This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Capitalistic Competition as a Communicative Community - Why Politics Is Less “Deliberative” than Markets

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Wohlgemuth, Michael () (Walter Eucken Institut)
Abstract

Discourse theorists such as Habermas tend to disregard the communicative character and discoursive power of market processes and at the same time overrate the ability of political deliberation to discover and implement social problem solutions. Mainstream economists have little to contribute to this debate since they regard both economic and political “markets” as simple instruments for the aggregation of given preferences. Hayek and other “Austrian” market process theorists, however, provide a rich theory that highlights the role of competition as a process of discovery, persuasion, experimentation and opinion formation. I use this analytical framework in order to show first that real market processes in many respects correspond to most ambitious claims of ideal deliberation such as “domination-free discourse” or “the unforced force of the better argument”. Next, I confront the deliberative ideal with predicaments of real political discourse, stressing opportunity costs (rational ignorance, shortage of attention, decision costs), asymmetric incompetence and the interventionist bias of political deliberation, and problems of “cheap talk” (preference falsification, opinion cascades, enclave deliberation). In order to make political discourse most effective within the limits described above, I argue in favour of privatisation, decentralisation and constitutionalisation as policy conclusions. I end with a summary comparison of economic and political competition as means to discover and disseminate local knowledge in society.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.ratio.se/pdf/wp/mw_delib.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by The Ratio Institute in its series Ratio Working Papers with number 49.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 34 pages
Date of creation: 25 May 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:hhs:ratioi:0049

Contact details of provider:
Postal: The Ratio Institute, P.O. Box 5095, SE-102 42 Stockholm, Sweden
Phone: 08-587 054 00
Fax: 08-587 054 05
Email:
Web page: http://www.ratio.se/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Niclas Berggren).

Related research
Keywords: discourse theory; market process theory; deliberative democracy; preference falsification; opinion formation; interventionism;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
A12 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Relation of Economics to Other Disciplines
B53 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Austrian
D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy-Making and Implementation
D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search, Learning, and Information
P10 - Economic Systems - - Capitalist Systems - - - General

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About 1000 journals are listed on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-18.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.