DOCSLIB.ORG

Laissez-Faire and the Institutions of the Free Market

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Laissez-Faire and the Institutions of the Free Market Laissez-faire and the institutions of the free market Other articles G. R. Steele The absence of an The apotheosis of the Bolshevik revolution was the temporary phase.A growing concentration of adequate institutional division of Europe in 1945 into market and centrally industrial might would lead ultimately to central structure explains why planned economies. Its last vestige was covered by direction which would replace the market system and entrepreneurial capitalism the debris of the Berlin Wall in 1989. In between restore the bond between workers and their product. did not automatically follow times, the comparative economic performance of The counter from Ludwig von Mises had been that the collapse of central East and West silenced the intellectual socialists, local planning is vital.This would be undertaken planning in the 1990s. It is whose aspirations had been sharpened by the Marxist under the impartial direction of the market process, a necessary function of a phalanx in the ‘calculation debate’1 of the 1930s. which no level of sophistication in the liberal state to provide a Socialism was shown to be a failed creed, but credit instrumentation of a central plan could possibly framework for the was slow to accrue to the opposing Austrians.That emulate. Since every entrepreneurial decision affects enforcement of private intellectual case against socialism was forgotten in the the configuration of prices, co-ordination is achieved contractual terms. Beyond era of a ‘mixed economy,’‘social democracy,’ only through a constant feedback of new prices and that basic need, other Keynesian–Beveridge–Butskellite middle-of-the road re-adjustments to individuals’ plans.With the further regulatory structures tend welfare state.Thereafter, monetarism and the point, that a centrally directed economic plan cannot to emerge spontaneously ascendancy of the New Right followed in the wake draw upon knowledge of particular circumstances of through the force of mutual of general dissatisfaction with macroeconomic time and place, Friedrich Hayek had shown that advantage and the test of performance. In the West, the free-market and trade intellectual aspirations for socialist planning are an social competence. In liberalisation gained an ascendancy. epistemological impossibility. Indeed, the socialist particular, institutions such However, the final collapse of central planning in calculation debate drew from Hayek three important as banking, the law, the 1990s presented new food for thought. Many arguments against socialism:‘in the real world goods accountancy, insurance etc. were surprised when laissez-faire did not follow are not easily specified ... costs were not objectively exist to minimise the laissez-aller : the emergence of free market given ... [and] .... knowledge is uncentralizable.’2 transactions costs which are entrepreneurial capitalism was not automatic.With Yet,the problem of socio-economic co-ordination inherent in a market hindsight, it was always likely that those who had is one which has received scant attention. In ignoring economy. been taught to equate private property with theft knowledge acquisition and co-ordination,Walrasian would be troubled by the notion of property rights. general equilibrium economic theory misrepresents Although thriving black markets in the Eastern bloc the ease with which optimal resources allocation had replicated some aspects of the market economy, might be achieved.This allows a case to be made for they had drawn no support from the rule of law, nor socialism: given the same information set as is could they provide any basis for taxation. So, apart assumed to exist under theoretical general equilibrium, from the currency printing-presses, the state had few Oscar Lange demonstrated that an actual central public revenue sources to draw upon after the sell-off planning board can replicate the competitive of state-owned firms. outcome. So, with this sleight of hand, it was made to appear that the mechanism of competitive market The institutional infrastructure of a market economy prices adjustment could be replaced by the precise Although the need for positive action is now mathematical calculation of a planning board. apparent, little thought has been given to the institutional infrastructure necessary to support a Austrian versus neoclassical economics market economy. Stated differently, the long- Because the methodological gulf which exists neglected arguments of the Austrian School of between Austrian (disequilibrium) economics and Economics are increasingly relevant. Until recently, neoclassical (equilibrium) economics was not the most common – though incorrect – view of the acknowledged, much of the socialist calculation calculation debate was that the thesis of central debate was conducted at cross-purposes.Whereas planning had been matched by the antithesis of Austrian economics perceives the economy as a complete laissez-faire to give a synthesis of market mêlée of competing and contradictory plans, and is socialism. conducted against the (dynamic) criterion of Karl Marx had envisaged the self-destruction of multi-plan co-ordination, neoclassical economic capitalism: specialisation would force individuals into analysis centres upon the (static) criterion of Pareto an ever greater division of labour and mutual efficiency.To Austrians, the incentives implicit in the interdependence, the intricacies of which no single margins that exist when trade is undertaken at G. R. Steele is lecturer in economics individual would be able to grasp; nor would there disequilibrium prices are an integral part of the at Lancaster University. be any control over its effects. But this would be a process by which markets move towards equilibrium. 