Following Doug's comments -
that is really interesting, that the Hayekians don't go for equilibrium.
There are a number of ways in which current public choice theory -
Virginia/Chicago - differs from Hayek, one of the most significant I
think being the subject - Hayek believes the subject still to be
unpredictable - that is what markets are for, to reveal the choices of
the individual - whereas the Chicalg/Virginia way of thinking at least
as revealed through the NZ treasury , which runs this country, is more
along the lines that
the individual is rational
there is a rational way of doing things, i.e. the most efficient.
therefore the (rational) indivudal would choose this way
therefore we don't actually have to ask.
given this, I am not sure what the function of the insistence nmarkets
is for: I suspect it is a cargo cult.
Pat Molloy in Economy and society Feb 1997 (? i may have the date wrong)
draws attention to Burchell's use of Foucault to draw a picture of a
liberal form of governmentality which has to conceal the violence of its
power: it has to make it look as if the populations chooses to do what
infact the government wants it to do. This is very evident here: the
population is currently being subjected to a major campaign by govt to
encourage 'dependents' to choose to go to work - as if there were any
work for them - the aim being to put responsibility for unemployment
onto the unemployed rather than onto a mismanaging govt.
'What interests me in the Foucaultian context is the coercive,
disciplinary
nature of market "signals," but I don't know that anyone has ever run
with
that ball.'
the best economist's account that I have found is in Jan L. Whitwell
'the rogernomics Experiment' in martin Holland and Jonathan boston eds
'the fourth Labour government, Politics and Policy in New Zealand 2nd
ed, OUP Auckland 1990
cheers,
Nesta
that is really interesting, that the Hayekians don't go for equilibrium.
There are a number of ways in which current public choice theory -
Virginia/Chicago - differs from Hayek, one of the most significant I
think being the subject - Hayek believes the subject still to be
unpredictable - that is what markets are for, to reveal the choices of
the individual - whereas the Chicalg/Virginia way of thinking at least
as revealed through the NZ treasury , which runs this country, is more
along the lines that
the individual is rational
there is a rational way of doing things, i.e. the most efficient.
therefore the (rational) indivudal would choose this way
therefore we don't actually have to ask.
given this, I am not sure what the function of the insistence nmarkets
is for: I suspect it is a cargo cult.
Pat Molloy in Economy and society Feb 1997 (? i may have the date wrong)
draws attention to Burchell's use of Foucault to draw a picture of a
liberal form of governmentality which has to conceal the violence of its
power: it has to make it look as if the populations chooses to do what
infact the government wants it to do. This is very evident here: the
population is currently being subjected to a major campaign by govt to
encourage 'dependents' to choose to go to work - as if there were any
work for them - the aim being to put responsibility for unemployment
onto the unemployed rather than onto a mismanaging govt.
'What interests me in the Foucaultian context is the coercive,
disciplinary
nature of market "signals," but I don't know that anyone has ever run
with
that ball.'
the best economist's account that I have found is in Jan L. Whitwell
'the rogernomics Experiment' in martin Holland and Jonathan boston eds
'the fourth Labour government, Politics and Policy in New Zealand 2nd
ed, OUP Auckland 1990
cheers,
Nesta