Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to first review William James's explicit positions on paternalism in the context of medical licensure and the annexation of the Philippines. Then I wish to show that these positions, as well as a more generalized antipaternalist stance, are the implications of James's philosophy and psychology and not simply his 'personal' sentiments. The elements of James's thought are arranged in such a way as to facilitate a comparison with contemporary behavioral (heuristics and biases) paternalism. The conclusion is that James has arguments against behavioral paternalism avant la lettre that are still useful and deserve discussion.

The burgeoning field of behavioral economics has produced a new set of justifications for paternalism. This book challenges behavioral paternalism on multiple levels, from the abstract and conceptual to the pragmatic and applied. Behavioral paternalism relies on a needlessly restrictive definition of rational behavior. It neglects nonstandard preferences, experimentation, and self-discovery. It relies on behavioral research that is often incomplete and unreliable. It demands a level of knowledge from policymakers that they cannot reasonably obtain. It assumes a political process largely immune to the effects of ignorance, irrationality, and the influence of special interests and moralists. Overall, behavioral paternalism underestimates the capacity of people to solve their own problems, while overestimating the ability of experts and policymakers to design beneficial interventions. The authors argue instead for a more inclusive theory of rationality in economic policymaking

"Austrian Economics Re-examined: The Economics of Time and Ignorance is an expanded version of the 1996 edition of The Economics of Time and Ignorance. This work is a classic statement of the role of subjectivism, radical uncertainty and change through real time in Austrian economics specifically, and in modern economics more generally.The new book contains the full text and Introductions of the earlier edition as well as the comprehensive previously-unpublished essay "What is Austrian Economics?" and a new Introduction. The essay is a comprehensive overview of the central themes of the book from a somewhat different perspective than in the book itself. It supplements the analysis in the book. The new Introduction explains that the 2007-8 financial crisis and recent developments in behavioural economics have made the book more relevant than ever before.Austrian Economic Re-examined develops and systematizes the fundamental principles of the Austrian tradition to the analysis of rational expectations, business cycles, monetary theory competition and monopoly, and capital theory"--

The use of economics to study law was pioneered by the Austrian School of Economics. The nineteenth century founders of the school believed that economics could contribute to understanding the spontaneous development of common law as well as the nature of legal rights. For this insightful research review Mario Rizzo has selected key papers from today's vibrant Austrian School, focusing on the study of property, market-chosen law, slippery-slope analysis, entrepreneurship, institutions, decentralized social knowledge, and the evolution of legal institutions. This title represents the cutting-edge Austrian contributions to economics and will be an essential reference source for both students and researchers

AbstractInRisk, Uncertainty and Profit(RUP), Knight (1921) develops a theory of the firm that stresses the important role of entrepreneurial judgment for a firm's success. For Knight, entrepreneurial judgment is first and foremost the selection of 'proxy entrepreneurs' who are capable of making good judgments under uncertainty. In this sense, entrepreneurial judgment is essentially 'judgment of judgment'. An overlooked implication of Knight's position is the fact that it leads to an endorsement of distributed entrepreneurship and responsibility. We deem this a very modern idea that challenges a completely hierarchical understanding of the firm. Knight himself does not thoroughly examine the institutional implications of the analytical framework he sets up in RUP. In this paper, we summarize the 'philosophical vision' of Knight's framework and illustrate his rationale behind the distribution of entrepreneurship. We conclude the paper with a discussion of potential institutional implications by referring to the danger ofmonocultures, the additional value created bycognitively diverse teams, and the effectiveness ofventure capitalists.