Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:50:00.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IMPORTANCE OF DEFINING THE FEASIBLE SET

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2007

TYLER COWEN
TYLER COWEN*
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How should we define the feasible set? Even when individuals agree on facts and values, as traditionally construed, different views on feasibility may suffice to produce very different policy conclusions. Focusing on the difficulties in the feasibility concept may help us resolve some policy disagreements, or at least identify the sources of those disagreements. Feasibility is most plausibly a matter of degree rather than of kind. Normative economic reasoning therefore faces a fuzzy social budget constraint. Iterative reasoning about feasibility and desirability may help us overcome these problems.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, P. & Gill, R. eds. 1984. Utopias. DuckworthGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, D.M. 1989. A combinatorial theory of possibility. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J.L. 1961. Philosophical papers. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Beecher, J. 1986. Charles Fourier: the visionary & his world. University of California PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, S. 1993. Morals and modals. In Essays in quasi-realism. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P.J. 1988. Deadweight loss: a nonexistence theorem. Unpublished manuscript, California State University, NorthridgeGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. 1984. Politics without romance. In The theory of public choice – II. ed. Buchanan, J.M. & Tollison, R.D.. University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.C. 1984. The history of utopia: the chronology of nowhere. In Utopias, ed. Alexander, P. & Gill, R.., 1–18. DuckworthGoogle Scholar
De Jouvenel, B. 1965. Utopia for practical purposes. In Utopias and utopian thought, ed. Manuel, F.E.., 219–35. Beacon PressGoogle Scholar
Demsetz, H. 1969. Information and efficiency: another viewpoint. Journal of Law and Economics 12: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D.C. 1984. Elbow room: the varieties of free will worth wanting. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
Divers, J. 2002. Possible worlds. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Engels, F. 1975. Socialism: utopian and scientific. Foreign Languages PressGoogle Scholar
Forbes, G. 1985. The metaphysics of modality. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Frankfurt, H.G. 1988. The importance of what we care about: philosophical essays. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, M. 2002. The real free lunch: markets and private property. In Toward liberty: the idea that is changing the world. ed. Boaz, D.., 55–62. Cato InstituteGoogle Scholar
Gendler, T.S. & Hawthorne, J., eds. 2002. Conceivability and possibility. Clarendon Press, 2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, B. & Taylor, K.. 1982. The politics of utopia: a study in theory and practice. St. Martin's PressGoogle Scholar
Hawthorn, G. 1991. Plausible worlds: possibility and understanding in history and the social sciences. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hitchcock, C. 1996. Farewell to binary causation. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 26: 267–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kateb, G. 1963. Utopia and its enemies. The Free PressGoogle Scholar
Klein, D.B., ed. 1999. What do economists contribute? Cato InstituteCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolnai, A. 1995. The utopian mind and other papers: a critical study in moral and political philosophy, ed. Athlone, F. DunlopGoogle Scholar
Levitas, R. 1990. The concept of utopia. Syracuse University PressGoogle Scholar
Levy, D. 1982. Is an observed monopoly inefficient? Center for Study of Public Choice, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1986. On the plurality of worlds. Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar
Loux, M.J. 1979. The possible and the actual: readings in the metaphysics of modality. Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
Lycan, W.G. 1994. Modality and meaning. Dordrecht: Kluwer PublishersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannheim, K. 1936. Ideology and utopia: an introduction to the sociology of knowledge. HarcourtGoogle Scholar
Manuel, F.E. & Manuel, F.P. 1979. Utopian thought in the western world. Belknap Press of Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Mill, J.S. 1958 [1861]. Considerations on representative government. Bobbs-MerrillGoogle Scholar
Norcross, A. 1990. Consequentialism and the unforeseeable future. Analysis 50: 253–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norcross, A. 1997. Good and bad actions. Philosophical Review 106: 1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pears, D.F. 1973. Ifs and cans. In Essays on J.L. Austin. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Philbrook, C. 1999 [1953]. ‘Realism’ in policy espousal. In What do economists contribute? ed. Klein, D.B., 69–86. Cato InstituteCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, A. 1989. The nature of necessity. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Pruss, A.R. 2001. Possible worlds: what they are good for and what they are not. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V.O. 1953. From a logical point of view. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Sargent, L.T. 2000. Utopian themes: themes and variations. In Utopia: the search for the ideal society in the western world, ed. Schaer, R., Claeys, G., & Sargent, L.T, 8–15. The New Public Library/Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Sciabarra, C. 2000. Total freedom: toward a dialectical libertarianism. Pennsylvania State University PressGoogle Scholar
Sider, T. 2002. The ersatz pluriverse. Journal of Philosophy 99: 279–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1962 [1906]. The methods of ethics. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Tullock, G. 1967. The general irrelevance of the general impossibility theorem. Quarterly Journal of Economics 81: 256–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Inwagen, P. 1983. An essay on free will. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Wells, H.G. 1962 [1905]. A modern utopia. In The quest for utopia: an anthology of imaginary societies, ed. Negley, G. & Patrick, J.M., 224–50. Anchor BooksGoogle Scholar