or, is the true winner a joint Market & Political Capitalism?
Note: This post was inspired by the Podcast TAITC (The Answer is Transaction Costs), Michael Munger, Duke University, recorded on December 24, 2024. It was an interview and interaction with Public Choice Economist Randall Holcombe, Florida State University, about 2-of-3 books in a trilogy all related to the application of mainstream economic constructs to work at making sense of political choice. It is especially relevant to the current Political Capitalism --- elite taking from the masses, and elite in competition with elite for economic wealth and the political power to obtain it --- coming ever more into play in the current US political economic environment. The interchange in the Podcast focused on the 1st book Political Capitalism: How Economic and Political Power is Made and Maintained (2018), touched on the 2nd book Following Their Leaders: Political Preferences and Public Policy (2023). It was announced in the Podcast that the 3rd book is Politics as Exchange expected in 2025. This post draws mainly on the 2018 book. I have also exchanged a few e-mails with Holcombe, which has helped in understanding main points in the book. Stay tuned for posts about the 2023 and 2025 books, as a Review of the trilogy will eventually be done. So, here goes with the 2018 book.
Holcombe (2018) in a book titled Political Capitalism: How Economic and Political Power is Made and Maintained points to how the economic and political elite consort to using the political system to take and keep wealth and the power it buys. The masses pay the costs, while the elite reap the benefits. Said Political Capitalism comes in the form of force and coercion, such as in regulation and spending. Also, Progressivism, which brings the Government into play to temper the Market, is blamed for the evolution of ever more Political Capitalism which it is claimed takes away from Market Capitalism, the latter favored by Conservatism. Holcombe (2018) claims it is only Market Capitalism --- because it gives freedom of economic choice, supposedly without force and coercion to the masses --- that can achieve economic efficiency.
Supposedly the claims are based in elite theory coming out of other social sciences, especially Sociology and Political Science, albeit the claims rely mainly on Holbombe (2018) using Public Choice Theory. That theory is based in Single Interest Theory (SIT) in Microeconomics, which sees only self-interest at play, in contrast to elite theory from sociology and political science seeing a shared other-interest in the mix, which shifts attention to the own-interest composed of self & other-interest. Holcombe (2018) claims to have accomplished an integration of Sociology and Political Science based theories about the role of the elite and SIT Economics based Public Choice Theory --- managing to integrate “theories of interest group politics, rent-seeking, and regulatory capture (p. 170)” --- in providing a Political Capitalism Theory. The claim is questionable because of the prominent role of SIT in the rhetoric of the book.
Also, in considering said claims, the reader needs the reminder that SIT is really an ideology. As Institutional Economist Daniel Bromley (2019, p. 28) correctly claims: “Economics (i.e., SIT in Microeconomics), it turns out, is a political ideology in disguise.” Yes, it is, and it dominates thinking in Conservative ideology --- to include the reasoning in Holcombe (2018) --- with less influence in Progressive ideology albeit still an important part of that ideology as well.
Holcombe (2018) has 11-chapters in 294 pages. It is detailed, drawing mainly on SIT based Public Choice Theory materials. Intriguingly, the example of the US Public Policy for Ethanol, instituted in 2005, is used over and over as an example of what goes awry in Political Capitalism in contrast to using Market Capitalism. To cut to the chase here in this Review, getting to the essence of the 11-chapters, the ethanol case is used to illustrate and critically examine the claims.
In the following, ethanol policy is first considered in the way Holcombe (2018) weaves the story, using mainly SIT based Public Choice Theory. The claim is that ethanol policy is a clear example of Political Capitalism gone awry. Second, the ethanol policy case is considered using Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics, a theory that sees the key role of the ethic in tempering the SIT framed incentive, with the claims about ethanol policy (and Political Capitalism in general) substantively different. Using DIT to integrate across the Sociology, Political Science, and Public Choice (Economic) Theory works better in giving a coherent Political Capitalism Theory. And, DIT in contrast to SIT (which is a cargo-cult science, short on empirical support, see Lynne In press) has an empirical foundation, based in science (behavioral, neuroscience) & humanities (especially ethics), giving a solid empirical foundation to the DIT based Political Capitalism Theory. And, while SIT is strictly about self-interest, DIT is about own-interest, represented in pursuing good balance in the joint self & other-interest. And, while self-interest is recognized as more primal, DIT sees the shared other-interest working to temper that primal driver, giving better outcomes in the own-interest.
Ethanol Policy as Political Capitalism Gone Awry
Setting the stage here, Holcombe (2018) refers to the ethanol policy situation throughout the book as demonstrating a clear example of Political Capitalism going awry, as in:
“… (an) example is the ethanol mandate for gasoline in the United States. Designed to reduce oil consumption and enhance energy security, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandated that ethanol be blended into gasoline. Increases in domestic oil production and substantially lower gasoline prices called this policy into question, but it persisted because corn farmers and corn processors benefitted from the increased demand for corn, the source of most ethanol. Given the choice there is a good chance that most drivers would choose to buy gasoline without ethanol, although one cannot be sure because drivers are not given the choice. It is an easy conjecture, however, that the reason they are not given the choice is that they would choose something other than the government policy. There would be no need to force people to buy ethanol in their gasoline if they would voluntarily choose to do it themselves. Most drivers accept the policy even if they do not agree with it because there is nothing they can do about it. The well-connected corn lobby dictates the policy (p. 46).”
So, the Holcombe (2018) story goes like the following: The elite are represented in the corn and ethanol industries, who are easily organized --- transaction costs are low because of the commonly agreed to interest --- in forming a shared other-interest within that elite group in keeping the mandates in place. In contrast, the masses face high transaction costs to influence not only the formation of a particular ethanol policy, but also in affecting how it is implemented. So, the elite reap the benefits and the masses pay the costs, mainly because of high transaction costs in forming and acting on the shared other-interest preferred by the masses who have little to no power in the political economic system.
Another way to frame it: Because of low transaction costs, an elite can easily take and keep power over the high transaction cost masses. The high transaction costs result in it being being impossible to form and take action based on the shared other -interest of the masses. So, the shared other-interest of the elite dominates the shared other-interest of the masses: The political power of the elite dominates the political power of the masses.
Actually, the original reason for what came to be a mandate to sell a blended ethanol and gasoline comes mainly from the recognition of the need to reduce the load of greenhouse gases into the Spaceship ecosystem and atmosphere. Given the concerns over excessive loading of the Spaceship system with greenhouse gases, many in the scientific community along with environmental groups wanting a more sustainable system formed a shared other-interest with both corn farmers and what would become the ethanol industry in an ethanol policy that worked for everyone: Transaction costs were low as everyone came to buy into the same sustainability ethic.
Being corn captures carbon dioxide as it grows, and burning the ethanol results in returning the carbon to the ecosystem and atmosphere to be once again collected by the corn, in effect the carbon is recycled. In contrast, burning carbon-based fossil fuel results only in overloading the ecosystem and atmosphere with greenhouse gas, which in turn leads to extreme weather events leading to such matters as stronger hurricane and tornadic winds, extreme rain and drought events leading to flooding and wildfires, as well as loss of species diversity.
And while ethanol policy is about interest group politics, it is not in any great degree only about rent-seeking by corn and ethanol industry people, or about regulatory capture. The public interest in reducing the greenhouse gas loading to the Spaceship system is well-served by the interest group politics, to include the public interest in reducing the greenhouse gas loading. Ethanol policy is not serving just the private interest of the elite as Holcombe (2018) claims.
Intriguingly, the reason for said claims is predetermined by the theory, as it is SIT --- self-interest only theory leading to the claims --- so, no other conclusion can be drawn than it is about the self- (private) interest of the corn and ethanol industry. The shared other- (public) interest is not even in view when applying SIT to answering the question of who is being served by ethanol policy. So, the own-interest composed of self & other-interest is also not in view.
Now, one can use the notion of the elite as represented in greenhouse gas scientists and the people who see the need to act on the consensus science says it is essential to reduce the loading of greenhouse gases into the Spaceship atmosphere and ecosystem. Said system is being overloaded. Said elite, however, are broadly representing the masses as everyone benefits from a more sustainable Spaceship system. So, if that is elite, so be it, but it is an elite position representing a widely shared other-interest in sustainability. And, said elite position does come out of the Progressive part of the political spectrum, and, in general has been denied as an issue --- using a very limited view of greenhouse gas dangers --- in the Conservative part of the political spectrum.
Holcombe (2018) likes to talk of competition as between elite positions, so, in that sense the Progressive vision of the carbon problem is currently influencing ethanol policy more than the Conservative vision, and in some sense was won that competition. Recent investments in renewable energy in the Inflation Reduction Act is another example of the Progressive vision winning out over the Conservative vision, with perhaps both visions representing alternative elite views.
