Friedrich Hayek’s defense of neoliberal free market capitalism hinges on the distinction between economies and catallaxies. The former are orders instituted via planning, whereas the latter are spontaneous competitive orders resulting from human action without human design. I argue that this distinction is based on an incomplete semantic history of “economy.” By looking at the meaning of “oikonomia” in medieval providential theology as explained by Giorgio Agamben and Joseph Vogl, I argue how Hayek’s science of catallactics is itself a secularization (...) of providential theology. This exposes Hayek to three criticisms: he unjustifiably neglects the possibility of tendencies toward spontaneous disorder in free markets, he condemns the “losers” of neoliberal competition to being providential waste on the road to general prosperity, and he imposes on people the duty to consent to a neoliberal order that hinders them from cultivating their inoperativity. (shrink)

This paper gives an account of the debate between F.A. Hayek and J.M. Keynes in the 1930s written for the general public. The purpose of this is twofold. First, to provide the general reader with a narrative of what happened, … More ›.

This paper compares Hayek and Polanyi on spontaneous social order. Although Hayek is widely believed to have first both coined the name and explicated the idea of ?spontaneous order?, it is in fact Michael Polanyi who did so. Numerous differences emerge between the two thinkers. The characterisation of spontaneous order in Hayek, for example, involves different types of freedom to those advanced by Polanyi. Whereas Hayek (usually) portrays spontaneous order as a single entity, which is equivalent to free society as (...) a whole ? the free?catallactic society ? Polanyi by contrast is disposed to conceive of spontaneous orders as sub?units or components within free society as a whole. These and other aspects of their thought ? including the distinction between spontaneous and planned social orders ? are reviewed and criticised. (shrink)

In his political writings, F. A. Hayek faces a classic liberal dilemma: he opposes coercion but recognizes that sometimes the state can help to minimize it. Hayek attempts to resolve the dilemma of the limits of state power by offering a definition of the rule of law that does not depend on a controversial conception of rights. However, his effort to formalize the rule of law fails. Not only does Hayek implicitly rely on an undefended theory of rights, but his (...) rule‐of‐law scheme is limited to the elaboration of general principles of good government, neglecting the need for reforms aimed directly at the political processes that result in the controversial forms of coercion he deplores. (shrink)

At the one extreme, social service provision by government may be seen as the work of benevolent professionals, and at the other as that of tyrannical social engineers. This paper examines the views of the libertarian economist, F.A. Hayek, and the British sociologist and philosopher, T.H. Marshall, on such provision. Marshall takes an optimistic view of the development of the professional classes in Britain and elsewhere; he sees social welfare specialists as essential to the preservation of social rights and argues (...) they should be given powers that sometimes supersede democratic preferences. Hayek, however, sees these professionals, in their drive to promote social equality, as a danger to liberty in Western democracies; he thus opposes a democratic system in which such people are allowed to attain influence. Both Hayek and Marshall raise questions about welfare and inequality and about the degree of authority social welfare professionals should be given. However, they take opposing views on the proper role of what Burke called ?natural aristocracy? (shrink)

In his Hayek and Modern Liberalism, Chandran Kukathas claims that Hayek's political philosophy is fundamentally incoherent because it is heavily influenced from two incompatible directions: that of Hume and that of Kant. But in fact, the idiom in which Hayek's philosophy is cast is overwhelmingly Humean. Whatever difficulties Hayek's thought may contain, the incoherence Kukathas identifies is not one of them.

In Hayek's Social and Political Thought, Roland Kley argues that Hayek's defense of capitalism is instrumentalist: that is, that Hayek sees market societies as efficient mechanisms that have no independent ethical justification. But in fact, Hayek does have such a standard, one that is expressed in the notion of a discipline of freedom. This standard derives from the moral anthropology of the liberal‐conservative tradition.

Hayek's attack on the ideal of social justice, though long ignored by political theorists, has recently been the subject of a number of largely unsympathetic studies (those of Lukes and Johnston being the most recent) in which his critique is dismissed as at best simply mistaken and at worst frivolous. The responses to Hayek's case against social justice, however, fail to draw any blood, for they do not seriously deal with Hayek's central claim that the very notion of social justice (...) is incoherent. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the re-problematisation of F.A. Hayek's legacy in philosophy of law and social theory. Taking as an example the works of SPSU professor I.Y. Kozlikhin, and some other works about Hayek's theory of law, the author demonstrates several inadequacies of the current literature on Hayek's legal philosophy. In criticizing these highly debatable approaches, the author describes multiple but rarely considered nuances of Hayek's conception of law, which seem to be necessary for adequate understanding of his works. (...) In the author's view, only these details allow to cast some doubt on stereotypes about Hayek as a sort of “liberal ideologist” and unfold the true original potential of his philosophy. The main hypothesis of the article is that the key to this original potential lies not in Hayek's theory of freedom and market, but in his fundamental epistemological views. The ideal of freedom is not enough to discriminate between what is “just law” and what is not in hayekian theory. Only by the means of Hayek's epistemology we can separate law as “rules of just conduct” from other types of social institutions in his theory. This separation is based on broader epistemological separation of “simple” and “complex” phenomena in Hayek's theory of knowledge, which is reflected in his distinction between “organization” and “spontaneous order”. Since only the last of them represents a «complex phenomenon», it means that only a system of special meta-rational rules of conduct can provide an epistemically restricted social actor with an ability to act effectively in such a complex and rationally unknowable social structure. It is argued that only this “technical” capacity of meta-rational just law can be seen as the true basis of Hayek's theory of law. Neither hayekian theory of freedom, nor his theory of market can shed light on the Hayek’s most important and original contribution in the domain of legal theory. It is Hayek's epistemology that can be seen as the ultimate foundation of his conception of lawn. (shrink)

Friedrich Hayek was a fervent advocate of the methodological specificity of the social sciences. However, given his contact with Karl Popper, several historians and philosophers have characterized his final position as Popperian, that is, a position that would have accepted the unity of scientific method. A closer look at Hayek's philosophy and Popper's own intellectual course shows that such a thesis is based on misconceptions that can be overcome by taking the Hayekian concept of 'spontaneous order' as the foundation of (...) a methodology immune to any kind of methodological monism. (shrink)