Skip to content
IEA InfoIEA Info
  • About Us
    • Who we are
      • Staff
      • Trustees
      • Advisory Council
      • Academic Advisory Council
      • Fellows and Academic Advisors
      • Nobel Prize Winning Economists
    • What We Do
    • FAQs
    • Contact Us
    • Careers
      • Jobs
      • Internships
  • Digital
  • Research
    • Publications
    • Economic Affairs
    • EA Magazine
    • Shadow Monetary Policy Committee
    • Peer Review Protocol
  • Blog
  • Media
    • Media Coverage
    • Press Releases
    • Media Enquiries
    • About IEA Comms
  • Students
  • International
    • Initiative for African Trade and Prosperity
    • EPICENTER
    • Translations
  • Donate
    • Donate Now
    • Corporate Partnerships
    • Donate to IEA Projects
    • IEA Book Club
    • Patreon
    • Other Ways to Donate
    • Legacy Gift
    • Donate from USA
    • Contact Us
  • Events
    • Forthcoming Events
    • Past Events
  • Home
  • About
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Epicenter
  • Contact Us
Economic Theory

Hayek was not a conservative. But conservatives should be Hayekians

Philip Booth
3 April 2017

SUGGESTED ARTICLES

previous
Economic Theory

The Threat of economic nationalism – the debate within Catholic Social Teaching

31 March 2017
next
Regulation

Britain should prepare for the possibility of a messy Brexit

4 April 2017
latest
Tax and Fiscal Policy

In defence of tax cuts – yes, even now

10 August 2022
Hayek famously wrote that he was not a conservative. But, 25 years after his death, that does not mean he has no lessons for (small-c and large-C) conservatives.

Hayek’s views are complex. And, since he wrote the famous postscript to The Constitution of Liberty, conservatism has changed. Hayek referenced Burke frequently, and his last book focused on the importance of tradition as an important part of the process of the evolution of institutions and principles of behaviour.

Hayek taught us that socialism was not just undesirable, it was impossible. It relies on the ‘superstition’ (as Hayek called it) that we know more than we ever can. We are incapable of planning economic activity on a large scale. Households, firms and voluntary organisations can plan of course, but even then our plans are often thwarted. We can plan in these contexts because all can agree on a single objective and on both ends and means.

The process of competition will allow the efficient to thrive, allow good ideas to be copied, and ensure that those firms and institutions that fulfil useful social functions will prosper. This process of competition also helps us to discover the best forms of economic co-operation. The market is social!

Hayek rightly poured scorn on people who foolishly believed that an economy free from government intervention was somehow an economy of atomised individuals. As he wrote:

“This fact should by itself be sufficient to refute the silliest of the common misunderstandings: the belief that individualism postulates… the existence of isolated or self-contained individuals, instead of starting from men whose whole nature and character is determined by their existence in society”.

Clearly, these ideas explain the failure of central planning. They also justify a preference for decentralised institutions within society rather than having the state solve social and economic problems. Further, they are a warning against meddling in markets to try to improve them.

By all means, remove impediments to competition. But energy markets and financial services are prime examples of how intervention has brought about unforeseen consequences (including the erosion of competition) which this Government now wishes to address by yet more meddling.

Secondly, Hayek was a champion of the common law. We often hear Conservatives such as Dan Hannan praise the UK system of common law. Such praise is due. Unfortunately, the recent move away from common law principles has been so dramatic that reclaiming the ground may prove impossible – though it is still a battle worth fighting.

Especially since the 1980s (ironically under Mrs. Thatcher), there has been a replacement of both common law and primary statute law principles by the use of secondary legislation and statutory bodies producing regulation at will. These are exactly the sort of trends Hayek thought dangerous.

Common law involves judges applying established legal principles to new situations as they arise. The judge does not invent the law, of course, but applies accepted legal principles to new cases. This has been replaced by bodies of ‘experts’ who believe they know in advance, and in extraordinary detail, what rules and regulations will better our lives.

And Conservatives should be sceptical of experts in another context. Economists expend huge amounts of energy trying to forecast with apparent (or perhaps spurious) accuracy the economic future. If everything carries on according to the assumptions in their models, those forecasts may turn out to be a good prediction.

But, if nothing much is changing, we don’t really need to be told whether inflation is going to be 2.1 per cent or 2.2 per cent in three months’ time. What can mainstream economists tell us about the really important events that might hit the economy? How well did they predict the crash or the impact of the UK leaving the EU?

Hayek taught is that we can’t forecast the behaviour of seven billion people all with a will of their own. Instead a good understanding of theory can help us make what Hayek called ‘pattern predictions’: we can tell the kind of thing that will happen, but not predict it with accuracy. Traditional economic modelling pretends to predict with accuracy things that don’t matter and seems completely unable to tell us anything about important events outside the model.

Hayek can help Michael Gove understand when experts can be useful and when they can’t. On this topic, Hayek’s Nobel Laureate speech is worth a read for its warning about confusing things that are measurable with things that are important – a mistake common not just to politicians but to business and charity leaders too.

Finally, as many readers will know, I have a strong interest in Catholic social teaching. But the default assumption of many prominent Christians (especially Anglican bishops) is that the state is there to pull levers to solve social problems.

A good starting point for a Christian is a humble acceptance of our imperfections. This includes imperfections in terms of our tendency towards evil (so we should be wary of giving individuals and institutions too much power to coerce). It also includes imperfections in terms of lack of human knowledge. Christians should be curious about a school of economics which takes as its starting point one of the fundamental characteristics of mankind that lies at the heart of Christian thinking: the absence of omniscience amongst human persons.

Christians, and others who want a better world, can learn from Hayek that, because of our human condition, pulling government policy levers may produce precisely the opposite of that intended, and we might do better to try to improve matters by working through institutions embedded in the community and society rather than the state.

There is much more that could be discussed. What would Hayek have thought of the ‘Big Society’? What would have been his attitude to Brexit? But each one of the above points is relevant to the future direction of the country. The implications of Hayek’s thought are rich, but the starting point is simple. As Hayek put it: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

Hayek taught us humility. We should continually remind politicians, church leaders, and economists that the one thing that we do know is how much we don’t know.

 

This article was first published on Conservative Home.

Philip Booth
Philip Booth is Senior Academic Fellow at the Institute of Economic Affairs. He is also Director of the Vinson Centre and Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham and Professor of Finance, Public Policy and Ethics at St. Mary’s University, Twickenham. He also holds the position of (interim) Director of Catholic Mission at St. Mary’s having previously been Director of Research and Public Engagement and Dean of the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. From 2002-2016, Philip was Academic and Research Director (previously, Editorial and Programme Director) at the IEA. From 2002-2015 he was Professor of Insurance and Risk Management at Cass Business School. He is a Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Federal Studies at the University of Kent and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Notre Dame, Australia. Previously, Philip Booth worked for the Bank of England as an adviser on financial stability issues and he was also Associate Dean of Cass Business School and held various other academic positions at City University. He has written widely, including a number of books, on investment, finance, social insurance and pensions as well as on the relationship between Catholic social teaching and economics. He is Deputy Editor of Economic Affairs. Philip is a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries and an honorary member of the Society of Actuaries of Poland. He has previously worked in the investment department of Axa Equity and Law and was been involved in a number of projects to help develop actuarial professions and actuarial, finance and investment professional teaching programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Philip has a BA in Economics from the University of Durham and a PhD from City University.


8 thoughts on “Hayek was not a conservative. But conservatives should be Hayekians”

  1. Ashton
    Posted 04/04/2017 at 00:08 | Permalink

    Great post! The observations regarding the energy and financial markets are relevant for Australia also.

  2. John P
    Posted 05/04/2017 at 06:13 | Permalink

    Hayek did not teach us that Socialism is impossible. It was Mises

  3. Philip
    Posted 05/04/2017 at 16:55 | Permalink

    It may have been Mises who originated the argument, but it was certainly refined in the Fatal Conceit. To teach something is not necessarily to originate it.

  4. John P
    Posted 06/04/2017 at 08:25 | Permalink

    *It may have been Mises who originated the argument, but it was certainly refined in the Fatal Conceit. To teach something is not necessarily to originate it.*

    To say that Hayek taught us that socialism is impossible and not even mention that Hayek was a Socialist until converted to Capitalism by reading Mises’s original argument is certainly not telling the whole story

    And Hayek didn’t ‘refine’ the argument. His argument and Mises’s argument about the impossibility of Socialism are actually two different things.

  5. John P
    Posted 06/04/2017 at 08:27 | Permalink

    *It may have been Mises who originated the argument, but it was certainly refined in the Fatal Conceit. To teach something is not necessarily to originate it.*

    To say that Hayek taught us that socialism is impossible and not mention that Hayek was a Socialist until converted to Capitalism by reading Mises’s original argument is not telling the whole story

    And Hayek didn’t ‘refine’ the argument. His argument and Mises’s argument about the impossibility of Socialism are actually two different things.

  6. Kristian Niemietz
    Posted 06/04/2017 at 08:46 | Permalink

    “His argument and Mises’s argument about the impossibility of Socialism are actually two different things.”
    -What’s the difference?

  7. John P
    Posted 06/04/2017 at 11:21 | Permalink

    http://www.univpgri-palembang.ac.id/perpus-fkip/Perpustakaan/Libertarian%20Study/Jurnal%20Austrian%20Economic/RAE6_2_5.pdf

  8. philip
    Posted 06/04/2017 at 17:08 | Permalink

    It was a 1,000 word blog post – I did not intend to tell the whole story. It was not intended to be a post about Mises, but a reflection on the anniversary of Hayek’s death

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


SHARE THIS ARTICLE

Follow IEA on Twitter Like IEA on Facebook Connect with IEA on LinkedIn

SIGN UP FOR IEA EMAILS


The IEA is the UK's original free-market think-tank.

Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of the markets in solving economic and social problems. Given the current economic challenges facing Britain and the wider global environment, it is more vital than ever that we promote the intellectual case for a free economy, low taxes, freedom in education, health and welfare and lower levels of regulation.

Find out more about the IEA Support us by donating
  • About Us
  • Staff
  • What We Do
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Donate Now
  • Publications
  • Media Coverage
  • Press Release
  • Media Enquiries
Newsletter signup
Keep in touch with the IEA
  • Donate
  • Like
  • Follow
  • Watch
  • Follow

Copyright © Institute of Economic Affairs | REGISTERED IN ENGLAND 755502, CHARITY NO. CC/235 351, LIMITED BY GUARANTEE

XWe use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.
Read More
REJECTCookie settings
ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Advertisement

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.

Performance

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

Analytics

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

Functional

Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.

Uncategorized

Undefined cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.

Save & Accept
Powered by CookieYes