Should evolutionary economists embrace libertarian paternalism?

Libertarian paternalists hold that biases and distortions in human decision-making justify paternalistic interference affecting individuals’ decisions. The aim of this paper is to analzye to what extent an evolutionary outlook supports libertarian paternalism. I will put forward three arguments in favour of libertarian paternalism and six objections that strongly oppose it. While evolutionary economists should take seriously the contention that our positive knowledge of real-world decision-making will have to influence our normative assessment of these decisions, the objections against libertarian paternalism brought forward in this paper serve as a cautionary note. Contrary to the claims of its proponents, libertarian paternalism is neither inevitable, nor does it provide an adequate measuring rod of normative rationality. It is prone to abuse by anchoring its standard of rationality pragmatically to norms and can thus promote conservative bias and stifle innovative exploration. It also presents the policy-maker with a compounded Hayekian knowledge problem. Finally, from a dynamic point of view, libertarian paternalism’s manipulative shaping of preferences might lock-in individuals into heteronomous preference learning paths without them being even aware of it.     

Is the economics of time and ignorance a “classic”?

A history of economic thought perspective on The Economics of Time and Ignorance reveals that the book rehabilitates some major themes in the Austrian tradition that were all but lost subsequent to the formalist revolution in economics that took place in the middle of the twentieth-century. The book also anticipates some important ideas that were extended and applied in Austrian economics after it was first published. Reviews have claimed that the book was a “classic” and also “original”. The book is too close in a temporal sense to judge whether or not future generations will canonize it as a “classic”. Using Stigler’s criteria as to what constitutes scientific “originality”, it is concluded that, taken as a whole, the book was not original. From the vantage point of the overall discipline of economics, it was a work advancing controversial ideas that would not easily change the beliefs, practices and interests of economists in general but it offered sound reasons for taking the Austrian thought-trajectory more seriously. It would be more fitting to view the authors as providers of many innovations contributing to the mature Austrian economics of the twenty-first century.     

“Generalized Darwinism” and the quest for an evolutionary theory of policy-making

According to the “Generalized Darwinism” movement (GD), the three principles of variation, selection and retention/replication (labeled “Darwinian” in some variants of GD) can and should be used as a meta-theoretical framework for the explanation of evolutionary processes in the sociocultural domain. Despite their biological origins, the various variants of GD aim at redefining these principles in a way that is supposed to abstract from any domain-specific particulars. We argue that in order to qualify as an adequate meta-theoretical framework for evolutionary economics, GD should not only inspire and guide positive theory development in evolutionary economics, but also be able to support viable practical policy implications. Examining its potential to do so, however, leads us to the conclusion that in its specific deductive variant proposed by Hodgson & Knudsen (HKGD), it risks systematically misguiding evolutionary policy advice. Competing variants, such as the one proposed by Pelikan, fare better in this regard.     

Evaluation and countermeasures for coordinated development in the active export-oriented region： a case study on Zhejiang, China

Taking a typical active export-oriented region Zhejiang as an example, this paper tries to evaluate its Coordinated Development Degree （CDD） form 1997, focusing on the characteristics of its export-oriented econom〉 and regional environment. The results show that Zhejiang ＇s CDD has kept increasing steadily after its slight drop in 1998. Finally, four measurements are proposed to promote sustainable development, including increasing and equalizing region＇s environmental investment, changing pollution-intensive export structure to avoid restricting the whole industrial structure, restricting simple spatial translocation of high-material consumption, high-energy consumption and high-pollution industries, etc.     

A comment on: “Efficient propagation of shocks and the optimal return on money”

Lotteries are introduced into Cavalcanti and Erosa (2008) [2], a version of Trejos and Wright (1995) [4] with aggregate shocks. Lotteries improve welfare and eliminate the two notable features of the optimum with deterministic trades: over-production and history-dependence. Moreover, the optimum can be supported by buyer take-it-or-leave-it offers.     

