The influence of the Austrian School of economics is highest in British economics departments and some economists here still support its central figures. I like its more balanced emphasis of entrepreneurialism
and liberalism. One of its members, William Harold Hutt, first proposed the concept of consumers sovereignty and is credited by many as the father of the modern marketing concept. He argued as its lonely proponent for three decades, beginning during the Great Depression, until others rallied to his side in the late 1950s. Hutt, by the way, was Professor of Commerce at the University of Cape Town.
The Austrian School is now quite old and its influenced has waned considerably. As a general criticism, its theories typically lack scientific precision and make greatly exaggerated claims that are impossible to test (see
link). This has left many respected economists of later times, like Paul Samuelson, feeling very critical.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of the School, when considered for relevance in our time, is its inability to account for heterogeneity within and across modern societies and the effects of extra-market forces.
Consider inland rural Chinese and coastal urban Chinese. One group is receiving contact with the industrialized world and access to modern educational institutions. The other is not.
The Austrian School would argue that these two groups should be allowed to compete freely against one another in free markets. It would argue that, even though the urban dwellers would "win" the competition for resources, eventually it would pay them to share resources with their poorer inland countrymen.
This may be so, but were the inland rural Chinese not be able to compete fairly, they would be very aware of this today. Moreover, they would be very aware of the fruits being accrued to their urban cousins.
Even if one argues that this then would result in the most efficient market, it makes the assumption that all of the players in a market will not act to take wealth by creating new rules (e.g., robbery, burglary, insurrection).
While it was tenable to make such claims in the information poor 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, when the Austrian School enjoyed its heyday, it is not today in a world in which the "have-nots" receive daily updates on the lives of the "haves" on their TV screens. TV is a daily incentive to create those new rules of competition outside of normal market mechanisms.
In the ideal world of the Austrian economist, all roads would be toll roads, even the one you live on. There would be no social net of any kind, no insurance, no subsidies. I understand the arguments and agree with the sentiments expressed in much of the work. However, like the work of Marx, it often lacks substance when a reality check is administered.