Hayek’s Socialist Inconsistencies AKA Sparkie Does Your Homework For You
What follows should be a very interesting read for all of you. I must thank the woman in my life who spent 3 to 4 hours with me last night, combing this over, suggesting corrections, and generally discussing the theory. Her input was priceless, just as she is.
----------------------------------------------------
Hayek, throughout his work, stresses the importance of a liberal regime. The motivation for his libertarian position stems from what he views as the mistaken concept of most socialist and totalitarian regimes – the idea that one can centrally plan a society. Hayek begins his discussion of why this rational constructivist model of central planning is out of step with reality by pointing to the epistemic inaccessibility of the totality of knowledge (Tomlinson 18). Each individual has local and particular knowledge such that no one individual could have access to the whole of this knowledge. The totality of this information is dispersed, and therefore, the assumption that one could centrally plan an economy and/or society is naïve and fallacious. Society, as it is now, was formed not through human design, but by individuals pursuing a plurality of ends in ignorance of the activities of a vast majority of other individuals (Bellamy 18). He refers to this as a spontaneous order, with the most significant example of it being the economic market. The individuals acting within a spontaneous order, or cosmos, are able to interact with each other in a beneficial yet unplanned way, by using their particular knowledge and mutually adjusting their actions as a result of trial and error, negative feedback, and signals provided by the price mechanism (Hayek, “Law” vol. 2 33). In this way the market is able to intricately connect the dispersed knowledge and make use of it. In such a spontaneous order as the economic market, people’s actions are constrained by rules of just conduct – certain social norms that are end independent and which are observed yet unconsciously known to each individual. Hayek contrasts the spontaneous order of the Great Society, modern complex society, with the rational constructivist model of the state or organization. In the constructed order, or taxis, all law, or legislation as Hayek terms it, is the product of some will and is geared toward a particular end. Such a constructed order as the government is necessary, in Hayek’s opinion, since in one respect legislation aimed at particular ends is well suited for providing collective public goods (Bellamy 22). Furthermore, it exists to uphold the rule of law by enforcing the rules of just conduct necessary for a spontaneous order. The most central rules of just conduct needed to maintain a spontaneous order are stability of property, its transference by consent (contract), and the fulfillment of promises (tort) (Gamble 48). The imperfection of knowledge is central to Hayek’s understanding of how the spontaneous order of the market economy is to be approached. Hayek strays away from even using the term ‘economy’ - he believes that the term has been tainted by constructivist thinkers who believe that they can alter at will what for him is not the product of human design (“Law” vol. 2 99). Instead, Hayek refers to the market economies as a catallaxy. In the catallaxy, different particular and dispersed knowledge is reconciled and organized, even though no particular outcome is intended (Bellamy 19). Each person works within their chosen niche, unknowing how they fit into the whole picture, and is induced to provide for the needs of others without even knowing what those particular needs are. Price mechanisms signal to the individuals whether or not their efforts are properly directed, with correct decisions yielding in high returns. When expectations are disappointed this provides a negative feedback to the individual who, in turn, adapts their efforts respectively. In the catallaxy, there would be no human agency responsible for the differing fates of the individuals, since each person’s position would be the result of impersonal market forces (Lukes 119). With no agent responsible for the relative wealth and incomes of the individuals in a catallaxy, Hayek argues that the term social justice is meaningless in a spontaneous order, and only gains meaning in a command society where there is intended human action. Any attempt by the government to equally redistribute wealth according to a notion of merit is for Hayek socialist in nature, and goes against an individual’s freedom and entitlement to property (Tomlinson 21). Hayek does allow for a bare minimum income which the government can provide to individuals outside of the market mechanism (I think this is foolish because there is no such thing as “outside the market” under a view like Hayek’s. That, however, would take up another post so I will not pick on it too much here.). This idea of welfare is specifically inconsistent with Hayek’s views, I will argue, and allowing such minimum income assurance to occur would not only entail a property right violation that cannot be justified, but would also be pursuing end-dependent aims in repositioning individuals within the catallaxy. Furthermore, any government distributed income disrupts the necessary negative feedback, preventing individuals from using their own knowledge for their individual ends – a concept central to Hayek’s argument.
