Puhringer: Austrian Economist?

In 1927 Ludwig Von Mises created the |nstitute of Business Cycle Research in Vienna, and appointed FA Hayek as the first Director.
Hayek went on to win the Nobel Prize, largely for the achievements of the Institute, where the two giants of economic thought constructed the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle.

In today's Times, attention is drawn to the Institute of Capital Market Research, also in Vienna, where multi-billionaire Peter Puhringer is giving students £55,000 ($100,000) each to conduct research into innovative methods of portfolio management.
The project has received the attention of several top financiars, including Deutsche Bank and BMW subsidiaries.

According to the Times online:
His interest in investments and in the historic Vienna School of Economics is clear from a display in the lobby of his Vienna hotel, the Palais Coburg

Whilst the printed version says:
His interest in investments and in the historic Austrian School of Economics is clear from a display in the lobby of his Vienna hotel, the Palais Coburg

A subtle but interesting discrepancy: the 'Viennese school' tends to refer to the particular type of economics being done in Vienna in the early 20th century, whilst the 'Austrian school' is the broader paradigm which emerged from it. Whilst the 'Viennese School' is a chapter in economic thought, 'Austrian economics' continues to provide substantial counter balance to the mainstream of economic thought, and suggests an active interest in modern applications of the works of Mises.

Whilst it is unclear, therefore, as to whether Mr Puhringer is using Austrian techniques in this engaging research it's great to see exciting and popular work being done in Vienna. If the current crop can match the achievements of their predecessors then the $1.5m grant will be a bargain!

Comments

[wyska]

Interesting that a one-word discrepancy can make such a difference. I presume that the editor of the printed article made the assumption that capital city = national institution. I wonder if said editor would make the same mistake so readily with our own LSE?