The Vienna Debate at Café Central
A Dialogue of the Masters of Economic Thought
An imagined encounter across centuries. The conversations are fictional interpretations of the thinkers’ economic ideas, not historical quotations.
The Gathering
Vienna lay beneath a thin covering of snow. Inside Café Central, the air carried the fragrance of roasted coffee, warm pastry, and polished wood. A pianist was playing something by Schubert, although nobody seemed particularly interested in identifying the composition.
At a long marble table in a quiet corner sat an extraordinary gathering of men who could never have met in life. The centuries had somehow agreed to suspend their differences for one evening.
Adam Smith examined the room with the curiosity of a man who found evidence of economic cooperation everywhere. Jean-Baptiste Colbert studied the elaborate interior with a very different interest: someone, clearly, had invested substantial resources in creating it.
David Ricardo was calculating something on the back of a menu. Alexander Hamilton had already begun disagreeing with him.
Elsewhere around the table sat Eli Heckscher, Bertil Ohlin, Jacob Viner, Raymond Vernon, Staffan Linder, Paul Krugman, Michael Porter, John Dunning, Jan Johanson, Jan-Erik Vahlne, Joseph Schumpeter, John Maynard Keynes, Ludwig von Mises, Cordell Hull, and Robert Keohane.
The waiter approached with a silver tray.
“Gentlemen, your coffee.”
Smith looked at the cups, the sugar, the porcelain, and the silver spoons.
“Remarkable,” he said. “We have not even begun our discussion, and international exchange has already supplied our table.”
Colbert examined the tray.
“An admirable observation, Monsieur Smith. But I should first like to know who produced these goods, who profited from their manufacture, and which kingdom received the payments.”
Smith smiled.
“And there, gentlemen, is our first disagreement.”
The waiter withdrew. He had served enough disputatious Viennese intellectuals to recognize when a table was about to become unprofitable.
The Origin of Trade: Cooperation or Competition?
The Logic of Shared Prosperity
Smith lifted his cup.
“Consider what stands before us. No individual can produce every good he requires. Nor can every nation. By specializing in activities for which they are particularly productive, people expand what is available to everyone. Exchange allows each participant to benefit from the abilities of others.”
“Provided,” Colbert interrupted, “that the benefits are not merely imaginary.”
“Voluntary trade,” Smith continued, “can enrich both parties. Economic exchange need not resemble a military conquest in which one side’s victory demands the other’s defeat.”
Colbert placed his cup on its saucer.
“You speak as though nations were merchants without borders. They are not. Nations require industries, employment, revenues, military capacity, and political independence. A kingdom dependent on foreign production may enjoy cheap goods today and discover its vulnerability tomorrow.”
“So you would make your citizens poorer,” Smith replied, “in order to persuade them that their country is richer?”
“I would prevent their country from surrendering its productive capacity.”
Ricardo stopped writing.
“You are both overlooking something.”
The Cool Elegance of Opportunity Costs
He turned the menu over. Two columns of figures were visible.
“Suppose one country can produce both cloth and wine with fewer resources than another. Monsieur Smith, your account of absolute productivity might suggest that the less productive country has nothing to offer.”
Smith considered the figures.
Ricardo continued.
“But production decisions concern alternatives. A country should specialize where its relative productive advantage is greatest or where its disadvantage is smallest. The relevant sacrifice is what it must give up to produce another good.”
He slid the menu toward Colbert.
“Even the less productive nation can benefit from specialization when comparative opportunity costs differ. That is the logic of comparative advantage.”
Colbert did not look impressed.
“Your arithmetic assumes nations can rearrange their production as though moving pieces across a chessboard. What becomes of workers whose industries disappear?”
Ricardo answered carefully.
“My principle establishes the possibility of gains from specialization and trade under particular conditions. It does not establish that every person benefits equally, that adjustment is painless, or that political dependence ceases to matter.”
Hamilton leaned forward.
“Then perhaps we have finally arrived at the real question.”
The Plea for the Young Nation
“An established industrial power,” Hamilton said, “can proclaim the virtues of open markets with considerable confidence. Its factories are already efficient, its skills established, its capital accumulated.”
“And?” asked Smith.
“And a newly industrializing nation may not possess those advantages. If it exposes every emerging industry immediately to mature foreign competitors, it may never develop the productive capabilities needed to compete.”