Holcombe (2018) relentlessly makes claims that it is not Conservative ideology that is the problem, in the claims like: “The Progressive ideology legitimizes the use of force for the economic benefit of some at the expense of others (p. 230).” Well, forcing someone to pay attention to the overloading of the Spaceship system with carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) is essential in order to ensure the Spaceship is sustained. And, on the other side, one can also claim: The Conservative ideology also legitimizes the use of force for the economic benefit of some at the expense of others, as in forcing people to use only 0-100 fuel because no 10-90 fuel is available, based on in effect forcing people to deny the greenhouse gas science.
Holcombe (2018) also claims: “(in Political Capitalism) major impediments to actually producing outcomes that are welfare-enhancing in theory are information and incentives. Policymakers do not always have access to the information that the model shows would be required to implement the optimal policy, and even if they do, they do not always have the incentive to implement it (p. 226).” Perhaps so, but neither does Market Capitalism always have and use the best information, nor act on the best Incentive.
In the ethanol case, Political Capitalism used to bring 10-90 fuel into play is using Information on carbon dioxide loading based in science, and operating on the Incentive given content by the enhanced payoff in shared other-interest from recycling carbon points to 10-90 fuel. Prior to the 2005 Ethanol Policy being put into play, Market Capitalism was ignoring the scientific reality that too much greenhouse gas in the Spaceship system causes damage not only to the ecosystem but also the economy embedded within that Spaceship system. Political Capitalism as represented in ethanol policy is bringing crucial information and incentives into play to temper the information and incentives brought into play with Market Capitalism which points only to (and in effect forcing) the use of only 0-100 fuel.
The ethanol industry is in play because of the better quality information leading to the shared other-interest in sustaining the Spaceship --- the ethic of sustainability --- coming out of the Government, out of interest group politics, and working to temper the incentives in which fuel is used. As DIT makes clear, it is about striking good balance in Market & Political Capitalism and overall in Market & Government.
Ethanol Policy as Joint Market & Political Capitalism Working Well
The blinders of SIT ensure that Holcombe (2018) misses the key point that ethanol policy is also about the ethic --- coming out of the shared-other interest --- and not just the self-interest only incentive, so it is about striking good balance in the joint private & public interest, which is about pursuing the own-interest. It is also about bringing information into the process from sources the Market may not be aware, including the spontaneous order arising in the Government. Market Capitalism often chooses to ignore the science, like not only ignoring but actually distorting the greenhouse gas science, turning the conversation into a the claim that the drastic climate changed caused by excessive loading of greenhouse gases is somehow normal. DIT demonstrates that balance in the notion of joint self & other-interest --- which gives content to the own-interest --- and information from different sources feeding both interests. DIT also recognizes the economy is embedded in the Spaceship system, not just being source of inputs and a place to dump waste, but that the Spaceship must be sustained in order to sustain the Economy.
Using both better information, and incentives tempered by the ethic in play, the ethanol policy requiring a blend of ethanol-gasoline by regulation puts the consumer at least on path 0G, the 10-90 blend path, an economically efficient path rather than economically inefficient path 0-100 (Figure 1). The fact the US is mainly on that 0-90 path at point A in Figure 1 and Figure 2 (for more on how to interpret said analytics, see Lynne 2020; Lynne and Czap 2023, and the latest version at https://www.metaeconomics.info/profane-sacred-and-the-law ) suggests the Political Capitalism in play is working well, as in a joint Market & Political Capitalism.
Also, then, a joint Market & Political Capitalism tends toward minimum transactions costs. It occurs as the shared other-interest converges as among the groups, here represent in the corn farmers, the ethanol firms, and the masses all of whom now in effect work together to act on the ethic of sustainability.
To make DIT based economic sense of it, moving in the general direction toward path 0M is to move toward a carbon recycling path, and with more ethanol, more carbon is recycled, so moving toward path 0M is better for sustaining the Spaceship. If completely voluntary choice (homonomy), the consumer may choose to operate on the vertical axis using the 0-100 (gasoline only ) fuel, and not be willing to sacrifice a bit in consort with the shared other-interest on path 0G which may be the 10-90 (E10) fuel, or a 15-85 (E15) fuel on path 0Z, or even an 85-15 (E85) close to if not on path 0M. Notice the own-interest, not the self-interest, is being sought and maximize on said paths.