Hayek links the subversion of law in the western capitalist states, since the 19th century, to the pursuit of social justice (Bellamy 20). Justice, for Hayek, is simply a general applicable rule and is geared toward focusing on the procedure of social interactions and not their results. Social justice, in contrast, aims at achieving a certain end state of equal distribution. Hayek finds this notion to be outrageous since it implies an impossibility. Social justice is meaningless in a spontaneous order since the outcomes and relative positions of each individual are the unintended and unforeseeable product of millions of human actions in the market order (Fleetwood 152). Advocates of social justice want to attach the incompatible notions of reward and merit to the distribution of material assets, and Hayek views this as a mistake (“Constitution” 95). In a free society, no human agency is responsible for the distribution of wealth in the market, and so individuals have no one to lodge a complaint against (Lukes 120). Only consequences of intended actions can be the subject of just or unjust discussion, and therefore this excludes results of the market. Any attempt to link reward to merit in a spontaneous order is fruitless, since the uncertainty of the outcome is so great and our individual estimates of the chances of various efforts differ (Hayek “Constitution” 96). As Hayek points out, we do not want people to maximize their merit, but their usefulness to others. Any attempt to link merit with reward would be committing the same mistake as someone who believes in a centrally planned economy – nobody’s knowledge is sufficient to guide all human action and similarly no one has access to the totality of knowledge such that they could reward all efforts according to merit, need, value or desert (Lukes 121). Furthermore, notions of desert, merit, and value are subjective and any ranking of them by the government would be arbitrary. Social justice would eventually lead one to socialism since it would require the government to produce a particular pattern of distribution, which would limit one’s ability to use their knowledge for their individual ends. He sees it as the first step towards the government regulating relative incomes of the great majority. Even though Hayek rejects social justice, he does allow governments to provide a guarantee against severe deprivation in the form an assured minimum income which would occur outside the market (124) (Again with the “outside the market” business. Geez.).
Hayek believes that private property and unregulated markets are the most efficient and beneficial ways for society to function in the long run (Kelly 72). He finds that private property is indispensable to the utilization of fragmented knowledge and is needed in order for exchange to take place (Kley 52). Hayek wants states to provide accessibility to knowledge even if this overrides property rights since he finds human flourishing of knowledge to be the most central process of society (85). For example, mandated sharing of one’s artwork or historical documents for show in a museum, and publicly funded theaters would be allowed. Providing welfare by means of proportional taxation not only violates property rights, but does so in a way that can not be justified by referring to an overriding concern to promote knowledge. Hayek is proposing an entity outside the market to raise tax revenues, but the particular aim for the distribution of a minimum income is the repositioning of individuals within the catallaxy. Even by providing minimum income assurance outside the market, which in my view is impossible to have this happen “outside” the market, it can be seen as detrimental to the catallaxy Hayek proposes. It would entail raising revenue from the individuals within the Great Society, and redistributing it to individuals who were unable to use their particular knowledge in a way that was beneficial to them. This would mean that those whom the taxes were taken from would lose their claim to such private property, the taxes collected, for no other reason then to prop up the position of the poorest in society. No overriding need could be used to justify such a violation, since this case cannot be rationalized with allowing knowledge to flourish. Taxes raised for welfare are different than taxes raised for collective goods such as defense. Revenues for collective goods can be justified since they are universally used and provide the background condition in which a market order can operate and dispersed knowledge can come together. Government dispersed income to the poor cannot be justified as a collective good and deprives individuals of their private property for use in particular ends; raising the income of certain individuals. In a spontaneous order the position of each individual is the result of the actions of many other individuals, and nobody has the responsibility to make sure that these actions result in a certain position for someone (Hayek “Law” vol. 2 33). It seems contradictory to allow the state to redefine such positions, which were the result and responsibility of no one. Even if such redistribution of private property is not linked to concepts of merit, an idea Hayek has a problem with, or aiming at absolute equal incomes for all, it still is interfering with the property rights of all and benefiting only some with no valid justification.