Colbert nodded approvingly.
Hamilton noticed and held up a hand.
“Do not recruit me too quickly, Monsieur Colbert. I do not propose protecting every industry forever. Protection without discipline can create complacency. The purpose of supporting an infant industry must be to help it become competitive, not to guarantee its permanent dependence upon the state.”
Ricardo tapped the menu.
“And who decides which industries will mature? Politicians? Officials? Those who stand to gain from protection?”
“A legitimate question,” Hamilton conceded. “Industrial policy can fail. But inaction is also a choice, with consequences for the future structure of an economy.”
Smith looked from one man to the other.
“Then our disagreement is not simply whether trade creates prosperity. It is whether today’s pattern of productive advantage should determine tomorrow’s.”
For the first time that evening, no one immediately answered.
Natural Order or Strategic Intervention?
The World as Factor Endowment
Heckscher broke the silence.
“You gentlemen speak extensively about productivity and industrial development. Yet trade patterns also reflect the resources countries possess.”
Ohlin continued his colleague’s thought.
“Labor, capital, land, and other productive factors are not distributed equally. Under the assumptions of our model, countries tend to export goods that intensively employ their relatively abundant factors and import goods that use relatively scarce ones.”
Hamilton frowned.
“Would you therefore advise a capital-scarce country never to develop capital-intensive industries?”
“No,” Ohlin replied. “We explain an important source of trade patterns; we do not claim that national capabilities remain unchanged forever.”
“Nor,” Heckscher added, “does a model that isolates factor endowments explain every consequence of technology, policy, or imperfect competition.”
Ricardo nodded.
“So our explanations differ in what they emphasize. Mine concerns comparative production costs. Yours investigates how those costs can arise from differences in factor endowments.”
“And mine,” Hamilton said, “asks how such conditions might be deliberately transformed.”
Schumpeter, who had been studying the steam rising from his coffee, looked amused.
“You have all managed to describe economies without yet allowing them to surprise you.”
“Patience,” said Viner. “They are about to become more complicated.”
The Double-Edged Sword of Customs Unions
Viner drew three circles on a paper napkin.
“Suppose these represent three countries. Two decide to form a customs union. They remove tariffs between themselves but maintain a common external tariff.”
“A step toward free exchange,” Smith observed.
“Sometimes,” Viner replied. “But not automatically a step toward greater efficiency.”
He pointed to the first circle.
“Imagine a country previously produced an expensive good at home. Following integration, it imports the same good more cheaply from its new partner. That is trade creation: relatively costly domestic production is replaced by a cheaper source.”
He moved his finger to the third circle.
“Now suppose an outside country can produce the good even more cheaply, but its goods face the external tariff. The customs union may induce purchases from the higher-cost partner instead. That is trade diversion.”
Colbert examined the circles.
“So regional integration can strengthen the members even when the wider world loses an efficient trading opportunity.”
“Precisely why its effects must be examined rather than celebrated in advance,” Viner replied. “The balance of trade creation and diversion, and their wider consequences, determines the assessment.”
Hamilton studied the napkin.
“And yet membership might encourage investment, coordination, and longer-term industrial development.”
“Quite possibly,” Viner said. “Those effects deserve analysis too. But their existence should not be assumed merely because an agreement has been signed.”
Smith looked toward the window.
“We began with the question of whether exchange creates wealth. Now we find that even the removal of barriers can have different consequences depending on how it is arranged.”
“Economic theory,” said Viner, folding the napkin, “becomes interesting precisely when a seemingly obvious answer ceases to be sufficient.”
The Dynamics of Modern Globalization: From Product to Company
The pianist finished his piece. Someone near the entrance applauded.
Schumpeter turned toward the table.
“Gentlemen, your models contain countries, productive factors, tariffs, and trade flows. But I have heard surprisingly little about the people who invent new products and transform entire industries.”
“Then perhaps,” Vernon replied, “we should begin with the products themselves.”
The Life Cycle of a Product
Vernon placed a fountain pen beside Ricardo’s menu.
“Consider an innovation developed close to demanding customers and specialized knowledge. Initially, production may remain near the innovator because the product is unfamiliar, changing, and difficult to standardize.”