Notice that all three paths 0G, 0Z, and 0M involve some sacrifice in self-interest, which is essential to giving economic efficiency, which always arises with consideration of the shared other-interest in carbon recycling tempering the self-interest. Maximizing own-interest on some path 0Z means sacrificing some self-interest, as well as sacrificing some shared other-interest, giving new meaning to altruism. The problem is, too few may choose to participate in recycling carbon, and try to stay on the 0-100 path (vertical axis), which is all about incentive and not enough about the ethic of sustaining the Spaceship. If mandated as in a regulation, as in the case of 10-90, the consumer will choose some point on 0G rather than on the 0-100 path but also may voluntarily even sacrifice more self-interest on path 0Z or even path 0M. The ethanol policy brings that reality of the need to sustain the Spaceship and also serves to nudge people to joining into that ethic. Paths 0G, 0Z, and 0M all reflect the ethic tempering the incentive, bringing the choice down to something the other can go along with, in this case a more sustainable Spaceship system, as one seeks to maximize own-interest.
Holcombe (2018) --- as does the ideology of SIT --- claims it essential that the free to choose vertical axis of 0-100 be an option, and there be no mandates, and, if ethanol blends are available, the consumer could choose one of the other paths. Yet, without the ethanol policy and the 10-90 mandate in place, the supply of ethanol on the Market would be extremely limited, so one is in that case only free to choose --- in effect forced to choose --- the vertical axis. Holcombe (2018) framing is to ignore the potential for also paying attention to freedom and liberty to pay attention to and act on the ethic of recycling carbon, which is about better serving the public interest by providing ethanol blended gasoline. The ethic is key, and is left out of the SIT based Political Capitalism Theory developed in Holcombe (2018), who is willing to only consider autonomy tempered by a free to choose homonomy, without any concern for the ethic.
Holcombe (2018) claims as framed by the Political Capitalism Theory so developed using SIT, can never be used to justify heteronomy, i.e., the mandate of at least 10-90 ethanol-gasoline referred to as being forced and coerced, even when it is essential to economic efficiency to be on one of the other paths 0G, 0Z, and 0M. It clearly is in the public interest to mandate the 10-90 blend, which ensures ethanol will be available in general, so in general making economic efficiency possible: Economic efficiency is only possible with good balance in Private & Public Interest.
DIT points to a different kind of Political Capitalism Theory, one that sees the real possibility of shared other-interest --- and the essential need for the shared other (public)-interest --- at play. As is now clear, the shared other-interest in the capacity of the Spaceship to hold and process excessive releases of carbon dioxide has to influence the self-interest in burning gasoline in order to achieve true economic efficiency. In more general terms, as Adam Smith tried to teach, the arrogance of self-interest focused only on the Incentive of self-interest only (on some path near or on 0-100 path) had to be tempered by what the reasoned other could go along with, the Ethic, coming out of path 0M.
Also, Holcombe claims the corn industry engages in rent-seeking to the detriment of the public interest, turning the 10-90 choice into a private interest only choice, benefiting only the corn (and related ethanol) industry. Well, perhaps rent-seeking is at play, but it really is not the explaining force, as the shared other-interest in carbon-recycling is what is driving the ethanol policy.
Now, from a strictly free to choose point of view, as in whether choice is completely a matter of free choice, as in homonomy influencing autonomy, it is not always possible. Sometimes it needs to be a coerced and/or forced in a heteronomy based choice. Considering the shared other-interest, the point is to find the best path, which sometimes has to include some heteronomy. It is about striking a good and ethical balance in the autonomy-homonomy-heteronomy framed policy.
Ironically, the 2005 mandate has also now brought regular 0-100 fuel to be available in some parts of the US, although offered at a higher price than the 10-90 fuel. So, homonomy has come back into play, albeit at a higher price. And, the price needs to be higher, in that it creates an incentive to use ethanol content fuels which reduce the loading of greenhouse gases. It is DIT based empirical evidence that a joint Market & Political Capitalism is not only in play but works better than just Market Capitalism or just Political Capitalism, as it works to temper the arrogance of self-interest only inherent in pure versions of each type, again shifting to own-interest as a tempered self-interest.
Overall Solution to a Joint Market & Political Capitalism is to Recognize the Key Role of the Ethic
Holcombe (2018) seemingly misses the point about the key role of the ethic, as represented in the claim: “An understanding of political capitalism shows that the problem is not the lack of virtue of the princes and citizens, but rather the incentives that are inherent in political capitalism as a political and economic system (p. 245).” Adam Smith would not agree. DIT based analysis, which Adam Smith would approve, makes clear the problem is not the incentives, but the failure to understand that the ethic must temper said incentives, bringing the economic choice down to what the other can go along with. Deirdre McCloskey would also not agree, in that that a serious and systematic inquiry into economic history looking for the empirical evidence --- using both science & humanities (human science) --- looking to what actually drives betterment (gross domestic product per capita per day increasing 30-100 fold or more since 1780), found it happened because of the ethic in play.
