Public Choice

, Volume 134, Issue 1–2, pp 87–95 | Cite as

Neither Hayek nor Habermas

  • Cass R. SunsteinEmail author


The rise of the blogosphere raises important questions about the elicitation and aggregation of information, and about democracy itself. Do blogs allow people to check information and correct errors? Can we understand the blogosphere as operating as a kind of marketplace for information along Hayekian terms? Or is it a vast public meeting of the kind that Jurgen Habermas describes? In this article, I argue that the blogosphere cannot be understood as a Hayekian means for gathering dispersed knowledge because it lacks any equivalent of the price system. I also argue that forces of polarization characterize the blogosphere as they do other social interactions, making it an unlikely venue for Habermasian deliberation, and perhaps leading to the creation of information cocoons. I conclude by briefly canvassing partial responses to the problem of polarization.


Hayek Blogs Information aggregation Condorcet Jury Theorem 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adamic, L., & Glance, N. (2005). The political blogosphere and the 2004 election: divided they blog. Available at
  2. Aristotle (1972). Politics. London: Oxford University Press (translated by E. Barker). Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R., Hoppe, S. I., Kao, C. F., Brunsman, B., Linneweh, B., & Rogers, D. (1996). Social corroboration and opinion extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 537–560. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, R. (1985). Social psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
  5. Habermas, J. (1979). What is universal pragmatics? In Communication and the evolution of society. Boston: Beacon (translated by T. McCarthy). Google Scholar
  6. Habermas, J. (1999). Between facts and norms: an author’s reflections. Denver University Law Review, 937, 940–941. Google Scholar
  7. Hastie, R., Schkade, D., & Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Political deliberation and ideological amplification: an experimental investigation. California Law Review. Google Scholar
  8. Hayek, F. (1984). The use of knowledge in society. In C. Nishiyama & K. Leube (Eds.), The essence of Hayek. Stanford: Hoover. Google Scholar
  9. Posner, R. (2004). Introduction to the Becker–Posner blog., December.
  10. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Belknap. Google Scholar
  11. Schkade, D., Sunstein, C. R., & Kahneman, D. (2000). Deliberating about dollars: the severity shift. Columbia Law Review, 100, 1139–1175. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sunstein, C. (2006). Infotopia: how many minds produce knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  13. Sunstein, C. R., Schkade, D., Ellman, L. M., & Sawicki, A. (2006). Are judges political? An empirical investigation of the federal judiciary. Washington: Brookings. Google Scholar
  14. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. New York: Blackwell. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Chicago Law SchoolChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations