Suchergebnisse

The defence of the market and economic freedom have been the main objectives of the investigations by liberal thinkers such as Milton Friedman, Gary Becker, F Hayek and L Von Mises. Bearing in mind that the first two economists are the maximum exponents of the Chicago School and the last two of the Austrian School, it is often concluded that the theories of both schools are similar. This book demonstrates that in reality, there is no convergence or complementariness to be found between both schools of thought. The anthropological categories, contributed by Mises, allow us to understand all human phenomena from the view of the man who acts. In this view, economics is part of a philosophical system whose core is the creative capacity of people. Becker's work, on the other hand, is concentrated on the generalization of the homo economicus as the basis for explaining all human behaviour. He generalizes the maximizing principle to explain all human reality, and extends the scope of the application of a so-called scientific and technical view of the world. In this key volume, an important read for those in the fields of economic theory and political economy, Javier Aranzadi argues, in essence, that the tradition of Hayek and Mises encourages a humanistic liberalism, whereas the Chicago School proposes only a technical humanism.

A political philosophy that emerged from the Enlightenment, liberalism has a complex relationship with democracy, colonialism, postcolonialism, globalization, and literature. Democracy has been shaped by a tension between "classical liberalism", which prioritizes liberty, and "modern liberalism", which emphasizes equality. Liberalism also moulded the informal empire of free trade, and the "liberal imperialism" that devised a "civilizing mission" to justify formal empire. The development of liberalism has been vital in the anglophone settler colonies, particularly the USA; often, especially in South Africa, it has been focused on racial justice. The neo-liberalism that emerged in the late twentieth century advocates the globalization of unfettered capitalism and personal liberty. Many postcolonialists consider neo-liberalism a reprise of liberal imperialism, with "human rights" replacing the "civilizing mission" as a cultural-imperialist pretext for economic exploitation.

I. H. Handley. Religious liberalism.--II. F. C. Burkitt. Theological liberalism.--III. J. R. Wilkinson. Biblical liberalism.--IV. C. R. Shaw Stewart. Devotional liberalism.--V. H. Rashdall. Clerical liberalism.--VI. P. Gardner. Lay liberalism.--VII. Sir C. T. D. Acland. Political liberalism.--VIII. A. J. Carlyle. Social liberalism.--IX. H. G. Woods. Past liberalism.--X. A. Caldecott. Nonconformist liberalism.--XI. W. D. Morrison. German Evangelic liberalism.--XII. A. L. Lilley. Roman Catholic liberalism. ; Mode of access: Internet.

The four essays in this collection address the history of liberalism outside Europe, at the same time as they reinscribe European liberalism in global contexts. They ask where, beyond Europe and the North Atlantic, has liberal thought flourished as a way to think about problems of state formation, political economy and social order? They take historical scholarship beyond territories that were formally "colonies" of Europe (or of Europeans) to centres of intellectual activity stimulated and challenged by the global circulation of Western liberalism: the Ottoman Empire, the kingdoms of East Asia, the colonial world, the revolutionary world. Their "global" character is less evident in their individual geographical reach, and more apparent in their individual contributions to the sum of what we know about the appearance of liberal ideas beyond their transatlantic intellectual streams. We have brought them together here in order to raise questions about both the limits of liberalism as a concept, and the conceptual frontiers of intellectual history.

Advocates of political liberalism hold it as a superior alternative to perfectionism on the grounds that it avoids superfluous and/or controversial claims in favor of a maximally-inclusive approach undergirded by a "free-standing" justification for the ideology. These assertions prove difficult to defend: political interpretations of liberalism tend to be implicitly ethnocentric; they often rely upon a number of controversial, and even empirically falsified, assumptions about rationality and can much more effectively accommodate the illiberal challenge.

This dissertation examines the Romantic beginnings of nineteenth-century British liberalism. It argues that Romantic authors both helped to shape and attempted to resist liberalism while its politics were still inchoate. By shifting the question of Romantic politics away from the traditional radical/revolutionary and conservative/loyalist binary forward into the more ambiguous realm of early liberalism, the dissertation develops new readings of both first- and second-generation Romantic authors, including Charles Lamb, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Leigh Hunt, and William Hazlitt.