Providing individuals with a safety net severs the connection between reward and responsibility, and places the individual in a contrived position which impersonal market forces did not place them in. The altered position of such an individual receiving income from the government is also not the accident of the environment, such as wealth someone is born into or a natural ability one has, and is therefore aimed at a particular result which is different from that which would have occurred if it had been allowed unaided to follow its inherent principle – something which Hayek himself rejects in a spontaneous order (“Law” vol. 2 128). Even though the income is distributed by an entity outside the market, it is nevertheless aiming at a particular result within the market. It requires a discrimination and unequal treatment of people which is irreconcilable in a free society (Hayek “Constitution” 259). The pattern of property holdings within the market, will in turn become the product of the government’s will in the instances in which the government gives revenue to certain individuals. The end-dependent nature of aiming at such a contrived particular result, namely giving particular people particular income such that they are above a minimum threshold, can be seen as intervention and as contributing in disrupting the overall order.
Within the catallaxy, dispersed knowledge is brought together by coordinating the activities of the different agents, none of whom knows in detail every aspect of the whole they are part of (Kuthakas 66). To be specific, the fragmented knowledge in reference to the market order, refers to knowledge of preferences and production factors (Kley 49). Nobody knows the totality of the things that are wanted in the market, the best way to produce it, or how urgently they are wanted. Even if someone did have access to all this information, which is epistemically impossible, one would still need local knowledge, and furthermore, the information is constantly changing. The market price system allows individuals to know what preferences people have at any moment by reflecting them in the relative prices (53). The price system mirrors the changes in preferences that occur in the market, and serves as a basis for individuals to make their decisions. Decisions are correct if the forms of investment and job chosen yield high returns (Miller 64). As Hayek points out we can only make effective use of dispersed knowledge and the price mechanism by allowing the principle of negative feedback to operate; some individuals must suffer (“Law” vol. 2 71). When expectations are disappointed and result in unemployment, diminishing income, or loss of property, it is important to pay attention to this, Hayek says, since prices and disappointed expectations spread knowledge of opportunity (116). The negative feedback signals to the individual that their efforts must be redirected in order to be beneficial in the market and attract income. Without this feedback and the price mechanism, individuals cannot efficiently use their particular knowledge for beneficial ends.
Providing a safety net for individuals who fall below a minimum income threshold would lead to disrupting the negative feedback signals that are essential to proper use of dispersed knowledge. The individual who received such income would be unable to accurately read whatever feedback they have received from the market since their material status would not be the result of market forces. An essential characteristic of the market for Hayek is that it is a discovery process whereby people discover the subjective values of goods and services which are widely dispersed through a process of trial and error as well as adaptation (Gamble 69). With division of labor each individual does not know in totality all the uses for a product or the subjective preferences of use (Kley 53). Competition and thwarted efforts allow individuals to discover the relevant economic facts which are transitory in nature. Interfering in the signals of the market would be disastrous to any true and untainted discovery process, whereby the signals, especially those of negative feedback, would be blurred by the government redefining the poorest individual’s relative material success.
In order for Hayek to remain consistent and not unjustifiably thwart personal property rights, aim at particular end results in the spontaneous order, disrupt negative feedback signals as well as prevent individuals from properly using their individual knowledge, he must leave welfare up to the catallaxy. By leaving it up to the catallaxy, possibly voluntary associations will spontaneously emerge that will provide goods and services to the poorest individuals in the Great Society. While some may object that such voluntary associations would never emerge, seeing that all rational actors in the market order are self-interested, this objection is clearly wrong. One can observe a range of such philanthropic associations in this day and age, which is remarkable seeing that a system of welfare is provided for apart from this by the government. Individuals, for whatever reason, still find themselves wanting to provide services to the poor, even though many are also simultaneously being helped by the government. While this is not to suggest that such government help is exhaustive and independent assistance is not needed, it does go to show that it is probable in a market where no such government aid is available more non-governmental aid will occur.
