguments. While stressing the context—both historical and intel-
lectual—the story I am weaving together will be one-sided and not one
seeking balance between the contending perspectives. This is a story of
the evolution of a perspective of economic, political economic, and social
philosophic thought about how the world works. Hayek, in short, is
given several bites of the apple in developing his argument in relationship
to the central issues in economic theory, political economy, and social
philosophy. The book that my book resembles the most would be Gerald
O’Driscoll’s Economics as a Coordination Problem (1977), but obviously,
I have my own twist. That twist turns on what I term in this book epis-
temic institutionalism.1 The various debates in which Hayek was embroiled
during the 1930–1960 period led in economics and political economy to
a renewed focus on the institutional framework, but primarily to the role
that framework played in structuring the incentives that economic actors
faced. While this incentive institutionalism, in the hands of Armen
Alchian, James Buchanan, Ronald Coase, Harold Demsetz, Milton
Friedman, Leonid Hurwicz, Douglass North, Mancur Olson, Vincent
and Elinor Ostrom, Gordon Tullock, Oliver Williamson, and others
played a significant role in forcing a major rethinking in economic s­ cience

1
See this discussion at Liberty Matters initiated by my lead essay, “Hayek’s Epistemic Liberalism”
(September 2017) http://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/lm-hayek.
xiv Preface

and political economy post-1950, and even though many of these think-
ers stressed information and even some used the word “knowledge,” they
do not fully address themselves to Hayek’s argument about the contextual
nature of knowledge; the knowledge of time and place; the tacit domain
of our knowledge, and therefore they do not (with the notable exception
of the Ostroms) address the discovery and learning aspect of alternative
institutional arrangements as was the emphasis in Hayek.
If indeed the “curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how
little they really know about what they imagine they can design,” then the
central question of economics becomes one about the institutional pre-
requisites required for learning and error correction among individuals in
society (Hayek 1988, 76). It is Hayek’s deepening exploration of the epis-
temic properties of alternative institutional arrangements that is the primary
focus of this book, and then, the drawing out of the implications of that
focus for methodology of the social sciences, analytical economics, and
practical public policy that I hope readers will see. I believe Hayek is of
continuing relevance not because of the man Hayek, and not because of
the critical role he played in intellectual debates during his career, but
because of what his ideas still have to say to us in our context and in our
debates to this day and where they may be going.
I think of Hayek’s intellectual journey as consisting of four phases,
none of which are actually clearly distinct from one another. He begins
his journey pursuing questions of a theoretical nature dealing with inter-
temporal coordination, and in particular, monetary and capital theory.
Hog farmers, for example, are currently making investments in the main-
tenance of livestock that will only yield returns in the future. How is it
possible that these farmers make this investment decision rationally?
Understanding how the assessment of the future demand for bacon
guides the investment decisions in hog farming today is critical to answer-
ing the question of the coordination of economic activity through time.
In developing his understanding of the “imputation problem,” Hayek
emphasized the role that interest rates play in investment decisions, and
the role that prices play in production decisions. He was working in the
grand tradition of the first and second generation of Austrian School
economists.
 Preface
   xv

Hayek and his fellow Austrian economists were consciously articulat-

ing a particular branch of early neoclassical economics grounded in both
subjective utility theory and the economic calculus of individual decision-­
making on the margin. But several things separated the Austrians from
Carl Menger to Hayek from others in the neoclassical approach that
would only become increasingly evident in the coming years: namely, a
thoroughgoing subjectivism that would encompass not just value, but
costs and expectations; incorporating the passage of real time in the anal-
ysis of exchange and production; the uncertainty of the economic envi-
ronment and ignorance of the decision-maker must be acknowledged in
the analysis of the choice calculus; the non-neutral nature of money so
that distortions of the monetary unit can result in distortions in the pat-
terns of exchange, production, and distribution; and the heterogeneous
nature of capital goods that possess multiple specific uses. Steel, for exam-
ple, can be used to build not only bridges and buildings, but steel is not
all that critical in the production of ham sandwiches. Again, how do
economic actors figure out the best way to extract iron ore, the best
method to produce steel, the most valued use of that steel by others in the
market, and in what amount and at what quality would best satisfy the
uncertain and future demand for steel? The perennial economic ques-
tions of how, what, and for whom have to be answered and answered
anew everyday by critical decision-makers scattered throughout the
economy.
The economic answer provided by the Austrian School of economics
placed prices at the center of the analysis of the economic system. Or, as
we will see, they actually placed property, prices, and profit-and-loss in a
position of prominence in their theoretical explanation of the coordina-
tion of economics activities. The production plans of some, to put this
simply, must mesh with the consumption demands of others. Otherwise,
scarce resources will be wastefully utilized and economic frustration
among suppliers and demanders will result, and wealth-creating opportu-
nities will be passed over. It is the function of property, prices, and profit-­
and-­loss to structure incentives, mobilize information, discover and
utilize the knowledge that is dispersed throughout the economy, and pro-
vide the spur for innovation and the feedback on bad decision-making
that is necessary for economic actors to coordinate their plans, and in so
xvi Preface

doing realize the mutual benefits of productive specialization and peace-

ful social cooperation.
This theoretical articulation of the continual process of the coordina-
tion of economic activity through time, and the adjustments and adapta-
tions to changing circumstances guided by property, prices, and
profit-and-loss can be found in the writings of Carl Menger, Eugen
Bohm-Bawerk, Friedrich Wieser, Joseph Schumpeter, and Ludwig Mises,
and we must always remember that this formed the common bases for
the continued theoretical refinement of this analytical approach by Hayek
and his generation of theoretical economists in Vienna: Fritz Machlup,
Oskar Morgenstern, and Gottfried Haberler. This market process theory
and theory of the institutional framework is the common core of the
Austrian School of economics from its founding to today. And in my
reading, Mises and Hayek were responsible for the greatest refinements of
this contribution to scientific economics and the art of political
economy.
I have belabored this first phase of Hayek’s career because it is from this
common core that all the other phases of his career emerge. This first
phase can be termed, for our purposes, Economics as a Coordination
Problem and can be roughly dated 1920–1945. It is in this phase that
Hayek makes many, if not all, of his most original contributions to eco-
nomic science. As Hayek developed these various contributions, he first
encountered acceptance by other leading economists, for example, his
appointment at the London School of Economics in the early 1930s.
However, as the decade of the 1930s progressed, his ideas met with greater
resistance. This resistance came in the form of both a philosophical rejec-
tion of his approach and an analytical rejection of his theory of the mar-
ket process and the theory of the institutional framework.
Hayek’s brilliance, I contend, was to see the philosophical and analyti-
cal rejection as interrelated. This led naturally to the second phase of his
career, which was labeled by him as The Abuse of Reason Project, which
I date as running between 1940 and 1960. In my reading, the culmina-
tion of this project was not only Hayek’s The Counter-Revolution of Science
(1952), but The Constitution of Liberty (1960) and his critique of the
rational constructivism of the administrative state. Viewed in this way,
 Preface
   xvii

Hayek’s third phase of his career also seems to follow naturally from the
previous two.
In the period between 1960 and 1980, Hayek transitioned to a third
phase of intellectual inquiry, The Restatement of the Liberal Principles
of Justice. Here, Hayek articulates the importance of general rules—a
theme of course that a careful reading of The Road to Serfdom (1944)
would also reveal as key to his analysis of the institutional framework. As
Hayek developed these ideas in more depth, he sharpened his critique of
the modern theory and practice of democratic society. Crucial to Hayek’s
work during this period is the contrast between the liberal principles of
justice and the demands of social justice.
The interconnection between Hayek’s first three phases of his career is
reflected throughout his work, and as I said, as a matter of historical
record, it is near impossible to draw distinct boundaries around the dif-
ferent phases. He was always working as a technical economist concerned
with the problem of economic coordination through time, and he was
always a political economist who cared about the institutional infrastruc-
ture within which economic activity took place. And he was always a
social philosopher who thought seriously about the liberal order. As
Erwin Dekker (2014) has recently argued, we must understand the con-
tributions of Hayek, and his fellow Austrian School economists, as the
product of “students of civilization.” This was always the subtext even in
the most technical of discussions about money, capital, interest, and the
price system. And this discussion animated the seminars and discussion
groups that made up the various intellectual circles in interwar Vienna.
And it was this discussion that animated Hayek’s later efforts with the
Mont Pelerin Society. As Hayek (1967, 123) argued in his essay “The
Dilemma of Specialization,” the social sciences are in a different position
than the natural sciences. “The physicist who is only a physicist can still
be a first-class physicist and a most valuable member of society. But
nobody can be a great economist who is only an economist—and I am
even tempted to add that the economist who is only an economist is
likely to become a nuisance if not a positive danger.”
Post-1980, Hayek’s work turned to what I would term Philosophical
Anthropology and the Study of Man, the last phase of his intellectual
journey, ending with his death in 1992. The culmination of this phase in
xviii Preface

his career was The Fatal Conceit (1988). His work during this time is a
challenge not only to the development in economic thinking by John
Maynard Keynes and Oskar Lange, but broad social theorists such as Karl
Marx, Sigmund Freud, and Karl Polanyi. The arguments that Hayek
develops in this phase of his career will not be treated with the depth they
deserve in this book. It is my hope that future scholars will find the ideas
I discuss in these pages to be intellectually enticing and promising so they
will want to apply them to the contemporary intellectual debate in moral
economy and social economy.
In what follows, we will mainly focus on the intellectual evolution of
the first three phases in Hayek’s career, and try to highlight as I have said
is my purpose—the refinement and articulation of Hayek’s epistemic
institutionalism. It is important for my narrative to understand that
Hayek never abandoned the first phase of his journey. From 1920 to
1980, his work consistently and persistently is grounded in his “Austrian”
understanding of the coordination of economic activity through time.
But he was compelled to explore the underlying philosophical reasons
why his fellow economists were resistant to his analysis of the coordina-
tion problem. As he said on various occasions, figuring out why others
did not find conclusions he thought logically followed from the economic
calculus and market theory was of utmost importance to him, and a great
stimulus for his work. Why did economists in the 1930s–1960s seem to
overlook not only the insights of the Austrian economists from Menger
to Mises, but the teachings of the classical political economists such as
David Hume and Adam Smith? Why did they overlook the institutional
framework that the classical and early neoclassical theorists had taken as
given? What happened to the basic understanding that economists and
political economists shared concerning property, prices, and profit-and-­
loss? And since he believed he put his finger on the philosophical culprit,
how can we restate the foundations of our scientific discipline and discuss
the political economy of a free people once we overcome this intellectual
detour?
The structure of the book will follow this chronological and intellec-
tual order I have just presented. After a chapter identifying what I think
are the greatest misconceptions about Hayek in the secondary literature,
and a brief biographical chapter, I proceed with a chapter addressing
 Preface
   xix