Masses Must Also Temper the Primal Tendency to Excess
The solution to the problem of excess by the elite in taking from the masses is that the ethic of what the masses can go along with has to temper what the elite do, and, it goes both ways. The masses must also temper their self-interest, too, and not take too much from the elite. The ethic must also temper the balance in minority & majority rule. Now, that claim of the key role of the ethic leads to a truly workable theory of Political (and Market) Capitalism as represented in DIT which sees the need to strike good balance in Incentive & Ethic, essential to maximizing own-interest. DIT points to a focus on a joint Incentive & Ethic within a joint Market & Political Capitalism Theory. Transactions costs will also be minimized as all the entities converge into an ethic the other can go along with.
Ethic in Homonomy or in Heteronomy? Does it Matter?
Now, recognizing the key role of the ethic also points to the need to pay attention to not only the source of it, but how it comes into play. Holcombe (2018) very much distinguishes Market Capitalism from Political Capitalism by the distinguishing feature of being free to choose vs coercion and force. It is argued that the former is about free choice over whether to buy into the shared other-interest holding the ethic in play, as in the notion from DIT of Homonomy influencing autonomy.
The argument in Holcombe (2018) is that the Econ may temper self-interest and move away from the vertical axis of 0-100 fuel, but only if the price ratio favored it: It is about free to choose out of context and influence of shared other-interest, the latter irrelevant to the choice, as SIT makes clear. There is no shared other-interest, no ethic of sustainability in view, at least not one that affects choice. Also, the presumption is the Market would provide ethanol, blended fuels without any involvement of a presumed always coercive Government. It is presumed ethanol would come into the supply chain strictly on whether it was profitable to compete with fossil fuel gasoline, again, without regard by the producers of fuels for the shared other-interest in sustainability. It is highly likely the US would still be operating on the vertical axis with 0-100 fuel, even if the science of sustainability, and people seeing the shared other-interest in sustaining the Spaceship as helped by ethanol is in play as it started to evolve in the decade or so up until 2005. Notice how economic efficiency is not achieved by Econs on the 0-100 path, as efficiency must take account of the shared other-interest in sustainability. So, Homonomy --- being completely free to choose without consideration of the other --- may not always work to in finding the best path.
Holcombe (2018) seems to be claiming the possibility that an ethic like sustaining the Spaceship, and using ethanol policy with fuel blend mandates as one way to address it, would ever be desirable if nudged, coerced, or forced in any form. It is argued such policy is about an abhorrent coercion and force, not being able to freely choose to participate in the ethic of the shared other-interest, as in the notion from DIT of heteronomy. Government is always about directing (at least nudging if not forcing, coercing) the expression of the autonomy, as in mandating at least 10-90 fuel. Well, sometimes the Econ is making unethical choices, and may have to be at least nudged if not coerced and forced onto a better path 10-90 or some such.
So, said somewhat differently, using ethanol policy to illustrate: The shared other-interest holding an ethic about sustaining the Spaceship helped by carbon recycling and renewable sources of energy used to reduce the use of fossil fuel could be just offered for the consumer to consider, as in homonomy, or mandated as in heteronomy. In both cases, more consumers would be on a best path which is not the vertical axis for everyone. Many would choose the 10-90, 15-85 paths, and a few would even choose the 85-15 path. How about the vertical path 0-100? Well, if the ethic was imposed, no one would be allowed on it. If it was about only free to choose homonomy, perhaps huge numbers as in periods prior to 2005 would stay on it, even though it is not the ethical path.
Now, as long as the producers of fuel joined in the shared other-interest in sustainability to supply the ethanol so blends could be offered, it is conceivable that the best paths like 10-90 could be achieved whether through free to choose homonomy or nudged, coerced and forced heteronomy. Overall, it is likely the best mix in a joint Market & Political Capitalism would seek to strike balance in homonomy and heteronomy dependent upon the finding of sufficient reason for what works best.
It seems DIT can also help make good sense of the best mix of homonomy and heteronomy while working to keep as much autonomy in play as is deemed reasonable. DIT suggests the need to consider the best kind of shared other-interest, the best ethic for the best balance in autonomy (free to choose), homonomy (community influence on the autonomous choice), and heteronomy (not only nudging, but some coercion and force). The ethic is key.
Postscript
Bringing The Ethic back into view in economics is the Project of Metaeconomics (see https://www.metaeconomics.info/project-of-metaeconomics ). Bringing The Ethic back into view is also the frame of the new Humanomics (McCloskey 2021), which evolved out of the McCloskey review of economic history in 7-books encompassing 2980-pages. Metaeconomics is a Humanomics with DIT at the core. The review by Economic Historian McCloskey looks to the empirical evidence coming out of both Science & Humanities, as to what drove the Great Enrichment --- per capita per day income at about $224 in the US now as compared to about $3 in 1780.
McCloskey highlights the fact that Adam Smith practiced Humanomics, and fully understood the matter of the need for balance in Wealth & Moral Sentiments, Incentive & Ethic. That frame gives substance to the notion of Innovism, the term McCloskey favors over the notion of Capitalism. It was Innovism --- Incentive tempered by the Ethic --- that drove the Great Enrichment, giving ordinary people as represented in the masses, the opportunity to work at betterment. Innovism was about inventing a new widget, finding a better way of doing things --- tested in the Market & Community / Society / Spaceship within which the Market is embedded. The key role of the Ethic is made clear: It is not only about the Incentive, as SIT (and Public Choice Theory used in the Holcombe book) claims.
And, just what does the ethic need to be? McCloskey (2019) wants a new kind of libertarianism, one with an alternative ethic to the old, which will perhaps also appeal to Halcombe, as the 2019 book has a libertarian tone. McCloskey (2019, p. 4) points to “…a modern and humane version of what is often called ‘libertarianism.’ It is not right wing, reactionary, or some scary creature out of dark money. It stands in the middle of the road—recently a dangerous place to stand—being tolerant and optimistic and respectful. It’s true liberal, that is, anti-statist, opposing the impulse of people to push other people around. It’s not ‘I’ve got mine,’ or ‘Let’s be cruel.’ Nor is it ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help you, by force of arms if necessary.’ It’s ‘I respect your dignity and am willing to listen, really listen, helping you when you wish, on your own terms.’ When people grasp it, most like it.” Grasping it helps in achieving the own-interest composed of good balance in the joint self & other-interest.
Well, that new libertarian ethic is a starting point, if one realizes the ethic represented here would have to be held and represented in a widely shared other-interest, which would come from everyone --- including the economic and political elite, in consort with the masses --- truly listening, as in empathy-with going in every direction. The shared other-interest would also have to be recognized by everyone, including by libertarians, and seeing how said shared other-interest frames the economic question. As made clear in DIT, the shared other-interest is the placeholder for any Ethic coming into play to temper the Incentive --- the latter being all that is considered in SIT --- in economic choice.
For a review of the 7-books by McCloskey, including the 2019 book, see Lynne (in press; also see https://www.metaeconomics.info/post/bettering-humanomics ). The Review points to the key role of the Ethic, as well as to how DIT also works to explain the Great Enrichment. A good balance in Market & Political Capitalism --- perhaps better framed as Market & Political Innovism, to include the Ethic --- is essential.
Also, then, it is essential to think in terms of good balance in Incentives & Ethics within a joint effort framed by both Conservatism & Progressivism. Each needs the other, as the search for a commonly, widely shared other-interest, the Ethic --- the public interest --- is what the political process needs to be all about. It is about far more than politics as exchange driven by only Incentive, as the Ethic plays a key role.
What think? Please post your thoughts in the Comment section. I will do my best to respond in a coherent manner.
References
Bromley, Daniel W. 2019. Possessive Individualism: A Crisis of Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Holcombe, Randall G. 2018. Political Capitalism: How Economic and Political Power is Made and Maintained. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Holcombe, Randall G. 2023. Following Their Leaders: Political Preferences and Public Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lynne, Gary D. 2020. Metaeconomics: Tempering Excessive Greed, Palgrave Advances in Behavioral Economics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lynne, Gary D. In press. “Cargo-Cult Economics to Metaeconomics: Toward a Humanomics with a Theory.” Review of Behavioral Economics
Lynne, Gary D and Natalia V. Czap. 2023. "Towards a Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics." Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics (July):1-19.
McCloskey, Diedre Nansen. 2019. Why Liberalism Works: How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer, More Equal, Prosperous World for All. New York: Yale University Press.
McCloskey, Deidre Nansen. 2021. Bettering Humanomics: A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
コメント