Chapter 13 Nothing New Under the Sun? The Dialectic of Prudence and Justice in the Modern Era

Abstract

Over the last three quarters of a century, the discourse on economic and social policy has oscillated between two polar opposites: an interventionist approach and a free market-oriented one. The former led to the establishment of the Keynesian welfare state and was dominant in the post-war years, but the latter gained much ground beginning in the 1980s, forcing defenders of the welfare state to retreat into a more defensive position. In the wake of the ‘Great Recession’, however, these two visions are once again sustaining vigorous debates in the global public arena. Economists in their role as policy advisers and public intellectuals, in other words as ‘experts’, have participated actively in such debates; the gains made by (what its critics call) ‘neo-liberalism’ were due, in no small measure, to the growing prestige and influence of Austrian economics. The experts’ discourse tends to be a historical and arguments are often phrased in terms of supposedly ‘cutting edge’ theoretical and empirical advances.¹ Yesterday's theories are judged obsolete and irrelevant. I argue that a more historically informed perspective can actually be more rewarding.

Citation

Dobuzinskis, L. (2012), "Chapter 13 Nothing New Under the Sun? The Dialectic of Prudence and Justice in the Modern Era", Koppl, R., Horwitz, S. and Dobuzinskis, L. (Ed.) Experts and Epistemic Monopolies (Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol. 17), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 245-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-2134(2012)0000017015