Search results
1 – 10 of 506The term “dynamics of interventionism” refers to a social process, i.e., a sequence of adjustments to change over time, among a great many individuals, who largely share a common…
Abstract
The term “dynamics of interventionism” refers to a social process, i.e., a sequence of adjustments to change over time, among a great many individuals, who largely share a common set of rules of interaction.1 It is constituted by the unintended consequences at the interface between the governmental and market processes, when the scope of government is either expanding or contracting in relation to the market. Interventionism is the doctrine or system based on the limited use of political means (i.e., legitimized violent aggression (Oppenheimer, 1975[1914])) to address problems identified with laissez-faire capitalism. Thus, an intervention refers to the use of, or the threat of using, political means to influence non-violent actions and exchanges. Supporters of interventionism do not completely reject the institutions of capitalism, such as private property and the price system, but do favor using piecemeal interventions that extend beyond so-called minimal-state capitalism2 in order to combat suspected failures or abuses they associate with the unhampered market. Examples of this would include, but are not limited to, market power, externality, asymmetric information, income inequality, racial and sexual discrimination, and the business cycle.
Over the last century, governments throughout the established democracies have increasingly sought to regulate land markets via all manner of interventions. Such policies have…
Abstract
Over the last century, governments throughout the established democracies have increasingly sought to regulate land markets via all manner of interventions. Such policies have typically been defended on the ‘market failure’ grounds of orthodox welfare economics. Absent government action, it is argued, price signals will not be reflective of the relevant opportunity costs, owing to the prevalence of externality and public goods problems in the market for land.
The relationship between government and market is the key to the economic development performance of market economy countries. Due to the limits such as the state/market…
Abstract
Purpose
The relationship between government and market is the key to the economic development performance of market economy countries. Due to the limits such as the state/market dichotomy, the focus on static allocation efficiency and the ignorance of the diversity of the market economy and the relationship between government and market, economic liberalism and state interventionism can hardly position and explain the role and evolution of government and market in the real world accurately.
Design/methodology/approach
China’s economic transition has always adhered to the reform direction of the socialist market economy and the development goal of a modern socialist country as well as the symbiosis and positive and progressive evolution of government and market, blazing a “third way” in handling the relationship between government and market.
Findings
The “China’s experience” shows that the key for emerging market economies to achieve good economic development performance lies in whether they can build a new relationship of the mutual integration between and common prosperity of government and market regarding target selection, production organisation, technological innovation, institutional change and regulatory adjustment.
Originality/value
The second part of this paper analyses the inherent defects of economic liberalism and state interventionism as well as the reasons why they can hardly be adopted as the theoretical guidance for emerging market economies to handle the relationship between government and market. The third part analyses how China has transcended the inherent thinking of liberalism and interventionism and shaped the new relationship between government and market through goal-oriented, active and progressive, two-way interactive exploration and practice to ensure the success of China's economic transition.
Details
Keywords
John Hagel and Walter E. Grinder
This paper will develop some of the social and political implications of the Austrian theory of interventionism originally presented by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek.1…
Abstract
This paper will develop some of the social and political implications of the Austrian theory of interventionism originally presented by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek.1 Specifically, it stresses the inherently destabilizing and retrogressive characteristics of the interventionist dynamic within a market system and argues that the dislocations produced by political intervention in the market system ultimately require the replacement of the price mechanism by a completely different system for the allocation of resources based on arbitrary political decision-making (the Zwangswirtschaft type of social organization discussed by von Mises). These points will be developed within the framework of an analytical model of the structure and dynamics of political capitalism as it has evolved historically in the U.S.
In almost all aspects of social life government intervention seems much more pervasive and intrusive today than ever before – at least in many of the Western countries…
Abstract
In almost all aspects of social life government intervention seems much more pervasive and intrusive today than ever before – at least in many of the Western countries. Governments seem year by year to consume still more resources and to regulate the details of the actions and interactions of their citizens still further.
Notes taken and edited by David L. Prychitko
Peter Boettke and I had taken Don Lavoie's graduate Comparative Economic Systems course during the Fall of 1985. Lavoie had just published Rivalry and Central Planning (Lavoie…
Abstract
Peter Boettke and I had taken Don Lavoie's graduate Comparative Economic Systems course during the Fall of 1985. Lavoie had just published Rivalry and Central Planning (Lavoie, 1985b) and National Economic Planning: What is left? (Lavoie, 1985a), and was at the cusp of establishing himself as a major player in the comparative systems and contemporary critique of socialist planning literature.1
A typology of interventionism can categorize regulations, taxes, and subsidies both theoretically and as they sequentially unfold in practice. This typology is inspired by, but…
Abstract
A typology of interventionism can categorize regulations, taxes, and subsidies both theoretically and as they sequentially unfold in practice. This typology is inspired by, but broader than, the Mises interventionist thesis, which, similar to Madison's lament, recognizes the propensity of intervention to expand from its own shortcomings in the elusive quest to achieve economic rationality (Lavoie, 1982, p. 180; Ikeda, 1997, pp. 41–46; Bradley, 2006).
It is frequently claimed that the interventionist economic policies which the Nazi government began to pursue as soon as it had come to power were ideologically motivated (cf…
Abstract
It is frequently claimed that the interventionist economic policies which the Nazi government began to pursue as soon as it had come to power were ideologically motivated (cf. Barkai, 1990). There is undeniably some truth in this hypothesis – after all, an important strand in German political and economic thought, which goes back to the age of absolutism and which flourished in the post-World War I period, favored state power and state control of society (Mises, 1944b). Still, Nazi interventionism may have had stronger foundations than just ideology. It is the hypothesis of this article that it was rather grounded in the structure of the state erected by the Hitler regime. Far from being the monolithic power bloc proclaimed by its propagandists, the Third Reich was in fact composed of a plethora of political authorities, government offices, and bureaucratic departments supplemented by an increasing number of “Reich-Plenipotentiaries”, “Special Representatives”, and other satraps of Hitler who were appointed to solve specific problems and were never recalled. It is claimed here that it was the power struggles waged by these individuals and bureaucratic agencies which boosted the increasingly interventionist policies of the Nazi regime.
Many of us who believe that governments continue to grow relentlessly, at least in the economically advanced countries, have been criticized by analysts who claim that in fact the…
Abstract
Many of us who believe that governments continue to grow relentlessly, at least in the economically advanced countries, have been criticized by analysts who claim that in fact the growth of government has petered out or slowed substantially. Those who advance such claims perceive us to be needlessly alarmed, and they fault us for a failure to acknowledge the decisive turn of events associated with the so-called Reagan and Thatcher revolutions of the 1980s. Not to worry, they exhort us; the statists are on the run, and a brave new world of market-oriented liberalism shimmers on the horizon (Boaz, 2003).