フランク・ナイトとシカゴ学派 - Irregular Economist 〜hicksianの経済学学習帳〜

●Ross B. Emmett, “Did the Chicago School Reject Frank Knight? Assessing Frank Knight's Place in the Chicago Economics Tradition”（in Frank Knight & the Chicago School in American Economics, pp.145-55）

Abstract: Two stories currently circulate regarding Frank Knight's relationship to the Chicago School of Economics. The first is a story of tradition, emphasizing the continuity of Chicago economics; the other emphasizes the new beginnings in the post-war period. The second story even implies that the Chicago approach rejected Knight's views. In order to assess these stories, the paper examines the grounds on which Knight's relationship with the Chicago School can be evaluated. The conclusion is that the Chicago School can be said to owe everything, and nothing, to Knight. Without his initiation of teaching price theory and persistence in defending it, there would 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. In fact, the two central methodological principles of Chicago economics - Friedman's principle of positive economics, and the Stigler/Becker de gustibus principle - combine to deny the pluralism Knight advocated for social science in a liberal democracy.

フランク・ナイトとシカゴ学派との関係をめぐる連続性と断絶性か。
要旨を見る限りでは、

・連続性＝ミクロ経済学（価格理論）の重視
・断絶性＝フリードマン流の実証経済学の方法（「Friedman's principle of positive economics」）＋選好の不変性の仮定（Stigler/Becker de gustibus principle）

ということのようだな。

竹森俊平著『1997年―世界を変えた金融危機』では「不確実性」の取り扱いを巡ってナイトとナイト以後との間における断絶が語られていたけれども、竹森先生のこの指摘とEmmett氏が指摘するところの「Friedman's principle of positive economics」に関する意見の不一致という点とは同じことを意味することになるのかな？　この点の確認も含めてあとでちゃんと読むことにしよう。
本も要チェックや。