奥地利福利经济学:一种批判的方法

I. Wysocki, DA Megger
{"title":"奥地利福利经济学:一种批判的方法","authors":"I. Wysocki, DA Megger","doi":"10.19195/2084-4093.25.1.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Austrian welfare economics: A critical approachIt seemed that since Rothbard’s 2008 [1956] exquisite Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics, one can make a case for the free market based on some modified concept of efficiency. Rothbard famously argued that being equipped with the notions of Pareto-superior moves and demonstrated preference suffices for the above purpose. Our agenda in the present paper is purely negative. First, we face the challenge — in our opinion, inadequately addressed in Austrian literature so far — of sharply defining Pareto-superior moves; to wit, how to evaluate whether a Pareto-superior move occurs; or, more specifically, what is the standard of comparison which would allow us to determine whether a given action constitutes a Pareto-superior move or not. Thus, we sieve out any approaches to social welfare that would be either trivial and therefore uninteresting and the ones that would be irreconcilable with fundamental Austrian premises e.g., ordinal value scales and therefore non-aggregation of utility, etc.. As a result, we seemingly end up with what might constitute a specifically Austrian view on welfare, which non-surprisingly coincides with the actual positions taken by contemporary prominent Austrians themselves for instance, see: Gordon, 1993; Herbener, 1997; Block 1995. Yet, the main thrust of our paper is to argue that this very position cannot withstand criticism, for it either makes an intuitively wrong prediction as we demonstrate in our thought experiment or it vitiates the argument for the free market from the concept of Pareto-efficiency.","PeriodicalId":34121,"journal":{"name":"Ekonomia Spoleczna","volume":"45 4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Austrian welfare economics: A critical approach\",\"authors\":\"I. Wysocki, DA Megger\",\"doi\":\"10.19195/2084-4093.25.1.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Austrian welfare economics: A critical approachIt seemed that since Rothbard’s 2008 [1956] exquisite Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics, one can make a case for the free market based on some modified concept of efficiency. Rothbard famously argued that being equipped with the notions of Pareto-superior moves and demonstrated preference suffices for the above purpose. Our agenda in the present paper is purely negative. First, we face the challenge — in our opinion, inadequately addressed in Austrian literature so far — of sharply defining Pareto-superior moves; to wit, how to evaluate whether a Pareto-superior move occurs; or, more specifically, what is the standard of comparison which would allow us to determine whether a given action constitutes a Pareto-superior move or not. Thus, we sieve out any approaches to social welfare that would be either trivial and therefore uninteresting and the ones that would be irreconcilable with fundamental Austrian premises e.g., ordinal value scales and therefore non-aggregation of utility, etc.. As a result, we seemingly end up with what might constitute a specifically Austrian view on welfare, which non-surprisingly coincides with the actual positions taken by contemporary prominent Austrians themselves for instance, see: Gordon, 1993; Herbener, 1997; Block 1995. Yet, the main thrust of our paper is to argue that this very position cannot withstand criticism, for it either makes an intuitively wrong prediction as we demonstrate in our thought experiment or it vitiates the argument for the free market from the concept of Pareto-efficiency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ekonomia Spoleczna\",\"volume\":\"45 4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ekonomia Spoleczna\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19195/2084-4093.25.1.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ekonomia Spoleczna","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19195/2084-4093.25.1.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

奥地利福利经济学:一种批判的方法似乎自从罗斯巴德在2008年[1956]发表了《走向效用和福利经济学的重建》(Toward A Reconstruction of Utility and welfare economics)以来,人们就可以在一些改进的效率概念的基础上为自由市场提出理由。罗斯巴德提出了一个著名的观点,即具备帕累托优步的概念,并表现出偏好,就足以达到上述目的。我们在本文件中的议程完全是消极的。首先,我们面临的挑战——在我们看来,奥地利文学迄今尚未充分解决这个问题——是如何明确定义帕累托优越运动;也就是说,如何评估帕累托优棋是否发生;或者,更具体地说,什么是比较标准,使我们能够确定一个给定的行动是否构成帕累托优棋。因此,我们筛掉了任何社会福利的方法,这些方法要么微不足道,因此无趣,要么与奥地利学派的基本前提不可调和,例如,序数价值尺度,因此非聚合效用,等等。因此,我们似乎最终得到了可能构成奥地利学派关于福利的特殊观点,这与当代著名奥地利学派自己的实际立场不谋而合,例如,参见:Gordon, 1993;Herbener, 1997;1995块。然而,我们论文的主旨是要证明,这种观点经不起批评,因为它要么做出了直觉上错误的预测,正如我们在思想实验中所证明的那样,要么从帕累托效率的概念中诋毁了自由市场的论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Austrian welfare economics: A critical approach
Austrian welfare economics: A critical approachIt seemed that since Rothbard’s 2008 [1956] exquisite Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics, one can make a case for the free market based on some modified concept of efficiency. Rothbard famously argued that being equipped with the notions of Pareto-superior moves and demonstrated preference suffices for the above purpose. Our agenda in the present paper is purely negative. First, we face the challenge — in our opinion, inadequately addressed in Austrian literature so far — of sharply defining Pareto-superior moves; to wit, how to evaluate whether a Pareto-superior move occurs; or, more specifically, what is the standard of comparison which would allow us to determine whether a given action constitutes a Pareto-superior move or not. Thus, we sieve out any approaches to social welfare that would be either trivial and therefore uninteresting and the ones that would be irreconcilable with fundamental Austrian premises e.g., ordinal value scales and therefore non-aggregation of utility, etc.. As a result, we seemingly end up with what might constitute a specifically Austrian view on welfare, which non-surprisingly coincides with the actual positions taken by contemporary prominent Austrians themselves for instance, see: Gordon, 1993; Herbener, 1997; Block 1995. Yet, the main thrust of our paper is to argue that this very position cannot withstand criticism, for it either makes an intuitively wrong prediction as we demonstrate in our thought experiment or it vitiates the argument for the free market from the concept of Pareto-efficiency.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 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