money, capital, and business cycles, followed by a chapter on market the-

ory and the price system. I then turn to Hayek’s battle with socialism in
two chapters, and then turn to his development of a genuine institutional
economics. The ideas Hayek developed through his first two phases of his
career—1920–1960—culminate in his version of institutional econom-
ics, but I would argue that his institutional economics must be read back
in an explicit way into his earlier writings to truly understand Hayek’s
scientific contributions and the revolutionary implications for the prac-
tice of the science of economics and the art of political economy.
Just as Hayek, after his battle with Keynes and macroeconomics, and
his battle with market socialists and The Road to Serfdom, turned his
attention (at least in part) to the rejuvenation of the liberal project, so do
I turn to this project. I do not provide a full history of the Mont Pelerin
Society (MPS), but it is obvious that MPS played a major role in Hayek’s
career and life. But MPS, to Hayek, I would argue, was understood as a
scholarly project and not an ideological or public policy project as it is
often portrayed by skeptics of MPS and the liberal project. I would con-
tend that MPS is a debate and discussion society headlined by Hayek,
Milton Friedman, and James Buchanan. Of course, the society can also
boast as members several other Nobel Prize economists, such as George
Stigler, Gary Becker, and Vernon Smith, but I think in painting with a
broad brush describing the society’s intellectual culture with reference to
Hayek, Friedman, and Buchanan is quite accurate. MPS was never a
Davos for neoliberal economists as critics have continually sought to
depict it as, but has always been a debate and discussion society con-
cerned with foundational issues facing the liberal society. And this was
actually the purpose starting actually with the Walter Lippmann
Colloquium in 1938, which would inspire Hayek to found MPS in 1947.
The rejuvenation of liberalism in Hayek’s time and in our time is the
subject of Chaps. 8, 9, and 10.
The book concludes with a discussion of what I view as the progressive
research program in the social sciences and humanities of Hayek’s legacy.
Here again, I hope the reader will find insight and inspiration on how to
think seriously about fundamental issues in economic science, political
economy, and social philosophy.
xx Preface

In working on this book, I benefited greatly from the financial support

from the Earhart Foundation and the John Templeton Foundation, as
well as the general academic support from the Mercatus Center and the
Department of Economics at George Mason University. Through this
support, I was able to make research trips to the archives at the Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, where Hayek’s papers are
located; the London School of Economics, where Lionel Robbins’s papers
are located; Grove City College, where Mises’s papers are located; the
Library of Congress and Abba Lerner’s papers; the University of Vienna,
and the ongoing work in establishing the collection of papers of James
M. Buchanan at George Mason University. Numerous people helped me
with this background research and I want to especially thank Rosemary
Boettke, Emily Skarbek, and Roland Fritz. I have relied on several research
collaborators throughout my years of writing on Hayek; these include:
Paul Aligica, William Butos, Rosolino Candela, Christopher Coyne,
Daniel D’Amico, Steve Horwitz, Roger Koppl, Peter Leeson, Jayme
Lemke, Adam Martin, Kyle O’Donnell, Liya Palagashvili, Ennio Piano,
David Prychitko, Emily Skarbek, Dan Smith, Nicholas Snow, Virgil
Storr, Vlad Tarko, and Karen Vaughn. Thank you to all of them for how
much I have learned in the process of working with them to try to make
sense of Hayek’s ideas and their evolutionary potential. As this project
took shape, I also benefited from the critical feedback and suggestions
from Solomon Stein—a talented intellectual historian of economic ideas,
who happens to love archival research and the contextualization of ideas,
so he was a great sounding board as this project was working through the
various steps along the way. I also need to express a great intellectual debt
to Rosolino Candela—a very talented economist who cares passionately
about ideas and has been a constant source of inspiration and assistance
throughout. I also benefited greatly from a faculty lunch organized by my
colleague Jayme Lemke where I got critical feedback on the project from
my colleagues at the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in
Philosophy, Politics and Economics: Paul Aligica, Don Boudreaux, Tyler
Cowen, Chris Coyne, Stefanie Haeffele, Roberta Hertzberg, Peter Leeson,
Virgil Storr, Richard Wagner, and Lawrence White. Throughout the proj-
ect, I was helped in a variety of ways by a team of graduate students:
Caleb Fuller, Aidan Harkin, Ennio Piano, Scott King, Andrew
Humphries, Kaitlyn Woltz, Bryan Cutsinger, Nathan Goodman, John
 Preface
   xxi

Kroencke, and Jordan Lofthouse. And none of this would be possible

without the constant intellectual and administrative support I received
from Eric Celler and Stephen Zimmer. I also would be very remiss if I did
not acknowledge the great assistance I have received through the years in
building our research and educational program here at GMU and
Mercatus from Peter Lipsey. To say his contributions have been indis-
pensable would be an understatement for they have been the very mean-
ing of the term “mission critical”. I cannot thank him enough for what he
has helped me do here at GMU/Mercatus. I must also thank Tyler Cowen,
Brian Hooks, and Dan Rothschild for their leadership at the Mercatus
Center and for their general support of our research and graduate educa-
tional programs at GMU. Finally, as this manuscript was going through
the final edits, I benefited greatly from comments from Tony Thirlwall,
Chris Coyne, Rosolino Candela, and the excellent editorial suggestions
of my colleagues at Mercatus McKenzie Robey and Erica T Celler, as well
as both Clara Heathcock and Laura Pacey at Palgrave Macmillan. I would
also like to thank Production Project Manager Dhanalakshmi Jayavel for
her attention to detail in guiding this project through its final stages. Of
course, the usual caveat holds.
Much of the story that you will encounter here has appeared in one
form or another through the years, starting with my first published papers
in the 1980s. During that course of time, of course I have accumulated a
great debt to such scholarly mentors as James Buchanan, Warren Samuels,
Israel Kirzner, and Mario Rizzo, and a list of fantastic PhD students
whom I have had the privilege to work with so closely in developing my
ideas at both NYU and GMU. Chris Coyne, Peter Leeson, and Virgil
Storr were once students of mine in name, but in reality, they have always
been my closest collaborators, cherished friends, and professional col-
leagues, who I am lucky enough to work with at GMU to build our
research and educational programs. But my biggest debt actually goes to
the individuals directly responsible for my professional career in econom-
ics and how they shaped that—Richard Fink, Don Lavoie, and Karen
Vaughn. In the 1980s, they established the Center for the Study of
Market Processes at George Mason University, and along with the Center
for Study of Public Choice formed the core of a new PhD program in
economics. I was in one of the first classes of PhD students in that pro-
gram beginning in 1984 and finishing in 1988. They created the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
States, 'while specially asserting the rights of Hungary and
its independence.' Another version of this somewhat oracular
statement runs as follows:—'Hungary, without infringing the
Ausgleich law, will find ways and means of regulating those
affairs which, in virtue of the Pragmatic sanction, are common
to both States, while at the same time protecting her own
interests and giving greater emphasis to her independence.'
Dr. Szell added:—'When the right time comes I shall explain my
views, and eventually submit proposals to the House.
Meanwhile, let us husband our strength and keep our powder
dry.' The self-confident and almost defiant tone of this
forecast, coming from a responsible statesman accustomed to
display such prudence and moderation of language as M. Szell,
has made a profound impression in Austria. It assumes the
breakdown of the Austrian Parliamentary system to be a
certainty, and anticipates the adoption by Hungary of
one-sided measures which, according to M. Szell, will afford
more effective protection to its interests and confirm its
independence. This seems to be interpreted in Vienna as an
indication that the Hungarian Premier has a cut and dry scheme
ready for the revision of the Ausgleich in a direction which
bodes ill for Austria. The gravity of the Ministerial
statement is recognized by journals of such divergent views as
the semi-official 'Fremdenblatt,' the pan-Germanic and
Anti-Semitic 'Deutsche Zeitung,' and the 'Neues Wiener
Tagblatt,' which is the organ of the moderate German element.
The 'Neues Wiener Tagblatt' frankly acknowledges that, in
addition to all her other cares, Austria has now to consider
the crucial question of the form which her relations with
Hungary will assume at no distant date. Commercial severance
and declarations of independence are, it says, being discussed
by the initiated sections of the community in both countries,
as if it were a matter of merely economic concern, instead of
the greatest and most perilous political problem that the
Monarchy has been called upon to solve since the establishment
of the Dual system, which, in spite of its complexity, has
worked well for such a long period. The 'Neues Wiener
 Tagblatt,' nevertheless, admits that things have now reached a
stage at which economic severance is no longer impossible." In
a subsequent speech on New Year's Day, M. Szell declared that
it "would be a fatal mistake to sever the ties which had so
long connected the two countries, as the objects for which
they were called into existence still remained and their
fundamental basis was not shaken."

The Vienna journals, on that New Year's Day of 1901, reviewed

the past and surveyed the prospects of the future in gloomy
and pessimistic tones. Heading its article "Progress
Backward," the "Wiener Allgemeine Zeitung" said: "It is true
that Austria has at her disposal a larger and more efficiently
trained army than ever. The natural resources of the country
have been better developed than in the past. The progress of
the century has not been without influence upon ourselves.
But, whereas other nations are more vigorous, greater, and
mightier, we have become weaker, smaller, and less important.
The history of the world during the second half of the past
century has been made at our expense. … In the new partition
of the world no room has been reserved for Austria. The most
important events which will perhaps give the world a new
physiognomy are taking place without Austria's being able to
exercise the slightest influence thereon. We are living upon
our old reputation, but in the long run that capital will
prove insufficient."

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1900 (December).

Census of Vienna.

See (in this volume)

VIENNA: A. D. 1900.

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1901.
Parliamentary elections.
Weakening of the Clerical and Anti-Semitic parties.
Gains for the ultra-radical German parties.
Disorderly opening of the Reichsrath.
Speech of the Emperor from the throne.

From the parliamentary elections held in January the Clerical

and Anti-Semitic parties came back to the Reichsrath shorn of
about one-third of their strength, while the various radical
factions, especially those among the Germans, appear to have
made considerable gains. Even in the Tyrol, one of the
strongest of the Clerical leaders, Baron Di Pauli, was
defeated, and in Vienna the Anti-Semitic majority was cut to
less than one-fourth of what it had been three years before.
"The Pan-Germanic group," writes "The Times" correspondent
from Vienna, "which only numbered five in the last Parliament,
now musters 21. It will be remembered that it openly advocates
incorporation with the German Empire, and as a preparatory
measure the wholesale conversion of the German population of
Austria to Protestantism. It has hitherto been to a certain
extent boycotted by the other German parties, being excluded
from their so-called union for mutual defence and joint
action." "But the programme which had thus been boycotted by
the bulk of the German members has been the most successful of
all in the recent general election. The position of its
leading representative, Herr Schönerer, has been so
strengthened that he has been able to impose upon the whole
group the title of Pan-Germanic Union, and to enforce the
acceptance of the principle of 'emancipation from Rome.' The
latter demand caused a certain hesitation on the part of some
of his new followers, who, however, ultimately decided to
adopt it, although not to the full extent of renouncing the
Roman Catholic faith, as Herr Schönerer and his principal
lieutenant, Herr Wolf, themselves had done. At a conference of
the party its programme was declared to be the promotion of
such a federal connexion of the German provinces of Austria
with the German Empire as would furnish a permanent guarantee
for the maintenance of the German nationality in this country.
The party would oppose every Government that resisted the
realization of that object, and it could not participate in
 any manifestations of loyalty while such a Government policy
was maintained. At the same time, the party regarded it as
their obvious duty to emancipate themselves from Rome in a
political but not religious sense—that is to say, to free
themselves from the influence of the Roman Curia in affairs of
State.

{46}

"This boycotted party and programme now threatens to win the

voluntary or enforced adherence of the advanced section of the
other German groups which had hitherto declined to commit
themselves to such an extreme policy. The most moderate of all
the German parties, that of the constitutional landed
proprietors, has felt called upon to enter an energetic and
indignant protest against the foregoing Pan-Germanic
programme. While they are convinced supporters of the
Austro-German alliance, they unconditionally reject
aspirations which they hold to be totally inconsistent with
the tried and reliable basis of that agreement, and which
would constitute an undignified sacrifice of the independence
of the Monarchy. They further decline to make their
manifestations of loyalty to the Sovereign dependent upon any
condition; and they strongly condemn the emancipation from
Rome movement as a culpable confusion of the spheres of
religion and politics, and an infringement of the liberty of
conscience which is calculated to sow dissension among the
German nationality in Austria.

"It now remains to be seen to which side the bulk of the

German representatives will rally; to that of the Moderates,
who have re-affirmed their devotion to the Dynasty and the
existing Constitution, or to that of the Pan-Germanic
revolutionaries, who have decided to make their manifestations
of loyalty dependent upon the adoption by the Crown of their
programme.
"The outlook has thus undergone, if anything, a change for the
worse since the last Reichsrath was dissolved. The only
reassuring feature of the situation is that the fall of the
Ministry is not a primary end with any of the parties in the
Reichsrath. Dr. von Körber, who is a politician of great tact
and experience, has avoided friction on all sides."

The opening session of the newly elected Reichsrath was held

on the 31st of January, and the disorderly temper in it was
manifested upon a reference by the President to the death of
Queen Victoria, which called out cries of hostility to England
from both Germans and Czechs.

"In the course of the proceedings some of the members of the

Extreme Czech fraction warned the Prime Minister in
threatening terms against introducing a single word hostile to
the Czech nation in the coming Speech from the Throne. They
also announced their intention of squaring accounts with him
so soon as the Speech from the Throne should be delivered. The
whole sitting did not last an hour, but … what happened
suffices to show that not only the Pan-Germanic Union, but
also the Extreme section of the German People's party and a
couple of Radical Czechs, are ready at a moment's notice to
transform the Reichsrath into a bear garden."

On the 4th of February the two Houses of the Reichsrath were

assembled at the Palace and addressed by the Emperor, in a
speech from the throne of which the following is a partial
report: "His Majesty referred to various features of
legislation, including the Budget, the revision of the Customs
tariff, the promotion of trade, industry, and navigation, the
protection of the working classes and the regulation of the
hours of labour, the Government railway projects and the
Bosnian lines, and Bills for the regulation of emigration, the
construction of dwellings for the lower classes, the
repression of drunkenness, the development of the University
system and other educational reforms, and a revision of the
Press laws—in fact a whole inventory of the important
legislative arrears consequent upon the breakdown of
Parliament.

"The following passage occurs in the further course of the

speech: 'The Constitution which I bestowed upon my dominions
in the exercise of my free will ought to be an adequate
guarantee for the development of my people. The finances of
the State have been put in order in exemplary fashion and its
credit has been raised to a high level. The freedom of the
subject reposes upon a firm foundation, and thanks to the
scholastic organization and the extraordinary increase of
educational establishments general culture has reached a
gratifying standard, which has more especially contributed to
the efficiency and intelligence of my army. The Provincial
Diets have been able to do much within the limits of their
jurisdiction. The beneficial influence of the constitutional
system has penetrated as far as the communal administrations.
I am thus justified in saying that the fundamental laws of the
State are a precious possession of my loyal people.
Notwithstanding the autonomy enjoyed by certain kingdoms and
provinces, they constitute for foreigners the symbol of the
strength and unity of the State. I was, therefore, all the
more grieved that the last sessions of the Legislature should
have had no result, even if I am prepared to acknowledge that
such business as affected the position of the Monarchy was
satisfactorily transacted by all parties.'

"The Emperor then expressed his regret that other matters of

equal importance affecting the interests of Austria had not
been disposed of. His Majesty made an appeal to the
representatives of the Reichsrath to devote their efforts to
the necessary and urgent work awaiting them, and assured them
that they might count upon the Government. All attempts at the
moral and material development of the Empire were, he said,
stultified by the nationality strife. Experience had shown
that the efforts of the Government to bring about a settlement
 of the principal questions involved therein had led to no
result and that it was preferable to deal with the matter in
the Legislature. The Government regarded a generally
satisfactory solution of the pending language question as
being both an act of justice and a necessity of State.
Trusting in the good will manifested by all parties, the
Ministry would do its utmost to promote a settlement which
would relieve the country of its greatest evil. At the same
time, the Cabinet was under the obligation of maintaining
intact the unity of language in certain departments of the
Administration, in which it constituted an old and well-tested
institution. Success must never again be sought through
paralysing the popular representation. The hindrance of
Parliamentary work could only postpone or render quite
impossible the realization of such aspirations as most deeply
affected the public mind. The Sovereign then referred to the
damage done to the interests of the Empire by the obstacles
placed in the way of the regular working of the Constitution,
and pointed to the indispensable necessity of the vigorous
co-operation of Parliament in the approaching settlement of
the commercial relations between the two halves of the
Monarchy. The speech concluded with a warmly-worded appeal to
the representatives to establish a peace which would
correspond to the requirements of the time and to defend as
their fathers had defended 'this venerable State which accords
equal protection to all its peoples.'"

{47}

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1901 (March).

Continued turbulence of the factions
in the Austrian Reichsrath.
Outspoken aim of the Pan-Germans.

At this writing (late in March), the disgraceful and

destructive conflict of reckless factions is still raging in
the Austrian Reichsrath, and the parties have come to blows
 several times. The hope of the German extremists for a
dissolution of the Empire seems to be more and more openly
avowed. On one occasion, "a Czech member, Dr. Sieleny, having
accused the Pan-Germans of wistfully glancing across the
frontier, Herr Stein, a member of the Pan-Germanic group,
replied, 'We do not glance, we gaze.' Being reproached with
looking towards Germany with an ulterior motive, the same
gentleman answered, 'You Czechs want to go to Russia, and we
Germans want to go to Germany.' Again, on being told that he
would like to become a Prussian, he exclaimed, 'I declare
openly that we want to go to the German Empire.' Finally, in
reply to another remark, Herr Stein observed that everybody in
the country who was an Austrian patriot was stupid."

----------AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: End--------

AUTONOMY, Constitutional:
Granted by Spain to Cuba and Porto Rico.

See (in this volume)

CUBA: A. D. 1897 (NOVEMBER);
and 1897-1898 (NOVEMBER-FEBRUARY).

AYUNTAMIENTOS.

Town councillors in Spain and in the Spanish American states.

See (in this volume)

CUBA: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY).

B.

BABYLON: Exploration of the ruins of the city.

See (in this volume)

ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH:
BABYLONIA: GERMAN EXPLORATION.
BABYLON: Railway to the ruins.

See (in this volume)

TURKEY: A. D. 1899 (NOVEMBER).

BABYLONIA: Archæological Exploration in.

See (in this volume)

ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN
EXPLORATION.

BACHI,
BASHEE ISLANDS, The American acquisition of.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).

BACTERIAL SCIENCE, Recent.

See (in this volume)

SCIENCE, RECENT: MEDICAL AND SURGICAL.

BADENI, Count: Austrian ministry.

See (in this volume)

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1895-1896.

BADEN-POWELL, General R. S. S.: Defense of Mafeking.

See (in this volume)

SOUTH AFRICA (THE FIELD OF WAR):
A. D. 1899 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER); and 1900 (MARCH-MAY).

BAGDAD, Railways to.

See (in this volume)

 TURKEY: A. D. 1899 (NOVEMBER); and JEWS: A. D. 1899.

BAJAUR.

See (in this volume)

INDIA: A.D. 1895 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).

BALFOUR, Arthur J.:

First Lord of the Treasury in the British Cabinet.

See (in this volume)

ENGLAND: A. D. 1894-1895; and 1900 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

BALFOUR, Arthur J.:

Tribute to Queen Victoria.

See (in this volume)

ENGLAND: A. D. 1901 (JANUARY).

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES, The.

"The States of the Balkan Peninsula, ever since the practical

disruption of European Turkey after the war of 1877-78, have
been in a condition of chronic restlessness. Those who desire
the repose of Europe have hoped against hope that the new
communities which were founded or extended on the ruins of the
Ottoman dominion in Europe would be able and willing to keep
the peace among themselves and to combine in resisting the
intrusion of foreign influences. These expectations have been
too frequently disappointed. The lawlessness of Bulgaria and
the unsettled state of Servia, more especially, continue to
constitute a periodical cause of anxiety to the diplomacy of
Europe. The recent murder at Bukharest of Professor
Mihaileano, a Macedonian by birth and a Rumanian by
extraction, appears to be a shocking example of the teaching
of a school of political conspirators who have their centre of
operations at Sofia. These persons had already combined to
 blackmail and terrorise the leading Rumanian residents in the
capital of Bulgaria, where the most abominable outrages are
stated to have been committed with impunity. Apparently, they
have now carried the war, with surprising audacity, into the
Rumanian capital itself. Two persons marked out for vengeance
by the terrorists of Sofia had previously been murdered in
Bukharest, according to our Vienna Correspondent, but these
were Bulgarians by birth. It is a further step in this
mischievous propaganda that a Rumanian subject, the occupant
of an official position at the seat of the Rumanian
government, should be done to death by emissaries from the
secret society at Sofia. His crime was that, born of Rumanian
parents in Macedonia, he had the boldness to controvert in the
Press the claims of the Bulgarians to obtain the upper hand in
a Turkish province, where Greeks, Turks, Bulgarians,
Albanians, and Serbs are inextricably mixed up. Professor
Mihaileano had probably very good reasons for coming to the
conclusion that, whatever may be the evils of Ottoman rule,
they are less than those which would follow a free fight in
the Balkans, ending, it may be, in the ascendency of Bulgarian
ruffianism.

"It is for this offence that M. Mihaileano suffered the

penalty of death by the decree of a secret tribunal, and at
the hands of assassins sent out to do their deadly work by
political intriguers who sit in safety at Sofia. The most
serious aspect of the matter, however, is the careless and
almost contemptuous attitude of the Bulgarian Government. The
reign of terror at Sofia and the too successful attempts to
extend it to Rumania have provoked remonstrances not only from
the government at Bukharest, but from some of the Great
Powers, including Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Italy. … There
is only too much reason to fear, even now, that both the
Bulgarian Government and the ruler of the Principality are
afraid to break with the terrorists of Sofia.
{48}
Political assassination is unfortunately among the traditions
of the Bulgarian State, but it has never been practised with
such frequency and impunity as under the rule of Prince
Ferdinand. … His own conduct as a ruler, coupled with the
lamentable decline of the spirit of Bulgarian independence,
which seemed to be vigorous and unflinching before the
kidnapping of Prince Alexander, has steadily lowered his
position. The Bulgarian agitation—to a large extent a sham
one—for the 'redemption,' as it is called, of Macedonia is a
safety-valve that relieves Prince Ferdinand and those who
surround him from much unpleasant criticism. …

"The situation in the Balkans is in many respects disquieting.

