Popper has a low profile among the Austrians, although Pete Boettke often uses the slogan “think like a Misean, write like a Popperian”. The two Popperians with the best grip on economics are Larry Boland and Jack Birner but they do not get cited in the Austrian literature. Two of the younger Austrians wrote a long critique of scientism without a Popper cite. The attitude towards Popper among the strong Miseans like Gordon and Hoppe combines misrepresentation with something close to contempt. On the other side, most of the Popperians tend to be social democrats and find little that is congenial among the “Austro libertarians”, though Hayek is a favorite it is not his economics that is admired.Popper and Mises had valuable lessons to learn from each other but did not do so. Mises could have learned from Popper that positivism and empiricism do not work in the natural sciences and so he did not need to reject the (valid) methods of the natural sciences in favour of strong a priorism.
Popper could have learned that his suspicion of “economic power” was unfounded. He asserted a role for the state to control monopolies and to counter unemployment. Mises could have explained that monopolies in an open market can only exploit their situation with the help of the state, and mass unemployment is a result of state intervention or failure to maintain an open market for labour.
It is likely that the Austrian elements of good economics will struggle to gain general consent in the academic community until something is done about the philosophical climate, in particular the climate perpetuated by academic philosophy courses and the introductory texts that are written for general consumption.
To follow some of the debates in the Austrian community, check out the blog Coordination Problem which until recently was called The Austrian Economists.
Not all of my contributi0ns are appreciated. This is a recent exchange in a long thread on the current relevance of The Road to Serfdom.