IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/epolit/v40y2023i2d10.1007_s40888-023-00301-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Justice vis à vis welfare: how Austrian welfare economics should fit in the Austro-libertarian framework

Author

Listed:
  • Igor Wysocki

    (Nicolaus Copernicus University)

Abstract

The present work calls for a modification of Austrian welfare economics so that it should be given a distinct role within the Austro-libertarian paradigm. To this end, we clearly distinguish between justice and welfare. We proceed by trying to stick to the spirit of Austro-libertarianism as firmly as possible. In particular, we operate within the universe of voluntary (viz. rights-respecting) exchanges, having assumed the libertarian absolutist side-constraints view of rights. Furthermore, we take for granted the Austrian actual preference satisfaction view. The specific purpose of the present paper is two-fold. First, we subject Austrian rights-based welfare economics to critical scrutiny. Concluding that the above theory begs the question in favor of free market, we assert that to gauge market efficiency we need to resort to some descriptive criterion, which could reasonably be deemed constitutive of welfare. And it is only then that the question of market efficiency is an open question.

Suggested Citation

  • Igor Wysocki, 2023. "Justice vis à vis welfare: how Austrian welfare economics should fit in the Austro-libertarian framework," Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics, Springer;Fondazione Edison, vol. 40(2), pages 445-467, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:epolit:v:40:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40888-023-00301-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s40888-023-00301-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40888-023-00301-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40888-023-00301-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hausman,Daniel M. & McPherson,Michael S., 2006. "Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy and Public Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521608664, December.
    2. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    3. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107015432, January.
    4. Gene Callahan, 2013. "Liberty versus libertarianism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 12(1), pages 48-67, February.
    5. Hausman,Daniel M. & McPherson,Michael S., 2006. "Economic Analysis, Moral Philosophy and Public Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521846295, January.
    6. Hausman,Daniel M., 2012. "Preference, Value, Choice, and Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107695122, January.
    7. Boettke, Peter J., 1995. "Why are There No Austrian Socialists? Ideology, Science and the Austrian School," Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 35-56, April.
    8. Herbener, Jeffrey M, 1997. "The Pareto Rule and Welfare Economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 79-106.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jonathan Anomaly, 2015. "Public goods and government action," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 14(2), pages 109-128, May.
    2. Hausman, Catherine & Stolper, Samuel, 2021. "Inequality, information failures, and air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Francesco GUALA, 2017. "Preferences: Neither Behavioural nor Mental," Departmental Working Papers 2017-05, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    4. Cheng Li, 2019. "Morality and value neutrality in economics: a dualist view," The Journal of Philosophical Economics, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, The Journal of Philosophical Economics, vol. 12(2), pages 97-118, May.
    5. Jonathan B. Wight, 2011. "Ethics and Critical Thinking," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 18, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality within Three Dimensions," Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Including a Symposium on Latin American Monetary Thought: Two Centuries in Search of Originality, volume 36, pages 119-155, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    7. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    8. Roberto Fumagalli, 2016. "Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justificatory challenges," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(2), pages 459-480, August.
    9. Gerardo Infante & Guilhem Lecouteux & Robert Sugden, 2016. "Preference purification and the inner rational agent: a critique of the conventional wisdom of behavioural welfare economics," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 1-25, March.
    10. Moscati, Ivan, 2021. "On the recent philosophy of decision theory," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 115039, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Antoinette Baujard, 2022. "Ethics and Technique in Welfare Economics: How Welfarism Evolves in the Making," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 73(6), pages 1039-1053.
    12. D Wade Hands, 2013. "GP08 is the New F53: Gul and Pesendorfer’s Methodological Essay from the Viewpoint of Blaug’s Popperian Methodology," Chapters, in: Marcel Boumans & Matthias Klaes (ed.), Mark Blaug: Rebel with Many Causes, chapter 17, pages 245-266, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Diana Dmitrievna Burkaltseva & Oleg Valerievich Boychenko & Olga Sergeevna Sivash & Nicholas Maksimovich Mazur & Snezhana Anatolyevna Zotova & Aleksey Valeryevich Novikov, 2017. "The Construction of the Digital Organizational, Social and Economic Production Mechanism in the Agro-industry," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(4B), pages 350-365.
    14. Marek Jenöffy, 2023. "A Seesaw Model of Choices," Working Papers hal-04136550, HAL.
    15. Gough, Ian, 2014. "Climate change and sustainable welfare: an argument for the centrality of human needs," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58630, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Bert Van Wee & Sabine Roeser, 2013. "Ethical Theories and the Cost--Benefit Analysis-Based Ex Ante Evaluation of Transport Policies and Plans," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(6), pages 743-760, November.
    17. Guilhem Lecouteux & Ivan Mitrouchev, 2022. "Preference Purification in Behavioural Welfare Economics: an Impossibility Result," GREDEG Working Papers 2022-31, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    18. Nguyen, Quynh, 2015. "“Mind the Gap”: Inequality Aversion and Mass Support for Protectionism," Papers 838, World Trade Institute.
    19. Benedetta Giovanola, 2009. "Re-Thinking the Anthropological and Ethical Foundation of Economics and Business: Human Richness and Capabilities Enhancement," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 431-444, September.
    20. Koen Decancq & Dirk Neumann, 2014. "Does the Choice of Well-Being Measure Matter Empirically?: An Illustration with German Data," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 717, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Austro-libertarianism; Justice; Voluntary exchange; Welfare economics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K11 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Property Law
    • P1 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies
    • D6 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics

    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:spr:epolit:v:40:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s40888-023-00301-2. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.