The important ‘no-envy’ fairness criterion has typically been attributed to Foley (1967) and sometimes to Tinbergen (1946, 1953). We reveal that Jan Tinbergen introduced ‘no-envy’ as a fairness criterion in his article “Mathematiese Psychologie” published in 1930 in the Dutch journal Mens en Maatschappij and translated as “Mathematical Psychology” in 2021 in the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics. Our article accompanies the translation: we introduce Tinbergen’s 1930 formulation of the ‘no-envy’ criterion, compare it to other formulations, and comment on its significance for the fairness literature in philosophy and economics.
重要的“不嫉妒”公平标准通常被认为是Foley(1967)提出的，有时也被认为是Tinbergen(1946, 1953)提出的。我们发现，Jan Tinbergen在1930年发表于荷兰期刊《Mens en Maatschappij》的文章《数学心理学》(Mathematiese Psychologie)中引入了“不嫉妒”作为公平标准，并于2021年在《伊拉斯谟哲学与经济学期刊》上被翻译为“数学心理学”。本文介绍了丁伯根(Tinbergen)在1930年提出的“不嫉妒”标准，并将其与其他标准进行了比较，并评论了其对哲学和经济学公平文献的意义。
{"title":"No Envy","authors":"Conrad Heilmann, Stefan Wintein","doi":"10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.610","url":null,"abstract":"The important ‘no-envy’ fairness criterion has typically been attributed to Foley (1967) and sometimes to Tinbergen (1946, 1953). We reveal that Jan Tinbergen introduced ‘no-envy’ as a fairness criterion in his article “Mathematiese Psychologie” published in 1930 in the Dutch journal Mens en Maatschappij and translated as “Mathematical Psychology” in 2021 in the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics. Our article accompanies the translation: we introduce Tinbergen’s 1930 formulation of the ‘no-envy’ criterion, compare it to other formulations, and comment on its significance for the fairness literature in philosophy and economics.","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46272384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The degradation of non-market relationships has rendered individuals unnecessarily vulnerable in disasters, including the global pandemic. While local networks of community-based aid that emerge in response to disasters improve the efficacy of response, they tend to be short-lived. This is unfortunate, since the existence and strength of such local networks prior to the onset of disasters not only boosts the efficacy of response but also contributes to the well-being of individuals and communities in non-disaster times. Therefore, individuals ought to establish and strengthen fair-weather local networks of non-market relationships—that is, cultivate neighbor relationships.
{"title":"Neighbors Help in a Pandemic","authors":"N. M. Boyd","doi":"10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.558","url":null,"abstract":"The degradation of non-market relationships has rendered individuals unnecessarily vulnerable in disasters, including the global pandemic. While local networks of community-based aid that emerge in response to disasters improve the efficacy of response, they tend to be short-lived. This is unfortunate, since the existence and strength of such local networks prior to the onset of disasters not only boosts the efficacy of response but also contributes to the well-being of individuals and communities in non-disaster times. Therefore, individuals ought to establish and strengthen fair-weather local networks of non-market relationships—that is, cultivate neighbor relationships.","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45247713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In response to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics (EJPE) invited scholars to reflect on the philosophy and economics of pandemics, in general, and on the current pandemic, in particular. The result is this special issue, comprising ten articles—four by special invitation and six through open submission.
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"T. Editors","doi":"10.23941/ejpe.v14i1.608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v14i1.608","url":null,"abstract":"In response to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics (EJPE) invited scholars to reflect on the philosophy and economics of pandemics, in general, and on the current pandemic, in particular. The result is this special issue, comprising ten articles—four by special invitation and six through open submission.","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44149556","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Paolo Silvestri interviews Deirdre Nansen McCloskey on the occasion of her latest book, Bettering Humanomics: A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science (2021). The interview covers her personal and intellectual life, the main turning points of her journey and her contributions. More specifically, the conversation focuses on McCloskey’s writings on the methodology and rhetoric of economics, her interdisciplinary ventures into the humanities, the Bourgeois Era trilogy with its history of the ‘Great Enrichment’, her liberal political commitments, and the value and meaning of liberty, equality, and solidarity. Finally, the conversation returns to McCloskey’s ‘humanomics’ approach: an economics with the humans left in.
