Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T15:35:42.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repugnance, externalities and subjectivism: a comment on Krawiec

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2023

Marie Daou  and
Alain Marciano Open the ORCID record for Alain Marciano [Opens in a new window]
Marie Daou
Affiliation:
University of Montpueller, Faculty of Economics (MRE), Montpellier, France
Alain Marciano*
Affiliation:
University of Montpueller, Faculty of Economics (MRE), Montpellier, France THEMA CY Cergy Paris Université UMR CNRS 8184, Cergy, France Karl Mittermaier Centre for Philosophy of Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: alain.marciano@umontpellier.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In her ‘Markets, repugnance, and externalities’ (2022), Kimberly Krawiec notes that the so-called corruption theorists fail to provide evidence that the adoption of repugnant behaviours or commodification destroy social values. She adds that, the values repugnant behaviours are supposed to destroy may even be reinforced after a market has been created. The explanation she explores is that the creation of a market never goes without debates that allow the society to ponder the values it stands for. We suggest an alternative view on the lack of evidence Krawiec identifies. Our starting point is Krawiec's interpretation of repugnance in terms of externalities. We claim that an analysis of repugnance based on externalities requires a characterization of what an externality is, which is rarely done. We show that economists use two opposed definitions of externalities, an objective and a subjective one, and then show what it implies for an analysis of repugnance and justify why the corruption thesis is not always verified empirically.

Keywords

Buchanancorruption theoryexternalitiesobjectivismrepugnancesubjectivism
Type
Comment
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 19 , Issue 6 , December 2023 , pp. 956 - 960
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Millennium Economics Ltd.

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

Allen, D., Berg, C. and Davidson, S. (2022) Repugnant innovation. Journal of Institutional Economics 1–12. doi:10.1017/S1744137422000364.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. (1990) The ethical limitations of the market. Economics and Philosophy 6(2), 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (1993) Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bertrand, E. (2021) Moralism at work in arguments against commodification: Repugnance and degradation, working-paper presented at WINIR Workshop on “Repugnant behaviours”, 24–25 February 2021.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1957) Federal Expenditure and State Functions. In Federal Expenditure Policy for Economic Growth and Stability. Washington: Joint Economic Committee, pp. 174–179.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1959) Positive economics, welfare economics, and political economy. Journal of Law and Economics 2(oct), 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1960) Review of the theory of public finance: a study in public economy, by R. A. Musgrave. Southern Economic Journal 26(3), 234–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1962) The relevance of Pareto optimality. Journal of Conflict Resolution 6(4), 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1969) Cost and Choice: An Inquiry in Economic Theory. Chicago: Markham Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. and Tullock, G. (1962) The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. and Stubblebine, W.C. (1962) Externality. Economica 29(116), 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabresi, G. (2016) The Future of Law and Economics: Essays in Reform and Recollection. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, R. (2016) Externalities as a basis for regulation: a philosophical view. Journal of Institutional Economics 12(3), 541–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, E. and Gradoz, J. (2022) Managing repugnance: How core–stigma shapes firm behavior. Journal of Institutional Economics 1–15. doi:10.1017/S1744137422000455.Google Scholar
Khalil, E.L. and Marciano, A. (2018) A theory of tasteful and distasteful transactions, Kyklos, 71(1), 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krawiec, K.D. (2022) Markets, repugnance, and externalities. Journal of Institutional Economics, published online: doi: 10.1017/S1744137422000157.Google Scholar
Musgrave, R.A. (1985) A Brief History of Fiscal Doctrine. In Auerbuch, AJ and Feldstein, M (eds.), Handbook of Public Economics, vol. I, North, Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., pp. 1–59.Google Scholar
Sandel, M.J. (2012) What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Sandel, M.J. (2013) Market reasoning as moral reasoning: why economists should re-engage with political philosophy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 27(4): 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, D. (1995) Markets in women's sexual labor. Ethics 106(1): 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, D. (2008) The moral limits of markets: the case of human kidneys. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society CVIII(3), 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satz, D. (2012) Why Some Things Should not be for Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar