Frank Knight and the Chicago School

24 April 2007 at 11:31 pm 3 comments

| Peter Klein |

Frank Knight is generally regarded, along with Jacob Viner, as the founder of the Chicago school of economics. But Knight’s relationship to the later Chicago school of Friedman, Stigler, and Director is ambiguous. Knight’s theories of capital and competition were incorporated into the mainstream Chicago (and contemporary neoclassical) tradition but his account of profit and entrepreneurship, his quasi-Austrian methodology (inherited from his teacher Herbert J. Davenport), and his eclectic social and political theories were largely ignored or forgotten.

Ross Emmett has a new paper, “Did the Chicago School Reject Frank Knight? Assessing Frank Knight’s Place in the Chicago Economics Tradition,” exploring this in detail. The conclusion: “Without [Knight’s] initiation of eaching price theory and persistence in defending it, there ould be no Chicago tradition. Yet the methodological approach and research infrastructure which propelled the Chicago School to a central position in the economics profession owe little or nothing to him.”

(Incidentally, critics of economics often target a stylized version of Chicago economics circa 1970 (see here), but these critics often seem unaware that the Chicago school of economics no longer exists. While there is still a (top-notch) economics department at the University of Chicago, there is no longer a distinct Chicago approach. The economics taught at Chicago is the same as the economics taught at MIT, Harvard, Stanford, or any other top mainstream department.)

Entry filed under: - Klein -, Methods/Methodology/Theory of Science, Myths and Realities.

How is What is an Opportunity a Valuable Research Question? Does Hayek Still Matter?

3 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Shawn Ritenour  |  25 April 2007 at 9:20 am

    It is quite possible that Knight’s own model of perfect competition itself worked to make his ideas on entrepreneurship irrelevant. In a world of perfect competition (including perfect knowledge) what room is there for the entrepreneur? It may be that one has to choose between perfect competition and entrepreneurship, and in choosing perfect competition, Chicago necessarily had to forego the entrepreneur.

  • 2. Ross Emmett  |  6 May 2007 at 8:57 pm

    Shawn is right. In fact, in Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Knight sets up the theory of perfect competition to exclude entrepreneurship. Then he introduces uncertainty as a first step away from the world of perfect competition, and finds room for the entrepreneur.

    By adopting perfect competition, Chicago did forego the entrepreneur (as in the joke: how many Chicago economists does it take to change a lightbulb?. Answer: none, if the lightbulb needed changing, the market would have done it.)

  • 3. Admiral  |  8 November 2008 at 12:28 am

    Not so fast. Perfect competition and the entrepreneur are not mutually exclusive. Any Intro to Micro book worth its weight distinguishes between the short-run and long-run for the sake of the entrepreneur and perfect competition in the long run.

    Certainly there are issues with the whole market structure concept of perfect competition. Knight, sad though he was in many respects, understood the spectral nature of these market structures from perfect competition to monopoly.

    Knight can be attacked for many things. This is not one of them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Nicolai J. Foss | home | posts
Peter G. Klein | home | posts
Richard Langlois | home | posts
Lasse B. Lien | home | posts


Former Guests | posts


Recent Posts



Our Recent Books

Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment: A New Approach to the Firm (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
Peter G. Klein and Micheal E. Sykuta, eds., The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics (Edward Elgar, 2010).
Peter G. Klein, The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur: Essays on Organizations and Markets (Mises Institute, 2010).
Richard N. Langlois, The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler, and the New Economy (Routledge, 2007).
Nicolai J. Foss, Strategy, Economic Organization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Coordination of Firms and Resources (Oxford University Press, 2005).
Raghu Garud, Arun Kumaraswamy, and Richard N. Langlois, eds., Managing in the Modular Age: Architectures, Networks and Organizations (Blackwell, 2003).
Nicolai J. Foss and Peter G. Klein, eds., Entrepreneurship and the Firm: Austrian Perspectives on Economic Organization (Elgar, 2002).
Nicolai J. Foss and Volker Mahnke, eds., Competence, Governance, and Entrepreneurship: Advances in Economic Strategy Research (Oxford, 2000).
Nicolai J. Foss and Paul L. Robertson, eds., Resources, Technology, and Strategy: Explorations in the Resource-based Perspective (Routledge, 2000).

%d bloggers like this: