The welfare costs of rent-seeking: a methodologically individualist and subjectivist revision
Gordon Tullock is acknowledged for being the first to recognize the true costs of rent-seeking as including not only the Harberger triangle hut also the Tullock rectangle. This rectangle does not constitute merely a lossless transfer of wealth, hut it causes a misallocation of resources as rent-seek...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The journal of philosophical economics 2015-10, Vol.9 (1), p.73 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 73 |
container_title | The journal of philosophical economics |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Makovi, Michael |
description | Gordon Tullock is acknowledged for being the first to recognize the true costs of rent-seeking as including not only the Harberger triangle hut also the Tullock rectangle. This rectangle does not constitute merely a lossless transfer of wealth, hut it causes a misallocation of resources as rent-seekers invest resources in lobbying. However, a close reading of Tullock s writings shows that his arguments are formulated in a holistic fashion, speaking of what is efficient or inefficient for society. Bent seeking is inefficient because it reduces societal welfare. But according to a methodologically individualist and subjectivist economics, such a claim is invalid. We must distinguish between positive economic fact and normative moral philosophy. We call for a reconstruction of utility and welfare economics based on methodological individualism and subjectivism with implications for the theories of monopoly and competition: practices which Neoclassical perfect competition theory considers to he evidence of rent seeking should instead he deemed as indications of genuine competition. Political economy should he concerned with ascertaining which institutions will best enable individuals to pursue their individually subjective ends - or else economists should he explicit about their normative preferences and political philosophies. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1783994366</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4034149841</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g185t-c671aeebdf5b80e893b8cc8422bde782e5f30887861405f503624b2d8bd2cc893</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjc1KxDAYRYsoOIzzDgHXgfy2X93J4B8MuBmXMiTN105qTLRJFd_eorM6l8Pl3rNqxUEpCoLB-V-WVIgWLqtNziNjjLNGcF2vqtf9Eck3ht5MSLqUSyapJxPGQjPim4_DDTHkHcsxuRTS4DsTwg_x0fkv72YTfC7EREfybEfsymIXMeECn-JVddGbkHFz4rp6ub_bbx_p7vnhaXu7owMHXWhXN9wgWtdrCwyhlRa6DpQQ1mEDAnUvGUADNVdM95rJWigrHFgnll4r19X1_-7HlD5nzOUwpnmKy-WBNyDbVsm6lr9KE1Kc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1783994366</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The welfare costs of rent-seeking: a methodologically individualist and subjectivist revision</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Makovi, Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Makovi, Michael</creatorcontrib><description>Gordon Tullock is acknowledged for being the first to recognize the true costs of rent-seeking as including not only the Harberger triangle hut also the Tullock rectangle. This rectangle does not constitute merely a lossless transfer of wealth, hut it causes a misallocation of resources as rent-seekers invest resources in lobbying. However, a close reading of Tullock s writings shows that his arguments are formulated in a holistic fashion, speaking of what is efficient or inefficient for society. Bent seeking is inefficient because it reduces societal welfare. But according to a methodologically individualist and subjectivist economics, such a claim is invalid. We must distinguish between positive economic fact and normative moral philosophy. We call for a reconstruction of utility and welfare economics based on methodological individualism and subjectivism with implications for the theories of monopoly and competition: practices which Neoclassical perfect competition theory considers to he evidence of rent seeking should instead he deemed as indications of genuine competition. Political economy should he concerned with ascertaining which institutions will best enable individuals to pursue their individually subjective ends - or else economists should he explicit about their normative preferences and political philosophies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1843-2298</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1844-8208</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bucharest: Journal of Philosophical Economics</publisher><subject>Competition ; Costs ; Economic models ; Economics ; Holism ; Individualism ; Investment ; Lobbying ; Net losses ; Probability ; Profits ; Society</subject><ispartof>The journal of philosophical economics, 2015-10, Vol.9 (1), p.73</ispartof><rights>Copyright Journal of Philosophical Economics Autumn 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Makovi, Michael</creatorcontrib><title>The welfare costs of rent-seeking: a methodologically individualist and subjectivist revision</title><title>The journal of philosophical economics</title><description>Gordon Tullock is acknowledged for being the first to recognize the true costs of rent-seeking as including not only the Harberger triangle hut also the Tullock rectangle. This rectangle does not constitute merely a lossless transfer of wealth, hut it causes a misallocation of resources as rent-seekers invest resources in lobbying. However, a close reading of Tullock s writings shows that his arguments are formulated in a holistic fashion, speaking