Saturday, February 1, 2020

Compare and contrast the policy implications of the theories of Essay

Compare and contrast the policy implications of the theories of justice in the works of John Rawls and Friedrich von Hayek. Illu - Essay Example 201). It is apparent that Rawls is not adequately certain in sorting out those distributive institutions that are in agreement with, or needed by, his principle. In reality, the theory is intentionally vague as Rawls, exercising his ‘method of avoidance’, tries to ‘avoid the question of the correctness of important social theories and rather to set out a conception of justice on the basis of which the question of private property vs. socialism in the means of production could be reasonably discussed’ (Wood & Woods 1991, 202). This essay will review the similarity and difference between the implications of Rawls’s and Hayek’s theory of justice on economic policy. Specifically, it will discuss the implication of Rawls’s theory of social justice on welfare economics, and the implication of Hayek’s spontaneous economic order on economic policy. Basically, the difference between Rawls and Hayek is that the former focuses on microeconom ics whereas the other on macroeconomics; however, both of them included in their discussion property-owning democracy and market socialism in a minimal fashion, while disregarding capitalism. The Implication of Rawls’s and Hayek’s Theory of Justice on Economic Policy The ideas of Rawls represent one thorough broad discussion of the issue to which others have felt forced to address. A comprehensive analysis of Rawls is relevant, not because he is ‘accurate’ whilst others are ‘inaccurate’, but because he methodically deals with these major concerns and his outcomes may be of particular relevance. In a recent literature review interconnecting ethics and economics, Hausman and McPherson (1973) firmly argue for the importance of ethics to economic policy. They refer to Rawls’s theory of justice as well. They cite a number of ethics systematisations, including Rawls, and claim â€Å"In our view, the parts of ethical theories we shall survey here may be of more interests to economists than are the whole systems† (Edgren 1995, 332). In applying the work of Rawls to discuss welfare economic policy economists have inclined to be careful. Others who mention Rawls frequently give an apparently rather more inclusive discussion. They will include the veil of ignorance, or the initial standpoint, for instance, but the emphasis is still quite on the difference theory and they still overlook much of the essence (Edgren 1995). Several applications of Rawls’s difference theory to economic policy are in opposition to the essence of Rawls’s notion. Primarily, it is entrenched in a thought system that is in some substantial essence utilitarian, whilst the system of Rawls is openly designed as a substitute for utilitarianism (Edgren 1995). Utilities, in welfare economics, are representation and not directly analogous, whilst in Rawls they are evidently the contrary (Bojer 2003). I think that some might claim that Ra wls is in error here, that he has created stronger premises than he requires, and that the remedial is incidentally. However, Rawls is struggling to expand the concept of primary goods and their importance to direct comparison. Moreover, the difference theory is related by Rawls to the anticipations of representative individuals in a theoretical scenario of imperfect unawareness, and is aimed to explain how social

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.