Works Cited (All from Sparkie's personal library.)
Bellamy, Richard. Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Comprimise. London: Routledge, 1999.
Fleetwood, Steve. Hayek’s Political Economy: The Socio-economics of Order. London: Routledge, 1995.
Gamble, A. Hayek on Liberty. London: Routledge, 1998.
Hayek, Friedrich. Law Legislation and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice. Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
---. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Kelly, Paul. Liberalism. Malden: Polity Press, 2005.
Kley, R. Hayek’s Social and Political Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Lukes, Steven. Liberals and Cannibals. New York: Verso, 2003.
Miller, D. Market, State and the Community: Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Tomlinson, Jim. Modern Thinkers on Welfare edited by Vic George. Chapter One. “Hayek”. London: Prentice Hall, 1995.
----------------------------------------------------
Hayek, throughout his work, stresses the importance of a liberal regime. The motivation for his libertarian position stems from what he views as the mistaken concept of most socialist and totalitarian regimes – the idea that one can centrally plan a society. Hayek begins his discussion of why this rational constructivist model of central planning is out of step with reality by pointing to the epistemic inaccessibility of the totality of knowledge (Tomlinson 18). Each individual has local and particular knowledge such that no one individual could have access to the whole of this knowledge. The totality of this information is dispersed, and therefore, the assumption that one could centrally plan an economy and/or society is naïve and fallacious. Society, as it is now, was formed not through human design, but by individuals pursuing a plurality of ends in ignorance of the activities of a vast majority of other individuals (Bellamy 18). He refers to this as a spontaneous order, with the most significant example of it being the economic market. The individuals acting within a spontaneous order, or cosmos, are able to interact with each other in a beneficial yet unplanned way, by using their particular knowledge and mutually adjusting their actions as a result of trial and error, negative feedback, and signals provided by the price mechanism (Hayek, “Law” vol. 2 33). In this way the market is able to intricately connect the dispersed knowledge and make use of it. In such a spontaneous order as the economic market, people’s actions are constrained by rules of just conduct – certain social norms that are end independent and which are observed yet unconsciously known to each individual. Hayek contrasts the spontaneous order of the Great Society, modern complex society, with the rational constructivist model of the state or organization. In the constructed order, or taxis, all law, or legislation as Hayek terms it, is the product of some will and is geared toward a particular end. Such a constructed order as the government is necessary, in Hayek’s opinion, since in one respect legislation aimed at particular ends is well suited for providing collective public goods (Bellamy 22). Furthermore, it exists to uphold the rule of law by enforcing the rules of just conduct necessary for a spontaneous order. The most central rules of just conduct needed to maintain a spontaneous order are stability of property, its transference by consent (contract), and the fulfillment of promises (tort) (Gamble 48). The imperfection of knowledge is central to Hayek’s understanding of how the spontaneous order of the market economy is to be approached. Hayek strays away from even using the term ‘economy’ - he believes that the term has been tainted by constructivist thinkers who believe that they can alter at will what for him is not the product of human design (“Law” vol. 2 99). Instead, Hayek refers to the market economies as a catallaxy. In the catallaxy, different particular and dispersed knowledge is reconciled and organized, even though no particular outcome is intended (Bellamy 19). Each person works within their chosen niche, unknowing how they fit into the whole picture, and is induced to provide for the needs of others without even knowing what those particular needs are. Price mechanisms signal to the individuals whether or not their efforts are properly directed, with correct decisions yielding in high returns. When expectations are disappointed this provides a negative feedback to the individual who, in turn, adapts their efforts respectively. In the catallaxy, there would be no human agency responsible for the differing fates of the individuals, since each person’s position would be the result of impersonal market forces (Lukes 119). With no agent responsible for the relative wealth and incomes of the individuals in a catallaxy, Hayek argues that the term social justice is meaningless in a spontaneous order, and only gains meaning in a command society where there is intended human action. Any attempt by the government to equally redistribute wealth according to a notion of merit is for Hayek socialist in nature, and goes against an individual’s freedom and entitlement to property (Tomlinson 21). Hayek does allow for a bare minimum income which the government can provide to individuals outside of the market mechanism (I think this is foolish because there is no such thing as “outside the market” under a view like Hayek’s. That, however, would take up another post so I will not pick on it too much here.). This idea of welfare is specifically inconsistent with Hayek’s views, I will argue, and allowing such minimum income assurance to occur would not only entail a property right violation that cannot be justified, but would also be pursuing end-dependent aims in repositioning individuals within the catallaxy. Furthermore, any government distributed income disrupts the necessary negative feedback, preventing individuals from using their own knowledge for their individual ends – a concept central to Hayek’s argument.
