1. His work on capital theory and radical uncertainty was insightful, but its implications were not obvious. Instead, at the time that he wrote, he could easily be interpreted as a depressing nihilist - telling us what we could not say but not what we should do. He work is pretty much devoid of policy strategy implications - or at least as it was read then. In retrospect, he may have been ahead of his time. The advent of the knowledge economy has rekindled interest in his work - mostly in the management sub-fields (and most recently in entrepreneurial studies - which is fitting since, as I have argued Lachmann was most influenced not only by Hayek, but also by Schumpeter). This is very gratifying and seems to have enormous potential - for empirical cases and applications of his insights.

2. The second reason is related. I think Lachmann misunderstood the breadth of the heterogeneity of resources. So he missed its application to all aspects of human capital (including social and intellectual capital). He did deal with the nesting of capital structures within institutional structures - but this could have been and is now being taken much further.

PL.