The modern liberalism is a political thought movement which develops by the enlightenment of western. Firstly it used by Adam Smith as a notion. Liberalism comes into prominence with dignity and supporting the true things as freedom of religion and conscience, the leadership of mind, determinate countries, private ownership etc. Sophism was born in V. century. Protagoras is the first agent of sophism. Sophism is a philosophical quadrat that which one criticizes aristocratic and entrenched thoughts, takes people in to the center and the top of life by idea of metronantropospanton (human is measure of everything), based on humanity while legislation and implement .sophists suppose the successful person as happy person, gives a pragmatical meaning to life. Generally, we can tell that the sophists have a democratic approach. This works handles sophism as a messenger of modern liberalism and the agent in Ancient Greece with "against the aristocratic constitution, criticize sing entrenched thoughts, takes humanity to the center of everything and with pragmatic nascency". ; The modern liberalism is a political thought movement which develops by the enlightenment of western. Firstly it used by Adam Smith as a notion. Liberalism comes into prominence with dignity and supporting the true things as freedom of religion and conscience, the leadership of mind, determinate countries, private ownership etc. Sophism was born in V. century. Protagoras is the first agent of sophism. Sophism is a philosophical quadrat that which one criticizes aristocratic and entrenched thoughts, takes people in to the center and the top of life by idea of metronantropospanton (human is measure of everything), based on humanity while legislation and implement .sophists suppose the successful person as happy person, gives a pragmatical meaning to life. Generally, we can tell that the sophists have a democratic approach. This works handles sophism as a messenger of modern liberalism and the agent in Ancient Greece with "against the aristocratic constitution, criticize sing entrenched thoughts, takes humanity to the center of everything and with pragmatic nascency".

Hayek's late work on liberal politics is characterized by the idea that free market represents the best way of not only economic, but also political coordination. Epistemic liberalism builds upon this idea, reasserting old and highlighting new arguments to demonstrate the epistemic advantages of free market over deliberative democracy. This paper discusses the theoretical roots of epistemic liberalism, presents its key arguments but also addresses some important distinctions that part epistemic liberalism from epistemic democracy.

Hayek's late work on liberal politics is characterized by the idea that free market represents the best way of not only economic, but also political coordination. Epistemic liberalism builds upon this idea, reasserting old and highlighting new arguments to demonstrate the epistemic advantages of free market over deliberative democracy. This paper discusses the theoretical roots of epistemic liberalism, presents its key arguments but also addresses some important distinctions that part epistemic liberalism from epistemic democracy.

Angesichts der Reformen in der Eurozone greift dieser Beitrag den Begriff des "Autoritären Liberalismus" wieder auf. Er wurde von Hermann Heller im Jahre 1933 verwendet, um die internen Zusammenhang zwischen dem ökonomischen Liberalismus und einem "starken Staat" zu beschreiben. Dieser Begriff ist zur Erlangung eines angemessenen Verständnisses des neuen Regierens in der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion heuristisch fruchtbar. Es ist sinnvoll von autoritärem Regieren auch dann zu sprechen, wenn diese nicht die äußeren Anzeichen staatlicher Repression trägt. Zwei Seiten des autoritären Liberalismus lassen sich unterscheiden. Während die eine Seite viel von Autorität an sich hält, sieht die andere Seite das autoritäre Regieren als etwas an, das gut für die Wirtschaft ist. Der Beitrag spekuliert abschließend darüber, ob die europäische Integration deswegen erfolgreich gewesen sein mag, weil sie geschickt zwischen beiden Seiten hin und her wechselte. Jedenfalls sollte es uns beunruhigen, wenn die europäische Integration sowohl profunde als auch zufällige autoritäre Züge trägt. ; In light of the reforms undertaken for the sake of the Euro, the article revisits the concept authoritarian liberalism that was introduced in 1933 by the German public law scholar Hermann Heller. This notion seeks to capture the liaison between the "strong state" and economic liberalism. The article suggests that this notion can be fruitfully used to designate the new governance of economic and monetary union. It argues, particularly, that it makes sense to speak of an authoritarian style of governance even if the latter does not wear vestiges of outright repression. Two different faces of authoritarian liberalism can be distinguished: one that looks more towards authoritarianism and another one that views authoritarian rule as a managerial strategy that is good for the economy. The article then speculates whether the European Union has been, indeed, successful because it shifts between the two. Disturbingly, there may be something deeply as ...

The liberal tradition, in its broadest sense, has had a prominent role in shaping Western society as we know it today. Most notably, liberalism has been a central force in the liberation of countries and their citizens from aristocratic feudalism as well as political and religious paternalism. Furthermore, liberalism, especially through its moral foundations, has shaped our perspective on individuals as free, autonomous, and equal beings. The first liberals were those in search of a new order after the chaotic times of early industrial capitalism and three late 18th century political revolutions— the American, Dutch, and French—that had turned society and politics upside down. Central to these developments were principles of freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought and speech, the division of governmental powers, and rights of private property and economic freedom (Starr, 2007). The leading figures in the development of these principles were, among others, John Locke, Charles de Montesquieu, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill. Based on the thoughts, principles, and moral convictions of these leading figures, notions like the rule of law and the free market developed, resulting in a metamorphosis of Western society from a deeply religious, feudal, and unequal society, to one with a secular, liberal democracy in which personal rights and liberties are upheld and protected by the state and its institutions. These rights and liberties that protect individuals from unsolicited interference with their private lives and property created a stable basis for economic progress. This is not to claim, however, that liberal thought has been completely consistent and unambiguous throughout different regions or time periods. Despite the lack of unanimity among liberals, Fawcett (2014) identifies four broad ideas that served as a foundation for liberalism and reoccurred throughout the history of liberal thought: the acknowledgement of inescapable ethical and material conflict within society, distrust of power, faith in human progress, and unconditional respect for individuals. Thus, even though there is no canonical version of liberalism itself, these four ideas indicate that liberalism in general can be regarded as the search for an "ethically acceptable order of human progress among civic equals without recourse to undue power" (ibid., p. xv). Rooted in moral convictions of equality and freedom, the purpose of liberalism, therefore, is to create the conditions for a society in which each citizen can realise his or her aims without unsolicited interference, and fully develop his or her capacities to the benefit of society.

The paper hopes to contribute to a reading of the political economy of the current global crisis with a focus on four interrelated themes. First, we discuss the constitutive role and functional character of crises in the evolution of neo-liberalism in particular and in capitalist reproduction in general. Second, we investigate the mechanisms by which financial crises recur by highlighting the structure-agency dynamics in finance capitalism; specifically, the structural tendency of financial markets to disintegrate that has been exacerbated by misbehaviour of economic agents. Third, we look at opposing crisis responses—from multilaterals to regional organisations to global civil society—and realise that responses from either pro-neoliberal or anti-neoliberal forces are fundamentally the same through the years, simply re-articulating analyses and programmes that they have respectively pursued and advocated long before the global crisis. And fourth, in the context of East and Southeast Asia, we examine the tendencies of the global crisis vis-à-vis the strengthening and even acceleration of emergent authoritarian liberalism in the region despite and because of the global crisis.

Taras Fedirko would like to acknowledge funding from the British Academy (grant no. PF20/100094) and the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 683033). ; Liberalism has been fundamental to the making of the modern world, at times shaping basic assumptions as to the nature of the political, and in other cases existing as a delimited political project in contention with others. Across its long history, liberal projects have taken a diverse range of forms, which resist easy reduction to a single logic or history. This diversity, however, has often escaped anthropological attention. In this introduction to our special section on Grammars of Liberalism, we briefly trace this historical diversity, interrogate anthropological approaches to conceptualizing liberalism, and offer a broad framework for studying liberalism which remains attentive to both continuity and difference. Firstly, we argue for attention to how the political claims made by liberal projects unfold at the levels of values, their interrelations (morphology), and the underlying rules governing the expression and combination of values, and their intelligibility as liberal (grammar). Secondly, we argue for empirical attention to how values are expressed and liberal projects assembled across different social forms. We argue that this approach enables anthropology to grasp the diversity of liberal political projects and subject positions while still allowing scholars to approach liberalism critically and to interrogate its underlying logics. ; Publisher PDF ; Non peer reviewed

This paper presents the ideology scheme in order to locate the main points of attraction between populism and classical liberalism, and their strategic capacities for achieving of their political goals. The populist political strategy is consisting of authentic methods and techniques, for social change and seizure of political power. As oppose to populism, the strategic capacity of classical liberalism is quite limited and accompanied by the excessive scientific and educational nature of its methodology. Regarding the combination of these ideologies, the newly emerged notion of populist liberalism is treated as a synthesis of classical liberalism ideology and populist political strategy. In the end, it is concluded that populist liberalism could be regarded as a populist upgrade of classical liberalism in terms of techniques and methodologies for the achievement of its ideological goals.

In Japanese a word for economics has two syllables: "Kei" meaning governance that brings about harmony and "Zai" meaning to bring about the well-being of people. The resurgence of efforts to strengthen normative structures for the globally interdependent economic system by means of global governance raises important questions about the principles necessary for establishing the global common good. Efforts to make global regulatory structures more substantial are now being initiated because in the light of repeated financial crisis it is necessary to construct pragmatic economic policy regulations which will provide future stability for the global financial system. We also assume that the intent of a regulatory body will be to outline principles connected with reassuring that the market operates in ways which will not hurt the global public interest. Certainly the principles that inspire global financial regulatory policy must be broad enough to include diverse cultural perspectives reflected in the global community. The assembly of nations comprising a financial governance regime will be made up of diverse states not all of which subscribe to a free market economy. The ethics shaping international regulations must reconcile the various convictions on what are considered to be appropriate motivating factors for human transactions. In this respect normative structures must also prescribe a balance between competiveness, interdependence and the transnational linkages that were thought to be the most promising sources for profit and prosperity in the globalized world. Thus, to ensure that freedom and rights are not jeopardized and that the best interest of the public is assured we must remember that the effectiveness of practice is first and foremost a matter of the adequacy of principles.