Private Property Rights, Government Interventionism and Welfare Economics

IF 0.4 Q4 ECONOMICS
Ivan Jankovič, W. Block
{"title":"Private Property Rights, Government Interventionism and Welfare Economics","authors":"Ivan Jankovič, W. Block","doi":"10.2478/revecp-2019-0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We develop a critique of government interventionism based on the Misesian calculation argument against socialism. If private property rights and relative prices based on supply and demand are necessary for successful economic coordination, then conventional market failure theories cannot be sustained. Government interventionism based on the idea of correcting “market failures” is analytically just a milder form of socialist central planning. Between the two, there are only differences in degree, not in kind. We criticize several public choice and law and economics scholars for disregarding this Misesian angle in their market failure theories. In our view they are reducible to arguments based on a fallacious political economy while perpetuating false neoclassical economic analysis of market failure theorists. We claim that government interventionism is just a milder form of socialist central planning. Therefore, the traditional arguments against the efficiency of central planning also apply to government interventions aiming at fixing market failures. In particular, we maintain that governments face the “knowledge problem”, which means that they cannot determine the optimal allocation of resources. In section two of this paper we discuss market failure and economic calculation. Section three is given over to our claim that the “Nirvana fallacy” is itself fallacious. The burden of section four is to address Coase and consequences. We conclude in section five.","PeriodicalId":43002,"journal":{"name":"Review of Economic Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Economic Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/revecp-2019-0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract We develop a critique of government interventionism based on the Misesian calculation argument against socialism. If private property rights and relative prices based on supply and demand are necessary for successful economic coordination, then conventional market failure theories cannot be sustained. Government interventionism based on the idea of correcting “market failures” is analytically just a milder form of socialist central planning. Between the two, there are only differences in degree, not in kind. We criticize several public choice and law and economics scholars for disregarding this Misesian angle in their market failure theories. In our view they are reducible to arguments based on a fallacious political economy while perpetuating false neoclassical economic analysis of market failure theorists. We claim that government interventionism is just a milder form of socialist central planning. Therefore, the traditional arguments against the efficiency of central planning also apply to government interventions aiming at fixing market failures. In particular, we maintain that governments face the “knowledge problem”, which means that they cannot determine the optimal allocation of resources. In section two of this paper we discuss market failure and economic calculation. Section three is given over to our claim that the “Nirvana fallacy” is itself fallacious. The burden of section four is to address Coase and consequences. We conclude in section five.
私有产权、政府干预与福利经济学
摘要我们在反对社会主义的米塞斯计算论的基础上,对政府干预主义进行了批判。如果私有产权和基于供求的相对价格是成功的经济协调所必需的,那么传统的市场失灵理论就不可能持续下去。基于纠正“市场失灵”思想的政府干预主义在分析上只是社会主义中央计划的一种温和形式。两者之间只有程度上的差异,而不是种类上的差异。我们批评了几位公共选择、法律和经济学学者在他们的市场失灵理论中忽视了这一米塞斯视角。在我们看来,它们可以简化为基于错误的政治经济学的论点,同时使市场失灵理论家的错误新古典主义经济分析永久化。我们声称政府干预主义只是社会主义中央计划的一种温和形式。因此,反对中央计划效率的传统论点也适用于旨在修复市场失灵的政府干预。特别是,我们认为政府面临“知识问题”,这意味着它们无法确定资源的最佳配置。在本文的第二节中,我们讨论了市场失灵和经济计算。第三节是我们的主张,即“涅盘谬误”本身就是谬误。第四节的责任是处理科斯及其后果。我们在第五节结束。
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
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
38 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信