ȀȀȃ Partʺ: Economics
. “Ļe Disregard of Reality.”Cato JournalȆ(Spring/SummerȀȈȇȆ):ȁȈ–ȃȁ.
Boettke, Peter J., ed.Ļe Elgar Companion to Austrian Economics. Aldershot, U.K.,
and Brookfield, Vt.: Elgar,ȀȈȈȃ.
Boettke, Peter J., and David L. Prychitko, eds.Ļe Market Process: Essays in Con-
temporary Austrian Economics. Aldershot, U.K., and Brookfield, Vt.: Elgar,
ȀȈȈȃ.
Fumento, Michael.Science under Siege. New York: Morrow,ȀȈȈȂ.
’t Hart, Paul.Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Fail-
ure.Amsterdam, Rockland, Mass., and Berwyn, Pa.: Swets & Zeitlinger,
ȀȈȈǿ.
Huerta de Soto, Jesús. “Ļe OngoingMethodenstreitof the Austrian School.”
Comment on papers by Sherwin Rosen and Erich Streissler. Presented at
the meeting of the Mont Pélerin Society, Vienna, SeptemberȀȈȈȅ.
Laband, David N., and Christopher N. Taylor. “Ļe Impact of Bad Writing in
Economics.”Economic Inquiry(OctoberȀȈȈȁ):Ȃǿ,ȅȆȂ–ȅȇȇ.
Machovec, Frank M.Perfect Competition and the Transformation of Economics.
London and New York: Routledge,ȀȈȈȄ.
Mayer, Ļomas.Truth versus Precision in Economics. Aldershot, U.K., and Brook-
field, Vt.: Elgar,ȀȈȈȂ.
McCloskey, D.N. “Writing as a Responsibility of Science: A Reply to Laband
and Taylor.”Economic InquiryȂǿ(OctoberȀȈȈȁ):ȅȇȈ–ȅȈȄ.
Mirowski, Philip. “Ļree Vignettes on the State of Economic Rhetoric.” In
Post-Popperian Methodology of Economics, edited by Neil de Marchi,ȁȂȄ–ȁȄȈ.
Boston: Kluwer,ȀȈȈȁ.
Philbrook, Clarence. “‘Realism’ in Policy Espousal.”American Economic Review
ȃȂ(DecemberȀȈȄȂ):ȇȃȅ–ȇȄȈ.
Rosen, Sherwin. “Austrian and Neoclassical Economics: Any Gains from Trade?”
Journal of Economic PerspectivesȀȀ(FallȀȈȈȆ):ȀȂȈ–ȀȄȁ.
Simon, Herbert A. “Review ofOrganization Ļeory”, edited by O.E. Williamson.
Journal of Economic LiteratureȂǿ(SeptemberȀȈȈȁ):ȀȄǿȂ–ȀȄǿȄ.
Streissler, Erich W. “Methodenstreit: Ļe Austrian vs. Neo-Classical Approaches
to Economics.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Mont Pélerin Society,
Vienna, SeptemberȀȈȈȅ.