When Think Tanks Refuse Thinking: Why American Pro-Market Conservatives Oppose Market Integration

IF 0.5 3区社会学 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Studies in American Political Development Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.1017/S0898588X21000092

Benedikt Springer

{"title":"When Think Tanks Refuse Thinking: Why American Pro-Market Conservatives Oppose Market Integration","authors":"Benedikt Springer","doi":"10.1017/S0898588X21000092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract American pro-market conservatives often oppose use of federal authority to rein in anti-competitive behavior by market actors. Competitive barriers, whether created by local jurisdictions or the absence of national competitive rules, go unaddressed. In international comparison, especially considering the European Union's use of central authority for market openness, this is quite puzzling. Based on interviews and archival research, I trace inattention to market barriers to contradictions within Hayek's neoliberalism and an enthusiastic reception within the American academy of one possible interpretation of those writings. This conception of markets—competitive federalism—diffused into the conservative law and economics movements, think tanks, and eventually mainstream conservative politics. It permitted conservatism to align a strong pro-market rhetoric with demands for states’ rights and federal retrenchment, albeit side-stepping many significant issues in economic theory and policy. Thus, conservatives pursue spending and tax cuts, deregulation and decentralization, often to the detriment of market openness.","PeriodicalId":45195,"journal":{"name":"Studies in American Political Development","volume":"35 1","pages":"239 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in American Political Development","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X21000092","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract American pro-market conservatives often oppose use of federal authority to rein in anti-competitive behavior by market actors. Competitive barriers, whether created by local jurisdictions or the absence of national competitive rules, go unaddressed. In international comparison, especially considering the European Union's use of central authority for market openness, this is quite puzzling. Based on interviews and archival research, I trace inattention to market barriers to contradictions within Hayek's neoliberalism and an enthusiastic reception within the American academy of one possible interpretation of those writings. This conception of markets—competitive federalism—diffused into the conservative law and economics movements, think tanks, and eventually mainstream conservative politics. It permitted conservatism to align a strong pro-market rhetoric with demands for states’ rights and federal retrenchment, albeit side-stepping many significant issues in economic theory and policy. Thus, conservatives pursue spending and tax cuts, deregulation and decentralization, often to the detriment of market openness.

查看原文本刊更多论文

当智囊团拒绝思考：为什么美国亲市场保守派反对市场一体化

摘要美国亲市场的保守派经常反对利用联邦权力来控制市场参与者的反竞争行为。无论是地方司法管辖区造成的竞争壁垒，还是缺乏国家竞争规则，都没有得到解决。在国际比较中，特别是考虑到欧盟利用中央权力进行市场开放，这是相当令人费解的。基于采访和档案研究，我将对市场壁垒的忽视追溯到哈耶克新自由主义内部的矛盾，以及美国学术界对这些著作的一种可能解释的热情接受。这种市场概念——竞争性联邦制——扩散到保守的法律和经济运动、智库，并最终成为保守政治的主流。它允许保守主义将强烈的亲市场言论与各州权利和联邦紧缩的要求结合起来，尽管在经济理论和政策中回避了许多重大问题。因此，保守派追求削减开支和税收、放松管制和权力下放，往往损害市场开放。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Studies in American Political Development POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

12.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Studies in American Political Development (SAPD) publishes scholarship on political change and institutional development in the United States from a variety of theoretical viewpoints. Articles focus on governmental institutions over time and on their social, economic and cultural setting. In-depth presentation in a longer format allows contributors to elaborate on the complex patterns of state-society relations. SAPD encourages an interdisciplinary approach and recognizes the value of comparative perspectives.