IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/icr/wpicer/09-2004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Interest and Self-Interest in the Market and the Democratic Process

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Koslowski

Abstract

The idea of public interest has been criticized by economic theory as being naïve in its believe that politicians could anticipate something like the public interest. Public Choice theory has shown that politicians are as self-interested as other acting persons. The paper examines this criticism. It points to the fact that also what is in our self-interest in the long run is difficult to know and to anticipate. The relationship between public and private interest is therefore more complicated than the pure theory of the invisible hand assumes. The paper also examines how public interest and private interests interact in the firm. The common good is not only a political but also a managerial concept. The management is not only obliged to fulfill its fiduciary duty towards the shareholders or owners and to act in their interest but must also realize the common good of the firm as the good of all members of the firm. There is an analogy between the politician and the manager: both cannot only work in the interest of their party or employers. To work for the common good is part of their office, part of the nature of their task of good governance in the interest of those concerned by their decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Koslowski, 2004. "Public Interest and Self-Interest in the Market and the Democratic Process," ICER Working Papers 09-2004, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:icr:wpicer:09-2004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.bemservizi.unito.it/repec/icr/wp2004/Koslowski9-04.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jeffery Smith, 2018. "Efficiency and Ethically Responsible Management," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 603-618, July.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:icr:wpicer:09-2004. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Daniele Pennesi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/icerrit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.