Volume 15, Issue 1

Central to Amartya Sen's understanding and defense of political orders that promote equality is his appeal to human capabilities. However, he fails to provide a basis for their selection, weighting, and value. Moreover, the account of ethical reasoning (“public reasoning") by which he does attempt to respond to basic challenges is highly problematic. It not only conflicts with a view of human flourishing that is individualized, agent-relative, and self-directed but also offers neither justification for nor principled limitation of state imposed solutions.

How much of economic theory can be derived using pure logic and how much of it depends on empirical facts? In a provocative article, Hülsmann (2003) criticizes Mises and Rothbard for relying on empirical assumptions, ceteris paribus claims, and thought experiments in their analysis. Instead, Hülsmann proposes a counterfactual method that does not rely on any empirical assumptions and is said to produce universally valid claims. Upon inspection we find that many of his proposed laws are either inexact, incorrect, or must rely on subsidiary assumptions to be true. We conclude that the traditional approach of Mises and Rothbard appears to be more fruitful and true.

The fortunes and misfortunes of Shylock and Antonio are pervaded with economic and legal ideas. Both characters tend to overlap and confuse in several dimensions–the most celebrated one is to believe that the Jew is the merchant–and are alternatively victim and victimizer. The analysis of the play focusing in money and contract, economics and the law, market and morality, allows us to delve into the nuances of one of the most engaging characters in the history of literature and to ponder the classical liberal message of justice and charity.

La science économique semble en quête d'un nouveau paradigme. Si de nouvelles pistes sont explorées, qui font souvent appel à des coopérations interdisciplinaires, une vision globale de ce qui pourrait constituer une compréhension économique satisfaisante des phénomènes sociaux fait toujours défaut. Dans cette note nous expliquons en quoi Hayek peut ici être utile. Il a, à notre avis de façon convaincante, identifié certains des éléments clés autour desquels un nouveau programme de recherche peut être construit. Parmi ces éléments nous trouvons : la nature et les effets de la complexité dans les phénomènes sociaux, la distinction entre ordres spontanés et ordres créés, le fait que ces ordres ont recours à des règles de natures différentes, la nécessité de trouver un critère normatif pertinent pour les règles gouvernants les ordres spontanés (ouvert), ou encore la nécessité de repenser la formation de l'économiste.Today economics is a house to a great diversity of competing paradigms. If new routes are presently explored inviting economists to cooperate with scholars from various disciplines, a general vision of what could be meant by an economic understanding of social phenomena is still lacking. In this note it is argued that Hayek can be helpful in that respect. He has identified key elements which could guide our inquiry. This includes: a reflection on the complexity of social phenomena and on what distinguishes spontaneous orders from organizations; recognition of the fact that spontaneous orders and organizations rely on different types of rules, a need for a new normative criteria to evaluate the quality of a rule, and, finally, a reflection on what would constitute sound economic education.