Abstract

Despite affection for his former teacher, James M. Buchanan’s work ran counter to that of Frank H. Knight. Knight disagreed with Buchanan’s methodological, economic, ethical, and political assumptions. He rejected methodological individualism, the underlying methodological commitment of Buchanan’s research program. While Knight remained within the standard constrained maximization framework of neoclassical economics, Buchanan adopted a catallactic perspective. Ethically, Knight argued that all ethical judgments must remain open to debate, and also rejected the de gustibus non est disputandum assumption that went hand-in-hand among economists with methodological individualism. And philosophically, Knight’s theory of democratic politics was centered on “democracy as discussion” rather than choice, contract, and constitution. Why, then, did Buchanan return again and again to Knight’s work? After a survey of his published criticisms of Knight, the conclusion emerges that engagement with Knight pushed Buchanan toward a more open-ended political economy.