|Abstract||Hayek's epistemic arguments against planning were aimed not just against socialism but also the tradition of ecological economics. The concern with the physical preconditions of economic activity and defence of non-monetary measures in economic choice were expressions of the same rationalist illusion about the scope of human knowledge that underpinned the socialist project. Neurath's commitment to physicalism, in natura calculation and planning typified these errors. Neurath responded to these criticisms in unpublished notes and correspondence with Hayek. These highlighted the epistemological premises his work shared with Hayek's, representing a response to Hayek from Hayek's own assumptions. This paper examines the cogency and continuing relevance of the arguments in this debate|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
John O'neill (2006). Knowledge, Planning, and Markets: A Missing Chapter in the Socialist Calculation Debates. Economics and Philosophy 22 (1):55-78.
Mark Blaug (1993). Hayek Revisited. Critical Review 7 (1):51-60.
Leslie Marsh (2010). Hayek: Cognitive Scientist Avant La Lettre. In William Butos, Roger Koppl & Steve Horwitz (eds.), Advances in Austrian Economics. Emerald.
Nigel Pleasants (1997). The Epistemological Argument Against Socialism: A Wittgensteinian Critique of Hayek and Giddens. Inquiry 40 (1):23 – 45.
John Meadowcroft (2003). The British National Health Service: Lessons From the "Socialist Calculation Debate". Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (3):307 – 326.
Ludwig M. P. van den Hauwe (2011). Hayek, Gödel, and the Case for Methodological Dualism. Journal of Economic Methodology 18 (4):387-407.
Ryszard Legutko (1997). Was Hayek an Instrumentalist? Critical Review 11 (1):145-164.
Added to index2011-01-29
Total downloads10 ( #106,476 of 549,699 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,450 of 549,699 )
How can I increase my downloads?