{"title":"Past and Future of Humanomics","authors":"Donald N. McCloskey, P. Silvestri","doi":"10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.605","url":null,"abstract":"Paolo Silvestri interviews Deirdre Nansen McCloskey on the occasion of her latest book, Bettering Humanomics: A New, and Old, Approach to Economic Science (2021). The interview covers her personal and intellectual life, the main turning points of her journey and her contributions. More specifically, the conversation focuses on McCloskey’s writings on the methodology and rhetoric of economics, her interdisciplinary ventures into the humanities, the Bourgeois Era trilogy with its history of the ‘Great Enrichment’, her liberal political commitments, and the value and meaning of liberty, equality, and solidarity. Finally, the conversation returns to McCloskey’s ‘humanomics’ approach: an economics with the humans left in.","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42958067","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Philippe van Basshuysen, L. White, Donal Khosrowi, Mathias Frisch
Models not only represent but may also influence their targets in important ways. While models’ abilities to influence outcomes has been studied in the context of economic models, often under the label ‘performativity’, we argue that this phenomenon also pertains to epidemiological models, such as those used for forecasting the trajectory of the Covid-19 pandemic. After identifying three ways in which a model by the Covid-19 Response Team at Imperial College London (Ferguson et al. 2020) may have influenced scientific advice, policy, and individual responses, we consider the implications of epidemiological models’ performative capacities. We argue, first, that performativity may impair models’ ability to successfully predict the course of an epidemic; but second, that it may provide an additional sense in which these models can be successful, namely by changing the course of an epidemic.
模型不仅在重要方面代表而且可能影响它们的目标。虽然模型影响结果的能力已经在经济模型的背景下进行了研究，通常被称为“绩效”，但我们认为，这种现象也适用于流行病学模型，例如用于预测Covid-19大流行轨迹的模型。在确定了伦敦帝国理工学院Covid-19应对小组(Ferguson et al. 2020)的模型可能影响科学建议、政策和个人反应的三种方式后，我们考虑了流行病学模型的执行能力的含义。我们认为，首先，性能可能会削弱模型成功预测流行病进程的能力;但第二，它可能提供了一种额外的意义，即这些模式可以成功，即通过改变流行病的进程。
{"title":"Three Ways in Which Pandemic Models May Perform a Pandemic","authors":"Philippe van Basshuysen, L. White, Donal Khosrowi, Mathias Frisch","doi":"10.23941/ejpe.vl4il.582","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.vl4il.582","url":null,"abstract":"Models not only represent but may also influence their targets in important ways. While models’ abilities to influence outcomes has been studied in the context of economic models, often under the label ‘performativity’, we argue that this phenomenon also pertains to epidemiological models, such as those used for forecasting the trajectory of the Covid-19 pandemic. After identifying three ways in which a model by the Covid-19 Response Team at Imperial College London (Ferguson et al. 2020) may have influenced scientific advice, policy, and individual responses, we consider the implications of epidemiological models’ performative capacities. We argue, first, that performativity may impair models’ ability to successfully predict the course of an epidemic; but second, that it may provide an additional sense in which these models can be successful, namely by changing the course of an epidemic.","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44678951","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Vaccine refusal is not a free rider problem. The claim that vaccine refusers are free riders is inconsistent with the beliefs and motivations of most vaccine refusers. This claim also inaccurately depicts the relationship between an individual’s immunization choice, their ability to enjoy the benefits of community protection, and the costs and benefits that individuals experience from immunization and community protection. Modeling vaccine refusers as free riders also likely distorts the ethical analysis of vaccine refusal and may lead to unsuccessful policy interventions.
{"title":"Vaccine Refusal Is Not Free Riding","authors":"E. Bradley, M. Navin","doi":"10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.555","url":null,"abstract":"Vaccine refusal is not a free rider problem. The claim that vaccine refusers are free riders is inconsistent with the beliefs and motivations of most vaccine refusers. This claim also inaccurately depicts the relationship between an individual’s immunization choice, their ability to enjoy the benefits of community protection, and the costs and benefits that individuals experience from immunization and community protection. Modeling vaccine refusers as free riders also likely distorts the ethical analysis of vaccine refusal and may lead to unsuccessful policy interventions.","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49025414","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Perhaps the most contentious part of the response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been the decision by governments to mandate—or effectively mandate—the shutdown of certain businesses. The justification for doing so is broadly consequentialist. The public health costs of not shutting down are so great that potential benefits from allowing businesses to open are dwarfed. Operating within this consequentialist framework, this paper identifies an underappreciated set of social costs that are a product of the present public policy that pairs mandated shutdowns with government subsidies. Such policy is prone to being an instance of what Robert Higgs calls the ratchet effect. Given that ratchets tend to be both costly and sticky, it is best to avoid allowing them to come into existence. This paper identifies a way of circumventing this particular ratchet; namely, by replacing governmental subsidies with support from private charitable funds like The Barstool Fund.