47 Laissez-faire and the The entrepreneurial function (which is assumed by no ‘basic rights and liberties ... are immune from the free market neoclassical economics to have already taken place) is vagaries of political conflict.’ vital since, by that activity ‘the price in one particular market is brought closer to equilibrium, and other Free markets: destroyers of traditions? people are better-informed about the opportunities While Gray acknowledges the ‘original political available.’3 justification and historical rationale of Thatcherite The fundamental lesson to be drawn from the policies,’ which lay in the break-up of corporatist socialist calculation debate of the 1930s – the lesson institutions and policies which created conflict rather that was lost to advocates of the mixed economy – is than wealth, he sees the free market both as the that economically efficient methods of production engine of wealth creation and the destroyer of and distribution become evident only as some traditional institutions and cultural forms.Thus, producers succeed and others fail. Bankruptcies are ‘the communitarian and paternalistic concerns’ of important to processes of discovery in which post-1945 British conservatism, where there was a efficiency and ingenuity are tested in open ‘genuine understanding of enduring human needs,’ competition.To eliminate the possibility of failure is were trampled by ‘the Thatcherite march.’ Even to eliminate initiative. Equally important is Hayek’s though market deregulation ‘allowed somewhat message that economics is an integral part of an lower levels of joblessness than our European evolving social order in which cultural history and partners,’ the associated labour mobility brought mores are vital to processes of knowledge acquisition pathologies which include marital breakdown and and dispersion.The importance of a cultural unprecedented levels of crime.6 infrastructure to support free-market processes is Gray does not consider that many (if not all) of central to recent comments by the Chairman of the these trends pre-date Thatcherism. In Britain, the US Federal Reserve Bank: 1960s was the most notoriously liberating of recent decades; labour mobility and the decline of the ‘[m]uch of what we took for granted in our free family is more plausibly linked to state financial market system and assumed to be human nature sponsorship of an ever-widening set of ‘rights’ – for was not nature at all, but culture.The example, to adolescent independence, to single- dismantling of the central planning function in parent families, to further education, to medical an economy does not, as some had supposed, provision – than to the notion that ‘the free market automatically establish a free market works to transform or overturn all inherited and entrepreneurial system.There is a vast amount traditional social institutions.’ Like many apologists of capitalist culture and infrastructure for dirigiste state control, Gray fundamentally underpinning market economies that has misunderstands (or conveniently forgets) the value evolved over generations: laws, conventions, of free-market exchange: it is because the culture, behaviors, and a wide variety of business beliefs and motives of every participant are irrelevant professions and practices that has no important to the functioning of the market that the greatest functions in a centrally planned economy.’4 harmony can be achieved. Among other requirements identified by Alan Greenspan are a free press, an impartial judiciary and Competition, discovery and co-ordination a bill of rights to preclude arbitrary action by The tendency to achieve mutual compatibility across government.Although Greenspan is confident of the the decisions of countless economic agencies is a ultimate diffusion of free-market
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Competition in a Social Market Economy