of what is efficient or inefficient for society. Bent seeking is inefficient because it reduces societal welfare. But according to a methodologically individualist and subjectivist economics, such a claim is invalid. We must distinguish between positive economic fact and normative moral philosophy. We call for a reconstruction of utility and welfare economics based on methodological individualism and subjectivism with implications for the theories of monopoly and competition: practices which Neoclassical perfect competition theory considers to he evidence of rent seeking should instead he deemed as indications of genuine competition. Political economy should he concerned with ascertaining which institutions will best enable individuals to pursue their individually subjective ends - or else economists should he explicit about their normative preferences and political philosophies.</description><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Costs</subject><subject>Economic models</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Holism</subject><subject>Individualism</subject><subject>Investment</subject><subject>Lobbying</subject><subject>Net losses</subject><subject>Probability</subject><subject>Profits</subject><subject>Society</subject><issn>1843-2298</issn><issn>1844-8208</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotjc1KxDAYRYsoOIzzDgHXgfy2X93J4B8MuBmXMiTN105qTLRJFd_eorM6l8Pl3rNqxUEpCoLB-V-WVIgWLqtNziNjjLNGcF2vqtf9Eck3ht5MSLqUSyapJxPGQjPim4_DDTHkHcsxuRTS4DsTwg_x0fkv72YTfC7EREfybEfsymIXMeECn-JVddGbkHFz4rp6ub_bbx_p7vnhaXu7owMHXWhXN9wgWtdrCwyhlRa6DpQQ1mEDAnUvGUADNVdM95rJWigrHFgnll4r19X1_-7HlD5nzOUwpnmKy-WBNyDbVsm6lr9KE1Kc</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>Makovi, Michael</creator><general>Journal of Philosophical Economics</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BYOGL</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>The welfare costs of rent-seeking: a methodologically individualist and subjectivist revision</title><author>Makovi, Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g185t-c671aeebdf5b80e893b8cc8422bde782e5f30887861405f503624b2d8bd2cc893</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Costs</topic><topic>Economic models</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Holism</topic><topic>Individualism</topic><topic>Investment</topic><topic>Lobbying</topic><topic>Net losses</topic><topic>Probability</topic><topic>Profits</topic><topic>Society</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Makovi, Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>East Europe, Central Europe Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>The journal of philosophical economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Makovi, Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The welfare costs of rent-seeking: a methodologically individualist and subjectivist revision</atitle><jtitle>The journal of philosophical economics</jtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>73</spage><pages>73-</pages><issn>1843-2298</issn><eissn>1844-8208</eissn><abstract>Gordon Tullock is acknowledged for being the first to recognize the true costs of rent-seeking as including not only the Harberger triangle hut also the Tullock rectangle. This rectangle does not constitute merely a lossless transfer of wealth, hut it causes a misallocation of resources as rent-seekers invest resources in lobbying. However, a close reading of Tullock s writings shows that his arguments are formulated in a holistic fashion, speaking of what is efficient or inefficient for society. Bent seeking is inefficient because it reduces societal welfare. But according to a methodologically individualist and subjectivist economics, such a claim is invalid. We must distinguish between positive economic fact and normative moral philosophy. We call for a reconstruction of utility and welfare economics based on methodological individualism and subjectivism with implications for the theories of monopoly and competition: practices which Neoclassical perfect competition theory considers to he evidence of rent seeking should instead he deemed as indications of genuine competition. Political economy should he concerned with ascertaining which institutions will best enable individuals to pursue their individually subjective ends - or else economists should he explicit about their normative preferences and political philosophies.</abstract><cop>Bucharest</cop><pub>Journal of Philosophical Economics</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1843-2298 |
ispartof | The journal of philosophical economics, 2015-10, Vol.9 (1), p.73 |
issn | 1843-2298 1844-8208 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1783994366 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Competition Costs Economic models Economics Holism Individualism Investment Lobbying Net losses Probability Profits Society |
title | The welfare costs of rent-seeking: a methodologically individualist and subjectivist revision |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T04%3A29%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20welfare%20costs%20of%20rent-seeking:%20a%20methodologically%20individualist%20and%20subjectivist%20revision&rft.jtitle=The%20journal%20of%20philosophical%20economics&rft.au=Makovi,%20Michael&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=73&rft.pages=73-&rft.issn=1843-2298&rft.eissn=1844-8208&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E4034149841%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1783994366&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |