The concept of “orientation table” (plural: “orientation tables”) in economics refers to institutions—formal rules, informal norms, customs, laws, and social structures—that serve as cognitive and interpretive aids for individuals navigating an uncertain world of purposeful human action. These tables provide reference points or frameworks that help actors form expectations, anticipate others’ behaviors, coordinate plans, and attach subjective meanings to their situations, without rigidly determining outcomes.
Coined by Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian economist, the phrase draws from his praxeological framework in works like Human Action (1949), where he describes how individuals require guides for “orientation” in a chaotic reality lacking perfect causality or predictability. Mises emphasized that in an open-ended world, people rely on institutional “tables” to orient their actions, extending ideas from his earlier German writings on the role of social institutions in facilitating rational planning.
Virgil Storr and collaborators like Peter Boettke popularized and refined the English term “orientation tables” in post-2000 Austrian scholarship, particularly in papers such as “Post-Classical Political Economy: Polity, Society and Economy in Weber, Mises and Hayek” (2002). They portray institutions as non-deterministic “orientation tables” that embed economic action within social and political contexts, blending Mises’ methodological individualism with Max Weber’s interpretive sociology (Verstehen) and Friedrich Hayek’s spontaneous order.
For example, private property rights act as an orientation table by signaling legitimate control over resources, enabling entrepreneurs to plan without constant fear of expropriation. Market prices serve similarly, conveying dispersed knowledge to orient production and consumption decisions. Cultural norms, like trust in commercial dealings, provide additional tables in specific societies, explaining why markets function differently across contexts (e.g., bazaars vs. supermarkets).
In post-disaster recovery, community networks and property institutions orient survivors’ rebuilding efforts, fostering resilience. Absent robust tables—as in socialist systems lacking genuine prices—miscoordination and inefficiency arise.
Ultimately, by naming the orientation table under analysis, an observer can proceed with an aligned perspective. Rather than human action being socially embedded, individual action can be simultaneously quantified by group. This brings an understanding of price to complete the circle of individual and institutional value.
Home Economics 