    Competition in a Social Market economy Speech by Commissioner Monti at the Conference of the European Parliament and the European Commission on ‘Reform of European Competition law’ in Freiburg on 9/10 November 2000 Ladies and Gentlemen, Let me take my turn to welcome you to this conference that has been jointly organised by the European Parliament and the European Commission to discuss the Reform of EC competition policy. The Commission has launched a reform that aims at overhauling the whole of the competition law framework in order to ensure more efficient enforcement of the European competition rules and thereby reinforce their effect. A reform of this scope is an excellent opportunity to re-visit and to re-examine what is basic to our understanding. The venue here at Freiburg of course reminds us of the Freiburg School. The Freiburg School has made a major contribution to shaping the post-war economy as one of the sources of the concept of Soziale Marktwirtschaft – Social market economy. When we take a close look at what ‘Social Market Economy’ stands for, we find that we are in the presence of one of those basic concepts to which many policy choices can be traced back. We also realise that we are in the presence of strikingly modern ideas. Having said this, it is not my intention to discuss here the issue whether ‘Social Market economy’ is a model for Europe1 or whether the concept of Social Market Economy and the historic experience it encompasses is a major building block of what we sometimes call the ‘European Model’.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FREE-MARKET WELFARE STATE: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World
    Policy Essay THE FREE-MARKET WELFARE STATE: Preserving Dynamism in a Volatile World Samuel Hammond1 Poverty and Welfare Policy Analyst Niskanen Center May 2018 INTRODUCTION welfare state” directly depresses the vote for reac- tionary political parties.3 Conversely, I argue that he perennial gale of creative destruc- the contemporary rise of anti-market populism in tion…” wrote the economist Joseph America should be taken as an indictment of our in- 4 Schumpeter, “…is the essential fact of adequate social-insurance system, and a refutation “T of the prevailing “small government” view that reg- capitalism.” For new industries to rise and flourish, old industries must fail. Yet creative destruction is ulation and social spending are equally corrosive to a process that is rarely—if ever—politically neu- economic freedom. The universal welfare state, far tral; even one-off economic shocks can have lasting from being at odds with innovation and economic political-economic consequences. From his vantage freedom, may end up being their ultimate guaran- point in 1942, Schumpeter believed that capitalism tor. would become the ultimate victim of its own suc- The fallout from China’s entry to the World Trade cess, inspiring reactionary and populist movements Organization (WTO) in 2001 is a clear case in against its destructive side that would inadvertently point. Cheaper imports benefited millions of Amer- strangle any potential for future creativity.2 icans through lower consumer prices. At the same This paper argues that the countries that have time, Chinese import competition destroyed nearly eluded Schumpeter’s dreary prediction have done two million jobs in manufacturing and associated 5 so by combining free-markets with robust systems services—a classic case of creative destruction.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hayekian Theory of Social Justice
    A HAYEKIAN THEORY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE Samuel Taylor Morison* As Justice gives every Man a Title to the product of his honest Industry, and the fair Acquisitions of his Ancestors descended to him; so Charity gives every Man a Title to so much of another’s Plenty, as will keep him from ex- tream want, where he has no means to subsist otherwise. – John Locke1 I. Introduction The purpose of this essay is to critically examine Friedrich Hayek’s broadside against the conceptual intelligibility of the theory of social or distributive justice. This theme first appears in Hayek’s work in his famous political tract, The Road to Serfdom (1944), and later in The Constitution of Liberty (1960), but he developed the argument at greatest length in his major work in political philosophy, the trilogy entitled Law, Legis- lation, and Liberty (1973-79). Given that Hayek subtitled the second volume of this work The Mirage of Social Justice,2 it might seem counterintuitive or perhaps even ab- surd to suggest the existence of a genuinely Hayekian theory of social justice. Not- withstanding the rhetorical tenor of some of his remarks, however, Hayek’s actual con- clusions are characteristically even-tempered, which, I shall argue, leaves open the possibility of a revisionist account of the matter. As Hayek understands the term, “social justice” usually refers to the inten- tional doling out of economic rewards by the government, “some pattern of remunera- tion based on the assessment of the performance or the needs of different individuals * Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Pardon Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; e- mail: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationship Between Capitalism and Democracy
    The Relationship Between Capitalism And Democracy Item Type text; Electronic Thesis Authors Petkovic, Aleksandra Evelyn Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 01/10/2021 12:57:19 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/625122 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY By ALEKSANDRA EVELYN PETKOVIC ____________________ A Thesis Submitted to The Honors College In Partial Fulfillment of the Bachelors degree With Honors in Philosophy, Politics, Economics, and Law THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA M A Y 2 0 1 7 Approved by: ____________________________ Dr. Thomas Christiano Department of Philosophy Abstract This paper examines the very complex relationship between capitalism and democracy. While it appears that capitalism provides some necessary element for a democracy, a problem of political inequality and a possible violation of liberty can be observed in many democratic countries. I argue that this political inequality and threat to liberty are fueled by capitalism. I will analyze the ways in which capitalism works against democratic aims. This is done through first illustrating what my accepted conception of democracy is. I then continue to depict how the various problems with capitalism that I describe violate this conception of democracy. This leads me to my conclusion that while capitalism is necessary for a democracy to reach a certain needed level of independence from the state, capitalism simultaneously limits a democracy from reaching its full potential.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoliberalism, Higher Education, and the Knowledge Economy: from The
    This article was downloaded by: On: 28 September 2010 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Education Policy Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713693402 Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism Mark Olssena; Michael A. Petersb a University of Surrey, UK b University of Glasgow, UK To cite this Article Olssen, Mark and Peters, Michael A.(2005) 'Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism', Journal of Education Policy, 20: 3, 313 — 345 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/02680930500108718 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hayekian Restatement of Free Market Environmentalism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Research Papers in Economics 1 Liberty, Markets and Environmental Values: A Hayekian Defence of Free Market Environmentalism Mark Pennington Department of Politics Queen Mary College, University of London [email protected] 2 Liberty, Markets and Environmental Values: A Hayekian Defence of Free Market Environmentalism Introduction In recent years the development of ‘free market environmentalism’ has marked a major advance in the relationship between the classical liberal tradition and the challenge to individualist institutions presented by the modern environmental movement. Building on the work of Coase and the New Institutional Economics free market environmentalism has demonstrated that, far from being the inevitable result of market institutions environmental problems are best explained by the absence of these very institutions. Notwithstanding these advances, however, free market environmentalism has failed to have a significant impact on the environmental movement. Indeed, in so far as there has been any reaction to proposals for the extension of private property rights, these have tended to be hostile. One of the reasons for this lack of progress stems from the differing social ontologies adopted by the proponents of environmental markets and the green political theorists and activists who tend to favour command and control models of environmental regulation. The former have a tendency to emphasise notions of rational self interest, utility maximisation and efficiency, whilst the latter focus on communitarian conceptions which emphasise a non-reductionist account of social interaction and a ‘moralistic’ approach to environmental issues that seeks to institutionalise a search for the ‘common good’.
    [Show full text]
  • Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard
    Mere Libertarianism: Blending Hayek and Rothbard Daniel B. Klein Santa Clara University The continued progress of a social movement may depend on the movement’s being recognized as a movement. Being able to provide a clear, versatile, and durable definition of the movement or philosophy, quite apart from its justifications, may help to get it space and sympathy in public discourse. 1 Some of the most basic furniture of modern libertarianism comes from the great figures Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. Like their mentor Ludwig von Mises, Hayek and Rothbard favored sweeping reductions in the size and intrusiveness of government; both favored legal rules based principally on private property, consent, and contract. In view of the huge range of opinions about desirable reform, Hayek and Rothbard must be regarded as ideological siblings. Yet Hayek and Rothbard each developed his own ideas about liberty and his own vision for a libertarian movement. In as much as there are incompatibilities between Hayek and Rothbard, those seeking resolution must choose between them, search for a viable blending, or look to other alternatives. A blending appears to be both viable and desirable. In fact, libertarian thought and policy analysis in the United States appears to be inclined toward a blending of Hayek and Rothbard. At the center of any libertarianism are ideas about liberty. Differences between libertarianisms usually come down to differences between definitions of liberty or between claims made for liberty. Here, in exploring these matters, I work closely with the writings of Hayek and Rothbard. I realize that many excellent libertarian philosophers have weighed in on these matters and already said many of the things I say here.
    [Show full text]
  • Adam Smith 1723 – 1790 He Describes the General Harmony Of
    Adam Smith 1723 – 1790 He describes the general harmony of human motives and activities under a beneficent Providence, and the general theme of “the invisible hand” promoting the harmony of interests. The invisible hand: There are two important features of Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand”. First, Smith was not advocating a social policy (that people should act in their own self interest), but rather was describing an observed economic reality (that people do act in their own interest). Second, Smith was not claiming that all self-interest has beneficial effects on the community. He did not argue that self-interest is always good; he merely argued against the view that self- interest is necessarily bad. It is worth noting that, upon his death, Smith left much of his personal wealth to churches and charities. On another level, though, the “invisible hand” refers to the ability of the market to correct for seemingly disastrous situations with no intervention on the part of government or other organizations (although Smith did not, himself, use the term with this meaning in mind). For example, Smith says, if a product shortage were to occur, that product’s price in the market would rise, creating incentive for its production and a reduction in its consumption, eventually curing the shortage. The increased competition among manufacturers and increased supply would also lower the price of the product to its production cost plus a small profit, the “natural price.” Smith believed that while human motives are often selfish and greedy, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole anyway.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianism Karl Widerquist, Georgetown University-Qatar
    Georgetown University From the SelectedWorks of Karl Widerquist 2008 Libertarianism Karl Widerquist, Georgetown University-Qatar Available at: https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/8/ Libertarianism distinct ideologies using the same label. Yet, they have a few commonalities. [233] [V1b-Edit] [Karl Widerquist] [] [w6728] Libertarian socialism: Libertarian socialists The word “libertarian” in the sense of the believe that all authority (government or combination of the word “liberty” and the private, dictatorial or democratic) is suffix “-ian” literally means “of or about inherently dangerous and possibly tyrannical. freedom.” It is an antonym of “authoritarian,” Some endorse the motto: where there is and the simplest dictionary definition is one authority, there is no freedom. who advocates liberty (Simpson and Weiner Libertarian socialism is also known as 1989). But the name “libertarianism” has “anarchism,” “libertarian communism,” and been adopted by several very different “anarchist communism,” It has a variety of political movements. Property rights offshoots including “anarcho-syndicalism,” advocates have popularized the association of which stresses worker control of enterprises the term with their ideology in the United and was very influential in Latin American States and to a lesser extent in other English- and in Spain in the 1930s (Rocker 1989 speaking countries. But they only began [1938]; Woodcock 1962); “feminist using the term in 1955 (Russell 1955). Before anarchism,” which stresses person freedoms that, and in most of the rest of the world (Brown 1993); and “eco-anarchism” today, the term has been associated almost (Bookchin 1997), which stresses community exclusively with leftists groups advocating control of the local economy and gives egalitarian property rights or even the libertarian socialism connection with Green abolition of private property, such as and environmental movements.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Characteristics of the Free Market in a Cooperative Society
    ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FREE MARKET IN A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY Norbert N. Agbeko Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT The key characteristic of a true free market economy is that exchanges are entirely voluntary. When there is a monopoly in the creation of currency as we have in today’s markets, you no longer have a true free market. Features of the current economic system such as central banking and taxation would be nonexistent in a free market. This paper examines how currency monopoly leads to the instabilities and imbalances that we see in today’s economy. It also proposes that currencies should emerge from the voluntary exchange of goods and services, and studies economic interaction across all scales, by considering economic action in cases where the self-interests of individuals are coincident. By examining the voluntary exchange of goods and services at the scale of an entire society, it is shown that a new currency system, which resolves a lot of the problems caused by the current fiat currency system, emerges naturally from the free market. The new currency system is robust and efficient, and provides a way for public goods and services to be provided, and its providers compensated, without the need for direct taxation. JEL Codes: E14, E42. I. INTRODUCTION In our world today, currency arises from banking. Currency is initially created by a central bank and then expanded by banks through fractional reserve banking. The question of what the best way is for currency to be created is an open one. Our currency is generated from banking because of the way it evolved.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Major Economic Systems in the Aftermath of the Great Recession
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive A Comparative Study of the Major Economic Systems in the aftermath of the Great Recession Shaikh, Salman December 2009 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19588/ MPRA Paper No. 19588, posted 25 Dec 2009 10:51 UTC A Comparative Study of the Major Economic Systems in the aftermath of the Great Recession S a l m a n A h m e d S h a i k h M S ( S z a b i s t , K a r a c h i ) L e c t u r e r , U n i v e r s i t y o f E a s t , H y d e r a b a d [email protected] A Comparative Study of the Major Economic Systems in the aftermath of the Great Recession Abstract This paper compares the fundamental postulates of major economic systems i.e. Capitalism, Socialism, Mixed economy (a hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism) and the Islamic economic system. It identifies through a review of theoretical economics the structural problems that lie in the current economic order. Poverty and Inequality have increased in last two decades and the millennium development goals are still far from achieved. The research identifies that lack of an ethical foundation, unbridled pursuit of self interest in production as well as in consumption, interest based financial ad monetary system are the major problematic issues in Capitalism against which mixed economy has also shown limited effectiveness. Socialism promises to create heaven on earth, but takes fundamental human rights and profit motive away and in the extreme case give way for an autocratic or totalitarian regime.
    [Show full text]