“Better off,as judged by themselves”: a comment on evaluating nudges

Many nudges are designed to make people better off, as judged by themselves. This criterion, meant to ensure that nudges will increase people’s welfare, contains some ambiguity. It is useful to distinguish among three categories of cases: (1) those in which choosers have clear antecedent preferences, and nudges help them to satisfy those preferences (often by increasing “navigability”); (2) those in which choosers face a self-control problem, and nudges help them to overcome that problem; and (3) those in which choosers would be content with the outcomes produced by two or more nudges, or in which ex post preferences are endogenous to nudges, so that without additional clarification or work, the “as judged by themselves” criterion does not identify a unique solution for choice architects. Category (1) is self-evidently large. Because many people agree that they suffer self-control problems, category (2) is large as well. Cases that fall in category (3) create special challenges, which may lead us to make direct inquiries into welfare or to explore what informed, active choosers typically select.     

“Austerian” economics: Does the Vienna school favor fiscal deficit reduction even in a subpar economy?

Does the economic analysis associated with the modern Austrian school favor a policy of restraining the government’s fiscal deficit even in a subpar economy, as suggested by those who (pejoratively) label such a policy “austerian”? Because resources are not superabundant even in a subpar economy, the answer is yes, unless (implausibly) the return on the last (lowest-payoff) dollar of government expenditure exceeds the return on private investment.     

Towards a Common European Security and Defence Policy? The Debate on NATO,the European Army and Transatlantic Security

The movement towards a Common European Security and Defence Policy (CESDP) in the contemporary European Union (EU), and the possible creation of a European army, capture the leitmotiv of contemporary European political integration. The movement towards a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) in western Europe raises key questions about the very nature of European foreign and defence policy, transatlantic relations and, most significantly, the core meaning and destination of European union. Defence therefore takes on a salience not just in its own field, but in the entire European integration process. The culmination of interstate security co-operation would be the formation of an integrated security community in which identities and policy-making capacities have been consolidated or unified at the European level. Defence policy forms the spine of broader European security policy and a security strategy can only exist with a strong military spine. This is especially prescient following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 on New York and Washington, DC. Washington expects Europe to follow its lead in international politics and terrorism policy. Since 1998, the Europeans have developed new plans to gain greater political and military independence from Washington and NATO. To what extent, therefore, does the EU want to go beyond being a mere 'civilian power' towards being a 'military power' following the recent terrorist attacks? What are the consequences of such a transformation for western Europe, the United States (US) and transatlantic relations? To what extent will the US remain involved in European security and in what form? The present analysis begins with an analysis of key issues in European defence and security after 11 September 2001. The article then goes on to consider options for transatlantic relations and European security. The article then considers the positions of the major western European powers towards the so-called CESDP. The article goes on to consider CESDP in the new global order, including US hopes and concerns for CESDP. Finally, the conclusion focuses on the prospects for European defence and security into the twenty-first century.     

Socioeconomics and the new “battle of the methods”: Towards a paradigm shift?

During the last ten or fifteen years the old separation between economics and other social sciences has increasingly been challenged by economists applying the neoclassical paradigm to problems that traditionally concern the other social sciences. The main thesis of this paper is that this so-called “economic imperialism” threatens to unleash a new paradigmatic struggle in the social sciences, which is likely to be just as destructive as the old Methodenstreit. It is in this situation that socioeconomics emerges as a viable alternative since it emphasizes the need for a systhesis of the findings of several social sciences when an economic problem is analyzed. The article stresses the original battle of the methods at the turn of the century that gave birth to a set of ideas, analogous to those of Etzioni on socioeconomics, namely what Max Weber called Sozialökonomik. The emergence of “economic imperialism” is described, and the essay ends with a plea for a socioeconomics in the sense of a broad, overarching approach to economic analysis. Economic imperialism, it is concluded, threatens to close the door to new developments in economics; socioeconomics, on the other hand, tries to keep it open.