ABSTRACT
As I have described, this book appears as part of the Advances in Heterodox Economics series for a reason. Though the central question of what gives societies the capacity to “learn,” i.e., coordinate ever-increasing levels of complexity, is a question that follows the classical social theorists in the discipline, it nonetheless falls outside the contemporary mainstream of the discipline. But there is yet another reason why this project belongs within a series on heterodox economics and that is by virtue of the qualitative research methods it deploys. To readers coming from sociology, cultural anthropology, or oral history, the notion that qualitative methods are “heterodox” or require explanation or defense probably sounds absurd. But to the vast majority of economists, qualitative methods are completely alien. No doubt, this disciplinary taste for the quantitative stems from the abundance of quantified data in the form of prices, incomes, aggregate growth rates, and so on. “Why resort to qualitative methods,” the economist asks, “when we have such easy access to (presumably) far superior quantitative data?” After describing the methods used for this particular project, I will offer a brief defense for why, despite the abundance of quantitative economic data, economists might consider the merits of qualitative research methods. If I am successful, I persuade the standard economist that alongside quantitative methods, there is a complementary role qualitative methods can play in researching complex political-economic questions.1 This complementary role is justified not only because we might not always find “superior” quantitative proxies, but because for some political-economy questions, it is qualitative analysis that in fact would be superior. In addition to making the relatively modest point that qualitative methods have a role to play alongside quantitative analysis, I also have a more ambitious argument in mind and that is that Austrian (and other heterodox) economists who seek to advance understanding of complex social systems, ought to be particularly interested in adopting, deploying, and teaching qualitative methods given our core emphasis on the importance of local (often tacit) knowledge and discovery in the market process.2