Hayek links the subversion of law in the western capitalist states, since the 19th century, to the pursuit of social justice (Bellamy 20). Justice, for Hayek, is simply a general applicable rule and is geared toward focusing on the procedure of social interactions and not their results. Social justice, in contrast, aims at achieving a certain end state of equal distribution. Hayek finds this notion to be outrageous since it implies an impossibility. Social justice is meaningless in a spontaneous order since the outcomes and relative positions of each individual are the unintended and unforeseeable product of millions of human actions in the market order (Fleetwood 152). Advocates of social justice want to attach the incompatible notions of reward and merit to the distribution of material assets, and Hayek views this as a mistake (“Constitution” 95). In a free society, no human agency is responsible for the distribution of wealth in the market, and so individuals have no one to lodge a complaint against (Lukes 120). Only consequences of intended actions can be the subject of just or unjust discussion, and therefore this excludes results of the market. Any attempt to link reward to merit in a spontaneous order is fruitless, since the uncertainty of the outcome is so great and our individual estimates of the chances of various efforts differ (Hayek “Constitution” 96). As Hayek points out, we do not want people to maximize their merit, but their usefulness to others. Any attempt to link merit with reward would be committing the same mistake as someone who believes in a centrally planned economy – nobody’s knowledge is sufficient to guide all human action and similarly no one has access to the totality of knowledge such that they could reward all efforts according to merit, need, value or desert (Lukes 121). Furthermore, notions of desert, merit, and value are subjective and any ranking of them by the government would be arbitrary. Social justice would eventually lead one to socialism since it would require the government to produce a particular pattern of distribution, which would limit one’s ability to use their knowledge for their individual ends. He sees it as the first step towards the government regulating relative incomes of the great majority. Even though Hayek rejects social justice, he does allow governments to provide a guarantee against severe deprivation in the form an assured minimum income which would occur outside the market (124) (Again with the “outside the market” business. Geez.).
Hayek believes that private property and unregulated markets are the most efficient and beneficial ways for society to function in the long run (Kelly 72). He finds that private property is indispensable to the utilization of fragmented knowledge and is needed in order for exchange to take place (Kley 52). Hayek wants states to provide accessibility to knowledge even if this overrides property rights since he finds human flourishing of knowledge to be the most central process of society (85). For example, mandated sharing of one’s artwork or historical documents for show in a museum, and publicly funded theaters would be allowed. Providing welfare by means of proportional taxation not only violates property rights, but does so in a way that can not be justified by referring to an overriding concern to promote knowledge. Hayek is proposing an entity outside the market to raise tax revenues, but the particular aim for the distribution of a minimum income is the repositioning of individuals within the catallaxy. Even by providing minimum income assurance outside the market, which in my view is impossible to have this happen “outside” the market, it can be seen as detrimental to the catallaxy Hayek proposes. It would entail raising revenue from the individuals within the Great Society, and redistributing it to individuals who were unable to use their particular knowledge in a way that was beneficial to them. This would mean that those whom the taxes were taken from would lose their claim to such private property, the taxes collected, for no other reason then to prop up the position of the poorest in society. No overriding need could be used to justify such a violation, since this case cannot be rationalized with allowing knowledge to flourish. Taxes raised for welfare are different than taxes raised for collective goods such as defense. Revenues for collective goods can be justified since they are universally used and provide the background condition in which a market order can operate and dispersed knowledge can come together. Government dispersed income to the poor cannot be justified as a collective good and deprives individuals of their private property for use in particular ends; raising the income of certain individuals. In a spontaneous order the position of each individual is the result of the actions of many other individuals, and nobody has the responsibility to make sure that these actions result in a certain position for someone (Hayek “Law” vol. 2 33). It seems contradictory to allow the state to redefine such positions, which were the result and responsibility of no one. Even if such redistribution of private property is not linked to concepts of merit, an idea Hayek has a problem with, or aiming at absolute equal incomes for all, it still is interfering with the property rights of all and benefiting only some with no valid justification.
