Nesta:
I agree entirely that public choice theory tends toward a totalizing
ideology. All the successors of positivism do that. It tends to make for
a combination of silly and fascinating research (e.g., the recent
attempts to explain religious attachments simply market decisions.
I am not sure how what effects these fantasies have on policy or power
distribution. That is a question for the sociology of scholarship. Much
of this stuff is the microphysics of power indeed. Judge Posner's
writings may provide interesting possibilities for the analytics of
power.
Michael Walzer's idea in "Spheres of Justice" that markets transgress
their boundaries is useful here I think. I do not doubt that market
models do get exported to odd arenas changing power dynamics.
I agree entirely that public choice theory tends toward a totalizing
ideology. All the successors of positivism do that. It tends to make for
a combination of silly and fascinating research (e.g., the recent
attempts to explain religious attachments simply market decisions.
I am not sure how what effects these fantasies have on policy or power
distribution. That is a question for the sociology of scholarship. Much
of this stuff is the microphysics of power indeed. Judge Posner's
writings may provide interesting possibilities for the analytics of
power.
Michael Walzer's idea in "Spheres of Justice" that markets transgress
their boundaries is useful here I think. I do not doubt that market
models do get exported to odd arenas changing power dynamics.