{"title":"Mandated Shutdowns, the Ratchet Effect, and The Barstool Fund","authors":"J. Carroll","doi":"10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.559","url":null,"abstract":"Perhaps the most contentious part of the response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been the decision by governments to mandate—or effectively mandate—the shutdown of certain businesses. The justification for doing so is broadly consequentialist. The public health costs of not shutting down are so great that potential benefits from allowing businesses to open are dwarfed. Operating within this consequentialist framework, this paper identifies an underappreciated set of social costs that are a product of the present public policy that pairs mandated shutdowns with government subsidies. Such policy is prone to being an instance of what Robert Higgs calls the ratchet effect. Given that ratchets tend to be both costly and sticky, it is best to avoid allowing them to come into existence. This paper identifies a way of circumventing this particular ratchet; namely, by replacing governmental subsidies with support from private charitable funds like The Barstool Fund.","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43496447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Covid-19 pandemic has caused significant economic hardships for millions of people around the world. Meanwhile, many of the world’s richest people have seen their wealth increase substantially during the pandemic, despite the significant economic disruptions that it has caused on the whole. It is uncontroversial that these effects, which have exacerbated already unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality, call for robust policy responses from governments. In this paper, I argue that the disparate economic effects of the pandemic also generate direct obligations of justice for those who have benefitted from pandemic windfalls. Specifically, I argue that even if we accept that those who benefit from distributive injustice in the ordinary, predictable course of life within unjust institutions do not have direct obligations to redirect their unjust benefits to those who are unjustly disadvantaged, there are powerful reasons to hold that benefitting from pandemic windfalls does ground such an obligation.
{"title":"Pandemic Windfalls and Obligations of Justice","authors":"Brian Berkey","doi":"10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.550","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.550","url":null,"abstract":"The Covid-19 pandemic has caused significant economic hardships for millions of people around the world. Meanwhile, many of the world’s richest people have seen their wealth increase substantially during the pandemic, despite the significant economic disruptions that it has caused on the whole. It is uncontroversial that these effects, which have exacerbated already unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality, call for robust policy responses from governments. In this paper, I argue that the disparate economic effects of the pandemic also generate direct obligations of justice for those who have benefitted from pandemic windfalls. Specifically, I argue that even if we accept that those who benefit from distributive injustice in the ordinary, predictable course of life within unjust institutions do not have direct obligations to redirect their unjust benefits to those who are unjustly disadvantaged, there are powerful reasons to hold that benefitting from pandemic windfalls does ground such an obligation.","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45683527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
My dissertation studies the genesis, construction, and reception of John Kenneth Galbraith’s integral economics. This term refers to his theoretical project—thought of as an alternative to conventional economics—which proposes integrated ‘pattern models’ of the functioning of the economic system of post-war American industrial society. Galbraith’s notion of “conventional economics” combines highly diverse economic analyses. But they share three core postulates: (i) the hypothesis of consumer sovereignty, (ii) the hypothesis of citizen sovereignty, and (iii) the hypothesis of profit maximization (Galbraith 1973a, 5). These postulates lead to the exclusion of power outside economics; and it is against these that Galbraith has built his own theories of corporation, competition, and consumption. My dissertation studies these issues in four separate parts. The first part of the dissertation accounts for Galbraith’s participation in original institutional economics from intellectual, theoretical, and epistemological points of view. This allows me to situate his integral economics within the secular “struggle” (Yonay 1998) between original institutional economics and neoclassical economics (Rutherford 2011) and to show that his theory of the corporation, which lies at the center of his
{"title":"Galbraith’s Integral Economics (1933–1983)","authors":"Alexandre Chirat","doi":"10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.23941/EJPE.V14I1.587","url":null,"abstract":"My dissertation studies the genesis, construction, and reception of John Kenneth Galbraith’s integral economics. This term refers to his theoretical project—thought of as an alternative to conventional economics—which proposes integrated ‘pattern models’ of the functioning of the economic system of post-war American industrial society. Galbraith’s notion of “conventional economics” combines highly diverse economic analyses. But they share three core postulates: (i) the hypothesis of consumer sovereignty, (ii) the hypothesis of citizen sovereignty, and (iii) the hypothesis of profit maximization (Galbraith 1973a, 5). These postulates lead to the exclusion of power outside economics; and it is against these that Galbraith has built his own theories of corporation, competition, and consumption. My dissertation studies these issues in four separate parts. The first part of the dissertation accounts for Galbraith’s participation in original institutional economics from intellectual, theoretical, and epistemological points of view. This allows me to situate his integral economics within the secular “struggle” (Yonay 1998) between original institutional economics and neoclassical economics (Rutherford 2011) and to show that his theory of the corporation, which lies at the center of his","PeriodicalId":37914,"journal":{"name":"Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47852725","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：