Suchergebnisse

This important book offers a comprehensive defence of classical liberalism against contemporary challenges. It sets out an analytical framework of 'robust political economy' that explores the economic and political problems that arise from the phenomena of imperfect knowledge and imperfect incentives. Using this framework, the book defends the classical liberal focus on markets and the minimal state from the critiques presented by 'market failure' economics and communitarian and egalitarian variants of political theory. Mark Pennington expertly applies the lessons learned from responding to th

AbstractThis paper draws on the work of Michel Foucault and Friedrich Hayek to understand threats to personal and enterprise freedom, arising from public health governance. Whereas public choice theory examines the incentives these institutions provide to agents, the analysis here understands those incentives as framed by discursive social constructions that affect the identity, power, and positionality of different actors. It shows how overlapping discourses of scientific rationalism may generate a 'road to serfdom' narrowing freedom of action and expression across an expanding terrain. As such, the paper contributes to the growing literature emphasising the importance of narratives, stories and metaphors as shaping political economic action in ways feeding through to outcomes and institutions.

This paper draws on the work of Michel Foucault and Friedrich Hayek to understand threats to personal and enterprise freedom, arising from public health governance. Whereas public choice theory examines the incentives these institutions provide to agents, the analysis here understands those incentives as framed by discursive social constructions that affect the identity, power, and positionality of different actors. It shows how overlapping discourses of scientific rationalism may generate a 'road to serfdom' narrowing freedom of action and expression across an expanding terrain. As such, the paper contributes to the growing literature emphasising the importance of narratives, stories and metaphors as shaping political economic action in ways feeding through to outcomes and institutions.

This paper draws on Hayek's distinction between simple and complex phenomena to understand the nature of the challenge facing policymakers in responding to the new coronavirus pandemic. It shows that while government action is justifiable there may be few systemic mechanisms that enable policymakers to distinguish better from worse policy responses, or to make such distinctions in sufficient time. It then argues that this may be a more general characteristic of large-scale public policy making procedures and illustrates the importance of returning to a market-based political economy at the earliest convenience.

Abstract:This essay offers a "nonideal" case for giving institutional priority to markets and private contracting in the basic structure of society. It sets out a "robust political economy" framework to examine how different political economic regime types cope with frictions generated by the epistemic limitations of decision-makers and problems of incentive incompatibility. Focusing on both efficiency arguments and distributive justice concerns the essay suggests that a constitutional structure that prioritizes consensual exchange is more likely to sustain a cooperative venture for mutual advantage.

This essay offers a 'non-ideal' case for giving institutional priority to markets and private contracting in the basic structure of society. It sets out a 'robust political economy' framework to examine how different political economic regime types cope with frictions generated by the epistemic limitations of decision-makers and problems of incentive incompatibility. Focussing both on efficiency arguments and distributive justice concerns the essay suggests that a constutional structure that prioritises consensual exchange is more likely to sustain a cooperative venture for mutual advantage.

Robust political economy is the attempt to theorize about political institutions in such a way as to guard against the knowledge and incentive problems that we can expect will threaten the public good in the real world. An implication of this attempt is the need to reason symmetrically about whether a proposed institution is liable to be as prone to failure due to knowledge and incentive problems as the situations it is designed to address. Another implication is that one should be wary of ad hoc institutional or policy proposals, that is, proposals that are not grounded in systematic tendencies to mitigate the knowledge and incentive problems. With these implications in mind, I am not convinced that the alternative institutions, conceptions of the state, and conceptions of social justice defended by my critics meet the test of robustness that, I maintain, can best be met through decentralization of power down to the level of the individual.

AbstractThis paper explores the constraints that should inform understandings of which political economic institutions are both economically and political feasible and ethically attractive. Focusing on cognitive constraints and motivational constraints, it suggests that the classical liberal ideal of a society based largely on voluntary exchanges within a minimalist conception of justice comes closest to matching the terms of a 'realistic idealism'.