The Bulgarian agitation for the absorption of Macedonia is not
discouraged in high quarters. The hostility of the Sofia
conspirators to the Koutzo-Wallachs, the Rumanians of
Macedonia, is due to the fact that the latter, being a small
minority of the population, are ready to take their chance of
equal treatment under Turkish rule, subject to the supervision
of Europe, rather than to be swallowed up in an enlarged
Bulgaria, dominated by the passions that now prevail in the
Principality and that have been cultivated for obvious
reasons. Russia, it is believed, has no wish to see Bulgarian
aspirations realized, and would much rather keep the
Principality in a state of expectant dependence. Servia and
Greece would be as much embarrassed as Rumania by the success
of the Bulgarian propaganda, and Austria-Hungary would regard
it as a grave menace. Of course the Turkish government could
not be expected to acquiesce in what would, in fact, be its
knell of doom. … In Greece, the insubordination in certain
sections of the army is a symptom not very alarming in itself,
but unpleasantly significant of latent discontent. In Turkey,
of course, the recrudescence of the fanaticism which
periodically breaks out in the massacres of the Armenians
cannot be overlooked. A more unfortunate time could not be
chosen for endeavouring to reopen the Eastern question by
pressing forward the Bulgarian claim to Macedonia. Nor could a
more unfortunate method be adopted of presenting that claim than
 that of the terrorists who appear to be sheltered or screened
at Sofia."

London Times, August 23, 1900.

See, also (in this volume),

TURKEY: A. D. 1899-1901.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

Bulgaria.

On the 15th of July, 1895, M. Stambouloff, lately the powerful

chief minister in the Bulgarian government, but now overthrown
and out of favor, was attacked by four assassins, in the
streets of Sofia, and received wounds from which he died three
days afterwards.

The increasing influence of Russia in Bulgaria was manifested

unmistakably on the 14th of February, 1896, when Prince Boris,
the infant son and heir of the reigning Prince Ferdinand, was
solemnly baptised into the Orthodox Greek Church, the Tzar of
Russia, represented by proxy at the ceremony, acting as
sponsor. This is understood to have been done in opposition to
the most earnest remonstrances of the mother of the child, who is
an ardent Roman Catholic, the father being nominally the same.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Montenegro:

Recent changes.

"The accession of territory obtained under the Berlin Treaty

has already begun to alter the character of the country. The
area of the Principality has been almost doubled, and fertile
valleys, tracts of rich woodland and a strip of sea-coast have
been added to the realm of Prince Nikolas. Montenegro is now
something more than the rocky eyrie of a warlike clan, and the
problem of its commercial development constantly occupies the
mind of its ruler. The state of transition is reflected in the
aspect of the capital. A tiny hamlet in 1878, Tzetinye now
bears witness to the growth of civilisation and to the
beneficent influence of a paternal despotism. … Nikolas I.,
'Prince and Gospodar of free Tzrnagora and the Berda,' is the
most picturesque and remarkable figure in the South Slavonic
world. Descended from a long line of heroes, the heir of the
Vladikas, he has, like them, distinguished himself in many a
hard-fought conflict with the hereditary foe. In the field of
poetry he has also won his triumphs; like his father Mirko,
'the Sword of Montenegro,' he has written lyric odes and
ballads; like his ancestor, the Vladika Petar II., he has
composed historical dramas, and his poems and plays hold a
recognised place in contemporary Slavonic literature. The
inheritor of a splendid tradition, a warrior and a bard,
gifted by nature with a fine physique and a commanding
presence, he forms the impersonation and embodiment of all
that appeals most to the imagination of a romantic and
impressionable race, to its martial instinct, its poetic
temperament, and its strange—and to us
incomprehensible—yearning after long-vanished glories. … Any
attempt to describe Prince Nikolas' work as an administrator
and a reformer would lead me too far. The codification of the
law, which was begun by his ancestors, Danilo I. and Petar I.,
has been almost completed under his supervision. … The
suppression of the vendetta is one of the greatest of the
Prince's achievements. … Crime is now rare in the
Principality, except in the frontier districts, where acts of
homicide are regarded as justifiable, and indeed laudable, if
perpetrated in payment of old scores, or if the victim is an
Albanian from over the border. Primary education has been made
universal, schools have arisen in every village, and lecturers
have been appointed to explain to the peasants the advantages
of learning. Communications are being opened up, and the
Principality, which a few years since possessed nothing but
mule-tracks, can now boast of 138 miles of excellent
carriage-road, better engineered and maintained than any I
have seen in the Peninsula. The construction of roads is
 viewed with some apprehension by the more conservative
Montenegrins, who fear that their mountain stronghold may lose
its inaccessible character. But the Prince is determined to
keep abreast of the march of civilisation. Nine post-offices
and thirteen telegraph stations have been established. The
latter, which are much used by the people, will play an
important part in the next mobilization of the Montenegrin
army. Hitherto the forces of the Principality have been called
together by stentorian couriers who shouted from the tops of
the mountains. A great reform, however, still remains to be
attempted—the conversion of a clan of warriors into an
industrial nation. The change has been rendered inevitable by
the enlargement of the bounds of the Principality, and its
necessity is fully recognised by the Prince.
{49}
Once the future of the country is assured, his order will be
'à bas les armes.' He is aware that such an edict would be
intensely unpopular, but he will not flinch when the time for
issuing it arrives. Every Montenegrin has been taught from his
cradle to regard warfare as his sole vocation in life, and to
despise industrial pursuits. The tradition of five hundred
years has remained unbroken, but the Prince will not hesitate
to destroy it. So enormous is his influence over the people,
that he feels confident in his ability to carry out this
sweeping reform."

J. D. Bourchier,
Montenegro and her Prince
(Fortnightly Review, December, 1898).

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: Montenegro:

New title of the Prince.

On the 19th of December, 1900, at Tzetinye, or Cettigne, "the

President of the Council of State, in the presence of the
other Ministers and dignitaries and of the members of the
Diplomatic Corps, presented an address to the Prince of
 Montenegro praying him, in token of the gratitude of the
Montenegrin people for the benefits which he had conferred on
them during his 40 years' reign, to take the title of Royal
Highness. The Prince acceded to the request, and, replying to
the President, thanked all the European rulers who on this
occasion had given him a fresh proof of their friendship by
their recognition of his new title. After the ceremony a Te
Deum was celebrated in the Cathedral, and the Prince
subsequently reviewed the troops, receiving a great welcome
from the people."

Telegram,
Reuter's Agency.

BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES:

Servia.

In January, 1894, the young king, Alexander, called his

father, the ex-king, Milan (abdicated in 1889—see, in volume
1. BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1879-1889), to Belgrade
to give him help against his Radical ministers, who had been
taking, the latter thought, too much into their own hands. The
first result was a change of ministry, soon followed by a
decision from the synod of Servian bishops annulling the
divorce of ex-King Milan and Queen Natalie; by a public
announcement of their reconciliation, and by an ukase from
King Alexander, cancelling all laws and resolutions which
touched his parents and restoring to them their rights and
privileges as members of the royal house. This, again, was
followed, on the 21st of May, by a royal proclamation which
abolished the constitution of December, 1888, and restored the
old constitution of 1869. This was a tremendous step backward, to
a state of things in which almost no protection against
arbitrary kingship could be found.

For some years the ex-king exercised considerable influence

over his son, and was again an uncertain and much distrusted
 factor in the troubled politics of southeastern Europe. In
1898 the son appointed him commander-in-chief of the Servian
army, and he is said to have ably and energetically improved
its efficiency during the brief period of his command. A
breach between father and son was brought about before long,
however, by the determination of the latter to marry a lady,
Madame Draga Maschin, considerably older than himself, who had
been lady-in-waiting to his mother; while the father was
arranging a political marriage for him with a German princess.
The young king married his chosen bride in August, 1900, and
guarded his frontier with troops to bar the return of his
father, then sojourning at a German watering place, to the
kingdom. It was a final exile for the ex-king. He visited
Paris for a time; then went to Vienna, and there, on the 11th
of February, 1901, he died, at the age of 47.

BALLOONS, Declaration against explosives from.

See (in this volume)

PEACE CONFERENCE.

BALTIC and NORTH SEA CANALS.

See (in this volume)

GERMANY: A. D. 1895 (JUNE); and 1900 (JUNE).

BANK OF FRANCE: Renewal of privileges.

See (in this volume)

MONETARY QUESTIONS: A. D. 1897.

BANKING: Its effect on the Nineteenth Century.

See (in this volume)

NINETEENTH CENTURY: THE TREND.

BANKRUPTCY LAW, National.

 See (in this volume)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY 1).

BARBADOS: Condition and relief measures.

See (in this volume)

WEST INDIES, THE BRITISH: A. D. 1897.

BARCELONA: A. D. 1895.
Student riots.

See (in this volume)

SPAIN: A. D. 1895-1896.

BAROTSILAND:
British Protectorate proclaimed.

See (in this volume)

SOUTH AFRICA (RHODESIA): A. D. 1900 (SEPTEMBER).

BARRAGE WORKS, Nile.

See (in this volume)

EGYPT: A. D. 1898-1901.

BARRIOS, President: Assassination.

See (in this volume)

CENTRAL AMERICA (GUATEMALA): A. D. 1897-1898.

BARTON, Miss Clara, and the Red Cross Society.

Relief work in Armenia and Cuba.

See (in this volume)

ARMENIA: A. D. 1896 (JANUARY-MARCH);
and CUBA: A. D. 1896-1897.
BASHEE,
BACHI ISLANDS, The American acquisition of.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898 (JULY-DECEMBER).

BECHUANALAND, British:
Annexation to Cape Colony.

See (in this volume)

AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (CAPE COLONY).

BECHUANALAND, British:
Partial conveyance to the British South Africa Company.

See (in this volume)

AFRICA: A. D. 1895 (BECHUANALAND).

BEEF INVESTIGATION, The American Army.

See (in this volume)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1898-1899.

BEET SUGAR.

See (in this volume)

GERMANY: A. D. 1896 (MAY);
and SUGAR BOUNTIES.

BEHRING SEA.

See (in this volume)

BERING SEA.

BÊL, Temple of:

Exploration of its ruins at Nippur.
 See (in this volume)
ARCHÆOLOGICAL RESEARCH: BABYLONIA: AMERICAN
EXPLORATION.

BELGIAN ANTARCTIC EXPEDITION.

See (in this volume)

POLAR EXPLORATION, 1897-1899.

{50}

BELGIUM: A. D. 1894-1895.
The first election under the new constitution.
Victory of the Catholics and surprising Socialist gains.

Elsewhere in this work the full text of the Belgian

constitution as it was revised in 1893;

See in volume 1
CONSTITUTION OF BELGIUM).

The peculiar features of the new constitution, especially in

its provision of a system of cumulative or plural voting, are
described.

See in volume 3
NETHERLANDS (BELGIUM): A. D. 1892-1893)

The singularity of the experiment thus introduced caused the

elections that were held in Belgium in 1894 and 1895 to be
watched with an interest widely felt. Elections for the
Chamber of Representatives and the Senate occurred on the same
day, October 14, 1894. Previously the Belgian suffrage had
been limited to about 130,000 electors. Under the new
constitution the electors numbered no less than 1,370,000, and
the working of the plural system gave them 2, 111,000 votes.