James M. Buchanan: An appreciation

James M. Buchanan co-founded the field of Public Choice. He was influenced by Austrian economics, and in turn influenced Austrian economics. In particular, he advanced the understanding of subjectivist cost theory. His individualist approach to public policy making has been adopted by many Austrian economists. With Richard Wagner, he analyzed the politics of Keynesian economics. They explained why Keynesianism in practice led to a larger government, permanent deficits and inflationary monetary policy.     

James M. Buchanan: Through an Austrian window

This tribute to the late James Buchanan is an elaboration of themes he developed on the importance of processes in real, experienced time, especially for individual choice. The conventional way of modeling choice is to think of it as the solution to a constrained maximization problem. If, however, we look at choice as a process in time it is inseparable from the evolution and self-development of the individual. Preferences emerge in the process of their becoming. The fundamental characteristic of choice is thus the expression of autonomy and not the satisfaction of given preferences. The implications of this for normative economics are explored.     

Value and exchange in law and economics: Buchanan versus posner

Meir Kohn’s Exchange and Value claims that economics can be organised around two opposed paradigms, the exchange and the value paradigms. In this paper, we apply this dichotomy to characterize the analyses proposed by economists in the field known as “law and economics”. We compare and contrasts the perspectives proposed by two prominent scholars—James Buchanan and Richard Posner—and argue that they, respectively, represent the exchange and the value paradigm in law and economics. More precisely, we show that Buchanan sticks to a definition of economics based on the exchange paradigm, and this leads him to define law and economics in a rather specific, different, narrower than Posner’s way to define law and economics—a definition that corresponds to a conception of economics based on the value paradigm.     

Reminiscences of James Buchanan and the Virginia School

These are my personal reflections on James Buchanan and the development of the Virginia School.     

James M. Buchanan’s 1981 visit to Chile: Knightian democrat or defender of the ‘Devil’s fix’?

Nobel Prize winning economist James M. Buchanan has repeatedly argued that the “political economist should not act as if he or she were providing advice to a benevolent despot” (Boettke Constitutional Political Economy, 25, 110–124, 2014: 112), but an increasingly influential body of scholarship argues that Buchanan provided a wealth of early 1980s policy advice to Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship in Chile (e.g., Fischer 2009; Maclean 2017). In particular, Buchanan reportedly provided an analytical defense of military rule to a predominantly Chilean audience when he visited the country in late 1981. This paper draws upon largely ignored archival evidence from the Buchanan House Archives and Chilean primary source material to assess whether Buchanan provided a defense of Pinochet’s “capitalist fascism” (Samuelson 1983) or whether he defended democracy when he visited Chile in 1981. Aside from the importance of this for assessing Buchanan’s own legacy, his constitutional political economy arguments presented in Chile also provide an interesting and distinct perspective on the connection between democracy and growth, which remains highly relevant to current debates. Despite a general agreement about the desirability of democracy, the view that authoritarian regimes can spur “growth miracles”, or might even be a necessary stage in political-economic development, still has prominent supporters (e.g. Sachs 2012).

     

Public choice versus constitutional economics: A methodological interpretation of the Buchanan research program

Through conceptual redirections, the Buchanan research program attempts to react to the fact that economic policy advice is often ignored. In terms of positive analyses, the research perspective is focused on institutions, i.e., the rules of economic as well as political games. In terms of normative analyses, the democratic criterion of unanimous consent is substituted for the normative efficiency criterion employed by welfare economics. The underlying idea is to direct positive analyses toward developing informative explanations on which normative analyses can build in order to provide intellectual orientation and thereby to contribute to democratic self-enlightenment. However, large parts of the existing public choice literature can be regarded as empirically oriented welfare-economic analyses of the political sector. Consequently, they run the danger of duplicating the failure of economic policy advice. This is why, during the 80s James Buchanan has changed the name of his research program from public choice to constitutional economics.     

Ecological economics and the politics of knowledge: the debate between Hayek and Neurath

Hayek's epistemic arguments against planning were aimed notjust against socialism but also the tradition of ecologicaleconomics. The concern with the physical preconditions of economicactivity and defence of non-monetary measures in economic choicewere expressions of the same rationalist illusion about thescope of human knowledge that underpinned the socialist project.Neurath's commitment to physicalism, in natura calculation andplanning typified these errors. Neurath responded to these criticismsin unpublished notes and correspondence with Hayek. These highlightedthe epistemological premises his work shared with Hayek's, representinga response to Hayek from Hayek's own assumptions. This paperexamines the cogency and continuing relevance of the argumentsin this debate.     

The neglect of the French liberal school in Anglo-American economics: A critique of received explanations

Conclusion My purpose in this article has been to demonstrate that the contributions of the French liberal school to economic theory were recognized and utilized by some economists who are generally considered to have played prominent roles in the initial development of modern marginalist economic theory or who have anticipated and influenced such development. If this much is accepted, then the attempt of Schumpeter and other scholars to explain the Anglo-American neglect of the liberal school in terms of the latter's analytical sterility or indifference immediately founders. While an alternative explanation has not been provided, considerable progress has been made by radically shifting the focus of research from alleged analytical shortcomings of the liberal school to the identification of the institutional factors that have impeded recognition by (most) English-speaking economists of the substantive theoretical content of liberal economics.     

The economics and politics of output volatility: evidence from Indian states

Employing data for 1981–2009, this paper examines the factors influencing the volatility of state output, using India as a case study. The analysis appears to suggest that high income states exhibit relatively higher output volatility. At the state-level, the proximate determinants of a decline in output volatility can be traced to financial deepening, government expenditures and institutional quality. Also, state-level political factors are also found to play an important role. In addition, at the macroeconomic level, monetary policy considerations are observed to be the most important factor impacting output volatility.     

Religion,economics and politics: The Bishops and Keynes in the post-Keynesian ERA

This paper makes a proposal for reintroducing sociological or social economics into contemporary economic science. Such a reintroduction is proposed to be substantive, by analyzing the social structuring of the economy, and formal, by including sociological/social economics in the current (JEL) classification system of economic disciplines (code A.15). Both epistemological and ontological arguments can be presented to support the proposal. Epistemological arguments invoke the presence of essential components of sociological economics in the development of economic thought, and ontological arguments stress the role of social factors in economic life. In this paper I present primarily epistemological (theoretical-methodological) arguments for sociological economics, and secondarily ontological ones. I show that the present designation, sociology of economics, is something different from sociological or social economics in that the former refers to economic epistemology (knowledge) and the latter to economic ontology (reality). I conclude that, in addition to a sociology of economic science, we need a sociology of economic life.     

Religion,economics and politics: The Bishops and Keynes in the post-Keynesian ERA

The present is adapted from Bruce J. Malina and Thomas O. Nitsch, “The Bishops' Pastoral Letter and the Poverty Problem: Early vs. Contemporary Concerns and Doctrines,” presented at the Fourth World Congress of Social Economics, Toronto, Canada, 15–18 August 1986, 34 pp. The author is deeply indebted to colleagues Malina, professor of theology at Creighton University, and John E. Elliott, professor of economics at the University of Southern California, for helpful critical insights and comments.