The Review of Austrian Economics

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 81–93 | Cite as

Relaxing benevolence: public choice, socialist calculation, and planner self-interest

Abstract

The Austrian calculation argument suggests that inability to engage in economic calculation worsened outcomes in socialist states. We suggest that this is hardly the case. When Austrian assumptions of benevolence are relaxed, inability to engage in economic calculation prevents the non-benevolent planner from fully extracting all available surplus from the citizenry. Consequently, when planners are non-benevolent, calculation ceases to be a relevant argument against the desirability of central planning; its normative force reverses absent benevolent planners.

Keywords

Benevolence Calculation Planning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benson, B. (2003) “Regulatory Disequilibrium and Inefficiency: The Case of Interstate Trucking,” Review of Austrian Economics. 15(2/3): 229–255.Google Scholar
  2. Boettke, P. (1990) The Political Economy of Soviet Socialism: The Formative Years, (1918–1928),Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Boettke, P. (1998) “Economic Calculation: The Austrian Contribution to Political Economy,” Advances in Austrian Economics 5: 131–8.Google Scholar
  4. Boettke, P. (2000) “Towards a History of the Theory of Socialist Planning.” In vol. 1 of Socialism and the Market: The Socialist Calculation Debate Revisited, edited by P.J. Boettke. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Boettke, P. (2001) Calculation and Coordination: Essays on socialism and transitional political economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Boettke, P. and Anderson G. (1997) “Soviet Venality: A Rent-seeking Model of the Communist State,” Public Choice 93: 37–53.Google Scholar
  7. Boudreaux, D. and Crampton E. (2003) “Truth and Consequences: Some Economics of False Consciousness,” The Independent Review. 8:1 (Summer): 27–45.Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, G. and Buchanan J. M. (1980 [2000]) The Power to Tax. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J. M. (1992) Better than Plowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Caplan, B. (2002) “Economic Calculation, Quantitative Laws, and the “Impossibility” of Socialism,” Public Choice Working Paper.Google Scholar
  11. Caplan, B. (2003) “Museum of Communism. Available at http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/musframe.htm”
  12. Caplan, B. and Stringham E. (2003) “Mises, Bastiat, Public Opinion, and Public Choice: What's Wrong With Democracy,” Public Choice Working Paper.Google Scholar
  13. Cowen, T. (1995) “A Reexamination of the Socialist Calculation Debate: A review essay on G.C. Archibald's Information, Incentives, and the Economics of Control.” Journal of International and Comparative Economics. 4: 243–249.Google Scholar
  14. Cowen, T. and Sutter D. (1999) “The Costs of Cooperation,” Review of Austrian Economics. 12(2): 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickinson, H. D. (1939) Economics of Socialism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. D'Souza, D. (2004) “Reagan versus the Intellectuals,” Available at http://www.dineshdsouza.com/REAGAN_VS_INTELLECTUALS.htm
  17. Edlin, A. S., Epelbaum, M., and Heller. W. P. (1998) “Is Perfect Price Discrimination Really Efficient?: Welfare and Existence in General Equilibrium,” Econometrica. 66(4): 897–922.Google Scholar
  18. Farrant, A. (2004) “Frank Knight, worst-case theorizing, and economic planning: socialism as monopoly politics,” History of Political Economy, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  19. Glaeser, E. (2003) “Psychology and The Market”. NBER Working Paper 10203.Google Scholar
  20. Hayek, F. A. (1935) Collectivist Economic Planning. London: George Routledge and Sons.Google Scholar
  21. Hayek, F. A. (1944 [1986]). The Road To Serfdom. London: Ark Paperbacks.Google Scholar
  22. Knight, F. (1940 [1982]). “Socialism: The Nature of the Problem.” In Freedom and Reform: Essays in Economics and Social Philosophy. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
  23. Levy, D. M. (1990) “The bias in centrally planned prices.” Public Choice, 67: 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Levy, D. M. (2000) “Comment.” In Concentrated Ownership, edited by R. Morck. Chicago: NBER.Google Scholar
  25. Levy, D. M. (2001) How the Dismal Science Got Its Name. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  26. Olson, M. (1993.) “Dictatorship, Democracy and Development.” American Political Science Review. 87(3): 567–576.Google Scholar
  27. Olson, M. (2000) Power and Prosperity. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Rothbard, M. N. (1976) “Praxeology, Value Judgments, and Public Policy.” In The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics, edited by E.G. Dolan. Kansas: Sheed & Ward.Google Scholar
  29. Shleifer, A. and Vishny. R. (1992) “Pervasive shortages under socialism.” RAND Journal of Economics. 23(2): 237–246.Google Scholar
  30. Steele, D. R. (1992) From Marx to Mises: Post-Capitalist Society and the Challenge of Economic Calculation. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
  31. Stigler, G. (1975) The Citizen and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Varian, H. R. (1985) “Price Discrimination and Social Welfare.” American Economic Review. 75(4): 870–5.Google Scholar
  33. Vaughn, K. I. (1981) “Introduction”. In Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society, by T.J. B. Hoff. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
  34. Von Mises, L. (1920 [1935]). “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” In Collectivist Economic Planning,edited by F. A. Hayek. London: George Routledge and Sons.Google Scholar
  35. Von Mises, L. (1932 [1981]). Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. Indianapolis: Liberty Press.Google Scholar
  36. Von Mises, L. (1949 [1998]). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of CanterburyChristchurchNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsDickinson CollegeCarlisle

Personalised recommendations