Revisiting the Tension Between Classical Liberalism and the Welfare State

Jan Schnellenbach
{"title":"Revisiting the Tension Between Classical Liberalism and the Welfare State","authors":"Jan Schnellenbach","doi":"10.3790/schm.139.2-4.365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A classical liberal market order relies on competition which, in a neoliberal perspective, should be supported by a government regulating the admissible degree of market power. Market competition itself is seen as an engine of innovation and growth. The downside of such a classical liberal market order is a lack of economic security for market participants. It is the very core of such an order that it enforces consumer sovereignty, but the demand articulated by consumers vis-à-vis single suppliers can be volatile. In this article, we revisit the classical liberal debate on means of providing economic security. We then discuss the problem in a contractarian framework that allows for conflicts between individual absolute values. We argue that political institutions that facilitate an open debate on these conflicting values are essential, and that attempts to derive optimal sizes of welfare states in a technocratic fashion are futile.","PeriodicalId":36775,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contextual Economics-Schmollers Jahrbuch","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contextual Economics-Schmollers Jahrbuch","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.139.2-4.365","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A classical liberal market order relies on competition which, in a neoliberal perspective, should be supported by a government regulating the admissible degree of market power. Market competition itself is seen as an engine of innovation and growth. The downside of such a classical liberal market order is a lack of economic security for market participants. It is the very core of such an order that it enforces consumer sovereignty, but the demand articulated by consumers vis-à-vis single suppliers can be volatile. In this article, we revisit the classical liberal debate on means of providing economic security. We then discuss the problem in a contractarian framework that allows for conflicts between individual absolute values. We argue that political institutions that facilitate an open debate on these conflicting values are essential, and that attempts to derive optimal sizes of welfare states in a technocratic fashion are futile.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重新审视古典自由主义与福利国家之间的紧张关系
古典自由主义市场秩序依赖于竞争,而在新自由主义的观点中,竞争应该得到政府的支持,政府对市场力量的可接受程度进行监管。市场竞争本身被视为创新和增长的引擎。这种古典自由市场秩序的缺点是市场参与者缺乏经济保障。这种秩序的核心是它加强了消费者的主权,但消费者对-à-vis单一供应商所表达的需求可能是不稳定的。在这篇文章中,我们回顾了古典自由主义关于提供经济安全手段的辩论。然后,我们在一个允许个体绝对值之间冲突的契约框架中讨论这个问题。我们认为,促进对这些相互冲突的价值观进行公开辩论的政治制度是必不可少的,试图以技术官僚的方式得出福利国家的最佳规模是徒劳的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Contextual Economics-Schmollers Jahrbuch
Journal of Contextual Economics-Schmollers Jahrbuch Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Foreword to the Translation of Gustav Schmoller’s Reviews of Carl Menger’s “Principles,” “Investigations,” and “Errors” The Legislature of the German Reich Introduction to Special Issue “The Jahrbuch: The First 150 Years” III. Reaction to Carl Menger’s “The Errors of Historicism” The Early Reception of Carl Menger’s Grundsätze: A Bibliographical Note
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1