Article-10849340 image

3 Ways Milton Friedman Improved the Field of Economics

Milton Friedman is probably the most important free-market thinker of the twentieth century. His ideas in defense of capitalism and economic freedom had an enormous influence on the shift towards free-market policies that took place from the 1970s onwards.

Countries like the UK, China, Chile, or Estonia followed the economic recipes contained in best sellers like Free to Choose or Capitalism and Freedom, unleashing the power of free markets to create wealth and prosperity.

Yet the contributions of Friedman as an economist are often overlooked by non-economists. Here are three that will help you understand a bit better his work.

1. On Methodology

In 1953, Friedman wrote a very influential essay titled The Methodology of Positive Economics, where he puts forward what he thinks is the right methodological approach to economics. According to Friedman, the assumptions on which a theory rests don’t have to be realistic: as long as they are “sufficiently good approximations for the purpose in hand” (which is to make accurate predictions), the theory is valid and useful to analyze the world.

Let’s draw upon an example to better understand what he meant. We are all familiar with the theory of perfect competition, which is based on a series of assumptions that have been criticized by many authors (e.g. by Hayek) for being unrealistic: homogenous products, perfect knowledge, freedom of entry and exit etc.

For Friedman, the fact that these assumptions don’t reflect the real functioning of markets is irrelevant. Perfect competition is, as he puts it, “an engine to analyze it [the world], not a photographic reproduction of it.” What really matters is that this engine produces accurate predictions, not that the assumptions are realistic.

2.  On Economic History and Monetary Policy

Friedman collaborated with Anna Schwarz to publish in 1963 A Monetary History of the United States, an analysis of how monetary policy affected business cycles in the US between 1867 and 1969. Their main finding is that that changes in the money supply are closely linked to recessions and depressions as well as inflationary and deflationary episodes.

This idea finds support, for instance, in the empirical analysis undertaken by Schwarz and Friedman of The Great Depression. The authors argue that the Federal Reserve failed to prevent the sharp drop in the money supply between 1930 and 1933 (many banks went bankrupt due to runs), which resulted in the Great Depression.

As pointed out by former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, the impact of monetary policy during the 1930s had been underestimated until the publication of A Monetary History, which changed the views many economists had held until then about the causes of the Great Depression

3. On the Objective of Businesses

What should the goal of firms be in market societies? This question has engaged many academics over the last decades. The traditional view was brilliantly formulated by Friedman in a 1970 article. According to Friedman, “there is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud (emphasis mine; some critics tend to omit this second part of the statement when quoting Friedman).

Since then, other theories have emerged to dispute the idea that businesses should solely focus on increasing profits with the aim of creating value for shareholders. However, Friedman’s conception of the objective of the firm is still the lighthouse that guides businesses all over the world.




[Image credit: YouTube]

Luis Pablo De La Horra

Luis Pablo De La Horra

Luis Pablo de la Horra is a PhD Candidate in Economics at the University of Valladolid in Spain. He has been published by several media outlets, including The American Conservative, CapX and the Foundation for Economic Education.

Add a Comment


Join the conversation...

You are currently using the BETA version of our article comments feature. You may notice some bugs in submission and user experience. Significant improvements are coming soon!


First. This has never been proven, even as an “approximation,” because this theory always breaks down in practice. This is also an extraordinary copout that Friedman pulled, “theor[ies]- don’t have to be realistic.” That is why old economics was not a science. It was philosophy. This his also why his legacy is a failure for the whole. Second. Pay attention to the news and events in the last few years....even before this old article was written in 2018. “Changes in the money supply are closely linked to recessions and depressions as well as inflationary and deflationary episodes.” This has proven not to be the case. Wish the author, and the publisher would keep up. Third. Set the record straight. Friedman’s theory was not the tradition. It was actually quite opposite of his theory. His theory also hypothesized a perfect world that doesn’t exists. The implementation of this third theory into a dogma has proven to be the most destructive. Because to make it work requires an unbalanced implementation that has left the working class in the lurch since the 1970’s. This approach made Wall street happy and the rich more wealthy, but has it made the working class more wealthy? No, it has actually stolen what should have been their portion of the growths in the economy since the mid 80’s. Michael Jensen co-authored the often-cited business paper, “Theory of the Firm,” with William Meckling. They argued that corporate shareholders were shortchanged by corporate managers seeking perks. It was this paper Friedman based the philosophy that “he” is now praised for. Share holder value. “Jensen said focusing solely on stocks and stockholders is a “misreading” of his scholarship. He wrote in 1990 that CEOs should “do what’s in the shareholders’ best interests.” “I wouldn’t put shareholders at the center,” he said. “I’m still unhappy about the situation where people end up thinking that shareholders are primary. That they are our only bosses. No.”