He moved the pen toward the middle of the table.
“As demand expands and the product matures, exports can grow. With greater standardization, cost competition becomes more important. Production may then move to other locations, potentially including countries with lower production costs.”
“Until the country that invented the product imports it,” Linder observed.
“That is one possible outcome,” Vernon answered. “The product-cycle framework helps explain patterns of international production and investment, particularly under the conditions for which it was developed. It is not an immutable law governing every innovation.”
Schumpeter leaned closer.
“And what if a new technology destroys the product before it reaches maturity?”
“Then your disruption changes the trajectory,” Vernon replied. “A theory should help us recognize patterns, not forbid reality from departing from them.”
“That,” Schumpeter said, “is an answer I can respect.”
The Riddle of Similarity
Linder picked up the pen.
“But let me present another puzzle. Why do economically similar countries often exchange different versions of similar manufactured products? Why might Germany and Japan both export and import automobiles?”
Heckscher answered first.
“Different factor intensities within industries may contribute.”
“Certainly,” Linder agreed. “But consumers’ demand matters as well. Countries with similar levels of income may exhibit overlapping preferences for differentiated manufactured goods.”
“And what follows?” asked Ricardo.
“A producer develops goods for its home market and discovers that consumers in another country have similar preferences. Such demand similarity can support trade in differentiated products, including trade within the same broad industry.”
Hamilton considered this.
“So prosperity changes not only what a country can produce, but also what its consumers want.”
“Yes. Supply-side explanations alone may leave part of the picture unfinished.”
Krugman, who had been listening with growing impatience, pushed his chair away from the table.
“Gentlemen, may I complicate your explanation?”
Linder smiled.
“I was beginning to wonder when you would.”
The Poetry of Scale
Krugman pointed toward the pianist.
“Imagine two countries with similar technologies, similar resources, and similar tastes. Traditional explanations built around national differences might predict relatively little trade between them.”
“Yet they trade,” Linder said.
“Exactly. Consider industries in which producing at greater scale lowers average cost, and consumers value variety. A firm cannot efficiently produce every conceivable variety for a small domestic market. Access to a larger international market permits specialization in particular varieties, lower costs, and a wider selection for consumers.”
“Then trade need not depend entirely on countries being different,” Ricardo observed.
“Correct. Economies of scale and product differentiation can generate trade even between similar economies.”
Porter interjected.
“You have explained an important reason firms sell across borders. But you have not explained why some locations repeatedly produce internationally successful companies in particular industries.”
Krugman nodded.
“That is a different question.”
“And one I intend to answer,” Porter replied.
“But first,” Linder said, “you must clarify something. Does your argument imply that international trade inevitably leaves every industry controlled by a handful of gigantic firms?”
“No,” Krugman said. “That would be far too sweeping. My framework includes imperfect competition and firm-level economies of scale, but the relationship between market size, product variety, firm numbers, and market structure depends on the model and the industry. The essential point is that scale economies and differentiated products create additional reasons for trade.”
Schumpeter grinned.
“So the market may generate both concentration and variety. How inconvenient for simple slogans.”
The National Diamond
Porter took the napkin from Viner and turned it over.
“You are all treating competitive advantage as something firms discover. I am interested in the conditions that help them develop it.”
He drew four points.
“Consider the environment in which successful firms emerge: advanced and specialized factor conditions; demanding domestic customers; capable related and supporting industries; and firm strategy, structure, and intense domestic rivalry.”
Colbert interrupted.
“You make the nation sound like an industrial architect.”
“Not necessarily a government architect,” Porter replied. “A competitive environment is created through the interaction of firms, institutions, skills, customers, suppliers, and rivalry. Domestic competition can pressure firms to improve long before they confront foreign rivals.”
Hamilton looked pleased.
“So industrial capabilities can be developed.”
“Yes,” Porter said. “But development and protection are not interchangeable. An industry sheltered from competition may acquire capacity without acquiring competitiveness.”
Hamilton accepted the distinction.
“And a capable industry may still need time to develop.”
“Sometimes,” Porter replied. “The analytical task is to determine when support builds capability and when it merely preserves weakness.”
Schumpeter took the pen from Vernon.
“You have explained why some locations produce strong firms. But firms do not simply improve forever along established lines.”
He snapped the pen shut.
“Sometimes someone changes the game.”
The Global Company
The Storm of Creative Destruction
“Imagine,” Schumpeter began, “an industry admired for its efficiency. Its companies have invested in production systems, trained their workers, established distribution networks, and perfected their existing products.”
Porter nodded.
“Those are important competitive capabilities.”
“Until an entrepreneur introduces something that makes the old arrangement less valuable. A new product, a new production process, a new market, a new source of supply, or a new form of organization.”
Vernon reached for his pen.
“So innovation can interrupt an established product cycle.”
“Of course. Capitalism does not merely optimize what already exists. It repeatedly transforms its own structure through innovation and creative destruction.”
Krugman considered the argument.
“Yet innovation still requires resources, firms, markets, and incentives. Your entrepreneur does not operate outside economic constraints.”
“Certainly not,” Schumpeter replied. “My point is that an economy cannot be understood entirely by studying how it allocates a fixed set of possibilities. Innovation changes the possibilities themselves.”
Porter leaned forward.
“Then perhaps competitive advantage is never permanently secured.”
“Precisely,” Schumpeter answered. “What made a firm successful yesterday may become the reason it resists the changes required tomorrow.”
Dunning broke the silence.
“All very interesting. But we have still avoided a practical question. Once a company possesses something valuable, why does it sometimes export, sometimes license its technology, and sometimes establish operations abroad?”
He placed three sugar cubes in a line.
The Eclectic Theory of International Production
“Three conditions help us examine the decision,” Dunning explained.
He touched the first cube.
“Ownership advantages. Does the firm possess distinctive advantages that support international operations? These may consist of technology, knowledge, brands, organizational expertise, or other assets.”
The second cube.
“Location advantages. Is there a reason to conduct the activity in a particular foreign location rather than at home?”
The third.
“Internalization advantages. Is organizing the activity within the firm more advantageous than relying on external transactions, such as licensing or contracting?”
He moved the three cubes together.
“Ownership, Location, Internalization: OLI. Together, they provide a framework for explaining international production and foreign direct investment.”
Hamilton immediately objected.
“You make investment sound like a calculation performed once, after which the company simply acts.”
“I explain conditions influencing the choice,” Dunning replied. “I do not claim that executives possess perfect information or that foreign investment is always preferable.”
Johanson exchanged a glance with Vahlne.
“And that,” Johanson said, “is where our research begins.”
The Path of Gradual Learning
“A company contemplating foreign expansion,” Johanson continued, “rarely knows as much about the market as a diagram might imply.”
Vahlne added:
“It must learn about customers, institutions, business practices, and operating conditions. Much of that knowledge is acquired through experience.”
Dunning gestured toward the sugar cubes.
“Experience can improve the assessment of my three conditions.”
“Indeed,” Vahlne replied. “But the important point is that knowledge and commitment influence one another. As firms learn, they may become willing to commit more resources. As they commit resources, they gain new experience.”
Johanson leaned toward Hamilton.
“Companies often begin with less demanding forms of international involvement and gradually increase their commitment. They may first engage with markets perceived as more familiar, although this is a tendency, not an obligatory sequence.”
Schumpeter laughed.
“And what becomes of your careful progression when a disruptive company enters a distant market almost overnight?”
“It becomes a useful comparison,” Johanson replied. “Not every company follows the same path. Some possess prior experience, exceptional capabilities, or relationships that make rapid expansion possible.”
“Then your model does not instruct companies to proceed slowly,” Schumpeter said.
“No,” Vahlne answered. “It explains how uncertainty, learning, and commitment can shape internationalization. It is a framework for understanding a process, not a commandment against speed.”
Krugman looked across the table.
“So we now have several explanations operating at different levels. Trade can arise through comparative advantage or economies of scale. Particular environments can support competitive industries. Firms may internationalize because of ownership, location, and internalization advantages. Their commitments evolve as they learn.”
“And innovation,” Schumpeter added, “can disrupt every one of those calculations.”
Porter nodded.
“Which means no single theory describes the whole of international competition.”
For a moment, the economists seemed almost dangerously close to agreement.
Then Keynes put down his coffee cup.
“Gentlemen, there is something missing from this admirably constructed world.”
Market Versus State
“Most of your explanations,” Keynes said, “concern production, competition, specialization, and investment. But what happens when firms do not invest, consumers do not spend, and unemployment persists despite the existence of productive capabilities?”
Smith looked toward him.
“A difficulty that cannot simply be dismissed.”
“Precisely,” Keynes continued. “Under deep uncertainty, private decisions that are individually understandable can collectively produce insufficient demand and prolonged unemployment. Prices and wages do not necessarily adjust in ways that restore full employment quickly.”
Mises turned his chair toward him.
“And your remedy is to instruct the state to replace the decisions of market participants?”
“My argument,” Keynes replied, “is not that officials possess superior knowledge of every production decision. It is that public policy may be needed to stabilize aggregate demand when private expenditure collapses.”
“Yet intervention is not costless,” Mises answered. “Prices and profits communicate information about scarcity and consumer preferences. Policies that distort these signals may encourage investment that cannot be sustained, and governments are hardly immune to error.”
Keynes considered the point.
“Agreed that governments can make mistakes. But you must answer my question. What should society do when unemployment persists and private investment fails to recover?”
“And you,” Mises replied, “must answer mine. How do policymakers distinguish a genuine deficiency of spending from adjustments that are necessary because earlier investments were misguided?”
The room became quiet.
Keynes spoke first.
“By recognizing that the diagnosis matters. An economy suffering an aggregate-demand collapse does not necessarily benefit from policies appropriate to a supply constraint. The state should not pretend to abolish scarcity. It should address the particular instability confronting it.”
Mises answered without raising his voice.
“And intervention should not be defended merely because it is called stabilization. It must be examined for its effects on incentives, coordination, capital allocation, and individual freedom.”
Hamilton joined them.
“Then the question is not simply state or market. It is what problem is being addressed, what knowledge is available, and what institutional mechanisms are capable of responding.”
Colbert looked dissatisfied.
“You gentlemen are becoming excessively conditional.”
“Economic reality,” Ricardo replied, “has a habit of resisting unconditional statements.”
Smith smiled.
“Perhaps we should be grateful for that.”
The disagreement remained. Keynes continued to regard macroeconomic stabilization as a legitimate and sometimes necessary public responsibility. Mises remained deeply skeptical of interventions that interfered with market coordination.
Neither had converted the other.
But both had clarified the questions that a serious decision must confront.
Institutions in the Age of Anarchy
The Multilateral Peace Order
Cordell Hull had listened in silence.
“You have described the potential gains from exchange,” he said, “the tensions over national development, and the danger of economic instability. But I would ask you to consider the political consequences when governments respond to these problems by turning against one another.”
He looked toward Colbert.
“Trade policy can become an instrument of rivalry. Retaliatory barriers can deepen hostility. Economic relations do not guarantee peace, but a more predictable and cooperative trading order can reduce some sources of conflict.”
Colbert was unconvinced.
“States will always defend their interests.”
“Of course,” Hull replied. “The question is whether they must defend them without agreed rules. The postwar multilateral trading system, beginning with GATT, sought to reduce discriminatory barriers through negotiated commitments.”
Viner lifted his folded napkin.
“And yet countries continue to create regional trading arrangements.”
“They do,” Hull acknowledged. “Multilateral cooperation does not eliminate competing interests.”
“Nor does a regional agreement necessarily advance global efficiency,” Viner added. “Remember trade creation and trade diversion. The consequences depend on the structure of the arrangement.”
Keohane looked at the others.
“Perhaps the problem is that we continue expecting cooperation to require the disappearance of self-interest.”
Cooperation Without a World Government
“That is not necessary,” Keohane said.
He placed a blank sheet of paper on the table.
“States remain sovereign. They possess different objectives. They may distrust one another, and no universal government exists to command their cooperation.”
Mises nodded.
“An important starting point.”
“Yet repeated interaction changes incentives,” Keohane continued. “International institutions and regimes can provide information, establish expectations, facilitate negotiation, monitor commitments, and reduce uncertainty and transaction costs.”
Colbert crossed his arms.
“And what prevents a powerful state from ignoring the rules?”
“Nothing guarantees compliance in every case,” Keohane answered. “Institutions are not magic. Their influence depends on interests, incentives, credibility, and the consequences of violating commitments.”
Hull leaned toward him.
“Then institutions make cooperation more feasible without abolishing political competition.”
“Exactly. Sovereignty and cooperation are not opposites. Institutions can help states secure benefits that would be difficult to obtain through isolated action.”
Smith surveyed the table.
“We began with voluntary exchange between individuals and nations.”
“And discovered,” Keynes observed, “that maintaining the conditions for beneficial exchange can itself become a collective problem.”
Viner added:
“And that arrangements intended to improve cooperation must still be judged by their actual consequences.”
Schumpeter looked toward the window.
“And none of you should imagine that the institutions, industries, or technologies of today will remain unchanged forever.”
Final Chord
The waiter appeared again.
“Gentlemen,” he said carefully, “the café is closing.”
Nobody moved.
The candles had burned low. Outside, fresh snow blurred the outlines of the buildings. The pianist began his final piece.
Smith was still looking at Ricardo’s calculations. Hamilton and Porter were quietly arguing about industrial development. Vernon had retrieved his pen from Schumpeter. Keynes and Mises were continuing a discussion neither expected to win. Hull listened while Keohane spoke about cooperation under conditions of persistent disagreement.
Colbert summoned the waiter.
“One final question,” he said. “Where was the coffee grown?”
“Not in Austria, monsieur.”
“And the sugar?”
“Also imported.”
“The porcelain?”
“From another part of Europe.”
Smith looked delighted.
“Our evening has been sustained by international exchange.”
Colbert regarded the bill.
“And somebody must still pay for it.”
Ricardo reached for the figures.
“Perhaps we should determine who has the comparative advantage in settling the account.”
For the first time that evening, everyone laughed.
But the question remained unresolved.
Who gains from international exchange? Who bears its costs? Why do industries flourish in some places and decline in others? When should governments intervene? Why do companies cross borders? How can competing interests be reconciled without eliminating competition itself?
There had been no final theory, no unanimous verdict, and no victorious school of economic thought.
That was perhaps the evening’s most important lesson.
Economic theories were not competing descriptions of entirely separate worlds. They were different instruments for understanding a world too complex to be explained through a single perspective. Each illuminated particular mechanisms; each rested on assumptions; each left questions for others to investigate.
The waiter extinguished the candles.
Beyond the windows, the international economy continued its restless movement: goods crossing borders, companies choosing locations, governments negotiating agreements, entrepreneurs challenging established industries, and managers making decisions whose consequences they could never fully foresee.
Soon those decisions would take human form in the dilemmas confronting sixteen very different organizations.
The debate had prepared the questions.
The case studies would now bring them to life.
Literature for the chapter
Colbert, J. B. (1864 to 1873). Lettres, instructions et memoires de Colbert (Vols. 1 to 7). Imprimerie Nationale.
Dunning, J. H. (1980). The eclectic paradigm of international production. Journal of International Business Studies, 11(1).
Hamilton, A. (2015). Report on manufactures. Yale University Press. (Original edition published 1791).
Heckscher, E. (1919). The effect of foreign trade on the distribution of income. Harvard Economic Studies.
Hull, C. (1948). The memoirs of Cordell Hull (Vols. 1 to 2). Macmillan.
Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1).
Keohane, R. O. (2005). After hegemony. Princeton University Press. (Original edition published 1984).
Keynes, J. M. (2018). The general theory of employment, interest and money. Cambridge University Press. Original edition published 1936.
Krugman, P. (1979). Increasing returns, monopolistic competition and international trade. Journal of International Economics, 9(4).
Linder, S. B. (1961). An essay on trade and transformation. Wiley.
Mises, L. von. (1949). Human action. Yale University Press.
Mises, L. von. (2012). Nationalokonomie. Philosophia Verlag. (Original edition published 1940).
Ohlin, B. (1967). Interregional and international trade. Harvard University Press. (Original edition published 1933).
Porter, M. E. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press. (Original edition published 1990).
Ricardo, D. (1951). On the principles of political economy and taxation. Cambridge University Press. (Original edition published 1817).
Schumpeter, J. A. (2005). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. UTB. Original edition published 1942.
Smith, A. (1976). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Oxford University Press. (Original edition published 1776).
Vernon, R. (1971). Sovereignty at bay. Basic Books.
Viner, J. (1950). The customs union issue. Oxford University Press.