Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:46:45.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE LIBERTY OF PROGRESS: INCREASING RETURNS, INSTITUTIONS, AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2017

Peter J. Boettke  and
Rosolino A. Candela
Peter J. Boettke
Affiliation:
Economics, George Mason University
Rosolino A. Candela
Affiliation:
Political Science, Brown University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This essay argues that liberty generates progress via the generalized increasing returns to commercial activity. These increasing returns to expanding commercial activity follow from the gradual, cumulative process of institutionalizing particular liberties. As a society adopts an institutional framework from accumulated liberties, there is greater scope for productive specialization and social cooperation under the division of labor. Greater scope for market exchange also delivers social norms and commercial values that tolerate experimentation and innovation. Taken together, the accumulation and institutionalization of liberties gives rise to generalized increasing returns to commercial activity. It is through this cumulative process that the creative powers of a free civilization are unleashed, delivering societies from poverty and subjugation.

Keywords

entrepreneurshipinstitutionslibertyprogresseconomic growth
Type
Research Article
Information
Social Philosophy and Policy , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , Winter 2017 , pp. 136 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We wish to thank David Schmidtz, Bas van der Vossen, and an anonymous referee for their very helpful comments in drafting this essay. We also gratefully acknowledge Christopher Coyne, Douglas Rasmussen, and Virgil Storr for reading this essay and for providing helpful feedback.

References

1 Hayek, F. A., The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 19.Google Scholar

2 Buchanan, James M., The Collected Works of James M. Buchanan Volume 19: Ideas, Persons, and Events (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2001), 290.Google Scholar

3 Our definition of an institution follows that of economist Douglass C. North. According to North, “[i]nstitutions are the humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic and social interaction. They consist of both informal constraints (sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct), and formal rules (constitutions, laws, property rights).” See North, Douglas C., “Institutions,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, no. 1 (1991): 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Hayek, F. A., The Road to Serfdom, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 101Google Scholar.

5 Ibid., 101.

6 Smith, Adam, An Inquiry Into The Nature and Causes Of The Wealth Of Nations (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1981), 31Google Scholar.

7 Stigler, George J., “The Division of Labor is Limited by the Extent of the Market,” Journal of Political Economy 59, no. 3 (1951): 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 In his seminal paper, which attempted to restore the fundamental importance of Smith’s theorem, economist Allyn Young writes: “[t]hat theorem, I have always thought, is one of the most illuminating and fruitful generalizations which can be found anywhere in the whole literature of economics.” See Young, Allyn, “Increasing Returns and Economic Progress,” Economic Journal 38, no. 152 (1928): 529CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Buchanan in making this argument believed he was simply carrying on the tradition of classical political economy. Reading Lionel Robbins’s The Theory of Economic Policy in English Classical Political Economy, one would be hard-pressed to deny Buchanan’s claim. Robbins argued on page 4 that it “is no exaggeration to say that it is impossible to understand the evolution and the meaning of Western liberal civilization without some understanding of Classical Political Economy.” And, he added later on page 12 that you cannot understand the “invisible hand” doctrine of the classical political economists “unless you see it in combination with the theory of law and the functions of government which its authors also propounded.” It was central to the intellectual system of Hume, Smith, and Bentham, according to Robbins, that “the idea of freedom in vacuo was entirely alien to their conceptions.” (ibid.) In short, neither self-interest nor harmony of interests provide the explanatory “oomph” in the classics. Institutions channel self-interest and either produce a harmony of interests, or exacerbate conflicts of interest. The location of intellectual attention was found in comparative analysis. See Robbins, Lionel, The Theory of Economic Policy in English Classical Political Economy (London: Macmillan, 1965)Google Scholar.

10 Alchian, , “Summary Notes on Misleading Jargon,” The Collected Works of Armen A. Alchian Vol. 1: Choice and Cost Under Uncertainty (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2006), 546Google Scholar.

11 F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 81.

12 Quoted in F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 154.

13 McCloskey, Deirdre N., The Bourgeois Values: Ethics for an Age of Commerce (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 See McCloskey, Deirdre N., Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Peter Boettke and Rosolino Candela, “Comparative Historical Political Economy and the Bourgeois Era,” The Journal of Private Enterprise, forthcoming.

15 Deidre N. McCloskey, Bourgeois Dignity, 48.

16 Deaton, Angus, The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 44Google Scholar.

17 Lucas, Robert E. Jr., “On the Mechanics of Economic Development,” Journal of Monetary Economics 22, no. 1 (1988): 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Coyne, Christopher J., “Economics as the study of coordination and exchange,” in Boettke, Peter J., ed., Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2010), 15–17Google Scholar.

19 Smith, Adam, Essays on Philosophical Subjects (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1982), 322Google Scholar.

20 Bauer, Peter, From Subsistence to Exchange (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Douglass North writes in his Nobel Prize address: “The very methods employed by neoclassical economists have dictated the subject matter and militated against such a development. That theory in the pristine form that gave it mathematical precision and elegance modeled a frictionless and static world. When applied to economic history and development it focused on technological development and more recently human-capital investment but ignored the incentive structure embodied in institutions that determined the extent of societal investment in those factors. In the analysis of economic performance through time it contained two erroneous assumptions: (i) that institutions do not matter and (ii) that time does not matter.” See North, Douglass C., “Economic Performance Through Time,” The American Economic Review 84, no. 3 (1994): 359Google Scholar.

22 Buchanan, James M., “What Should Economists Do?” Southern Economic Journal 30, no. 3 (1964): 214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 Schmidtz, David, “Adam Smith on Freedom,” in Hanley, Richard Patrick, ed., Adam Smith: His Life, Thought, and Legacy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), 209Google Scholar.

24 Buchanan, James M., “What Should Economists Do?” Southern Economic Journal 30, no. 3 (1964): 218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Smith, Wealth Of Nations, 13.

26 McCloskey, Deirdre N., Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the Modern World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016)Google Scholar, XIII.

27 Schmidtz, David and Brennan, Jason, A Brief History of Liberty (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), 150Google Scholar.

28 Schmidtz, “Adam Smith on Freedom,” 211.

29 Buchanan, James M., Ethics and Economic Progress (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994), 14Google Scholar

30 Schmidtz, “Adam Smith on Freedom,” 209.

31 Buchanan, James M., Ethics and Economic Progress, 25Google Scholar.

32 Buchanan, James M. and Yoon, Yong J., “Constitutional Implications of Alternative Models of Increasing Returns,” Constitutional Political Economy 6 (1995): 193CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Holcombe, Randall G., “Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth,” The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1, no. 2 (1998): 50–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 McCloskey, Bourgeois Dignity, 65.

35 Quoted in Schmidtz, “Adam Smith on Freedom,” 211.

36 Schmidtz, “Adam Smith on Freedom,” 211.

37 Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 710.

38 Schmidtz and Brennan, A Brief History of Liberty, 150.

39 Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 81.

40 Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 151.

41 Kirzner, Israel M., Discovery and the Capitalist Process (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 29Google Scholar.

42 Schmidtz, “Adam Smith on Freedom,” 211.

43 Phelps, Edmund, Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge, and Change (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013), 47.Google Scholar

44 Schmidtz, “Adam Smith on Freedom,” 209.

45 Kirzner, Israel M., Competition and Entrepreneurship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 16–17Google Scholar.

46 Hayek, F. A., “Competition as a Discovery Procedure,” Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 5, no. 3 (2002): 9–23Google Scholar.

47 Ludwig von Mises, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth,” in F. A. Hayek, ed., Collectivist Economic Planning, reprint (Clifton, NJ: August M. Kelley, 1975 [1935]), 111; von Mises, Ludwig, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951), 119Google Scholar; Lavoie, Don, Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 48–77Google Scholar; Boettke, Peter J., “Economic Calculation: The Austrian Contribution to Political Economy,” Advances in Austrian Economics 5 (1998), 134Google Scholar.

48 Schmidtz and Brennan, A Brief History of Liberty, 84.

49 Boettke, Peter J. and Piano, Ennio, “Baumol’s Productive and Unproductive Entrepreneurship after 25 Years,” Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy 5, no. 2 (2016): 130–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Smith, Adam, Essays on Philosophical Subjects (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1982), 322Google Scholar.

51 See F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 148–67, and Boettke, Peter J., Calculation and Coordination: Essays in Transitional Political Economy (New York: Routledge, 2001), 52Google Scholar.

52 Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 343.

53 Ibid., 540. We can perhaps see this as a race between Smithian gains from trade, Schumpeterian gains from innovation, and the stupidity of government policies that thwart trade and innovation. As long as Smithian and Schumpeterian forces outpace stupidity, economic progress will continue to improve the lives of individuals. But if the forces of governmental policy outpace the forces of progress, we can see economic retrogression. See Boettke, Peter J., “Pessimistically Optimistic about the Future,” The Independent Review 20, no. 3 (2016): 345Google Scholar.

54 Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2005), 34.

55 Our earlier discussion of the exchange paradigm emphasized the dynamic adjustments that economic progress entails, rather than the static and technical efficiency that the allocation paradigm emphasizes. We are now emphasizing not just the growth aspects of economic progress, but the doux-commerce thesis that was also crucial to the classical political economists’ theory of human betterment. See Peter J. Boettke and Daniel J. Smith, “The Theory of Social Cooperation Historically Contemplated,” in Robert F. Garnett Jr., Paul Lewis, and Lenore T. Ealy, eds., Commerce and Community: Ecologies of Social Cooperation (New York: Routledge, 2015).

56 Rothbard, Murray, Man, Economy, and State: A Treatise on Economic Principles (Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand, 1962), 85.Google Scholar

57 See Peter Boettke and Rosolino Candela, “Development and Property Rights,” in Alain Marciano and Giovanni Battista Ramello, eds., Encyclopedia on Law and Economics (New York: Springer, forthcoming), and Peter Boettke and Rosolino Candela, “Comparative Historical Political Economy and the Bourgeois Era,” The Journal of Private Enterprise, forthcoming.

58 Smith, Adam, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1982), 86Google Scholar.

59 Schmidtz, “Adam Smith on Freedom,” 216.

60 Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 29.

61 Ibid., 19.

62 Mokyr, Joel, The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 266.Google Scholar

63 Berggren, Niclas and Nilsson, Therese, “Does Economic Freedom Foster Tolerance?” Kyklos 2 (2013): 183Google Scholar.

64 de Montesquieu, Charles, The Spirit of the Laws [1748], ed. Cohler, Anne M., Miller, Basia C., and Stone, Harold S. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 338Google Scholar.

65 Berggren, Niclas and and Elinder, Mikael, “Is Tolerance Good or Bad for Growth?” Public Choice 150, nos. 1/2 (2012): 290CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 Bauer, From Subsistence to Exchange, 8.

67 See Rasmussen, Douglas B. and Den Uyl, Douglas B., Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

68 North, Douglass C., Structure and Change in Economic History (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1981), 20Google Scholar.

69 Ibid., 22.

70 Ibid., 20.

71 von Mises, Ludwig, The Anti-Capitalist Mentality (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 2006), 24Google Scholar.

72 Rosenberg, Nathan and Birdzell, L. E., Jr., How the West Grew Rich (New York: Basic Books, 1986), 113Google Scholar.

73 Rosenberg and Birdzell, How the West Grew Rich, 138.

74 Cowen, Tyler, “Economic Effects of a Conflict-Prone World Order,” Public Choice 64, no. 2 (1990): 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1974), 18.Google Scholar

76 Mokyr, The Lever of Riches, 266.

77 Cowen, Tyler, “Economic Effects of a Conflict-Prone World Order,” Public Choice 64, no. 2 (1990): 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Alchian, Armen A., “Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory,” Journal of Political Economy 58, no. 3 (1950): 216CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

79 Schmidtz and Brennan, A Brief History of Liberty, 34.

80 North, Structure and Change in Economic History, 27.

81 Baumol, William J., “Entrepreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive,” Journal of Political Economy 98, no. 5 (1990): 901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, 29.

83 Ibid., 29.