Providing individuals with a safety net severs the connection between reward and responsibility, and places the individual in a contrived position which impersonal market forces did not place them in. The altered position of such an individual receiving income from the government is also not the accident of the environment, such as wealth someone is born into or a natural ability one has, and is therefore aimed at a particular result which is different from that which would have occurred if it had been allowed unaided to follow its inherent principle – something which Hayek himself rejects in a spontaneous order (“Law” vol. 2 128). Even though the income is distributed by an entity outside the market, it is nevertheless aiming at a particular result within the market. It requires a discrimination and unequal treatment of people which is irreconcilable in a free society (Hayek “Constitution” 259). The pattern of property holdings within the market, will in turn become the product of the government’s will in the instances in which the government gives revenue to certain individuals. The end-dependent nature of aiming at such a contrived particular result, namely giving particular people particular income such that they are above a minimum threshold, can be seen as intervention and as contributing in disrupting the overall order.
Within the catallaxy, dispersed knowledge is brought together by coordinating the activities of the different agents, none of whom knows in detail every aspect of the whole they are part of (Kuthakas 66). To be specific, the fragmented knowledge in reference to the market order, refers to knowledge of preferences and production factors (Kley 49). Nobody knows the totality of the things that are wanted in the market, the best way to produce it, or how urgently they are wanted. Even if someone did have access to all this information, which is epistemically impossible, one would still need local knowledge, and furthermore, the information is constantly changing. The market price system allows individuals to know what preferences people have at any moment by reflecting them in the relative prices (53). The price system mirrors the changes in preferences that occur in the market, and serves as a basis for individuals to make their decisions. Decisions are correct if the forms of investment and job chosen yield high returns (Miller 64). As Hayek points out we can only make effective use of dispersed knowledge and the price mechanism by allowing the principle of negative feedback to operate; some individuals must suffer (“Law” vol. 2 71). When expectations are disappointed and result in unemployment, diminishing income, or loss of property, it is important to pay attention to this, Hayek says, since prices and disappointed expectations spread knowledge of opportunity (116). The negative feedback signals to the individual that their efforts must be redirected in order to be beneficial in the market and attract income. Without this feedback and the price mechanism, individuals cannot efficiently use their particular knowledge for beneficial ends.
Providing a safety net for individuals who fall below a minimum income threshold would lead to disrupting the negative feedback signals that are essential to proper use of dispersed knowledge. The individual who received such income would be unable to accurately read whatever feedback they have received from the market since their material status would not be the result of market forces. An essential characteristic of the market for Hayek is that it is a discovery process whereby people discover the subjective values of goods and services which are widely dispersed through a process of trial and error as well as adaptation (Gamble 69). With division of labor each individual does not know in totality all the uses for a product or the subjective preferences of use (Kley 53). Competition and thwarted efforts allow individuals to discover the relevant economic facts which are transitory in nature. Interfering in the signals of the market would be disastrous to any true and untainted discovery process, whereby the signals, especially those of negative feedback, would be blurred by the government redefining the poorest individual’s relative material success.
In order for Hayek to remain consistent and not unjustifiably thwart personal property rights, aim at particular end results in the spontaneous order, disrupt negative feedback signals as well as prevent individuals from properly using their individual knowledge, he must leave welfare up to the catallaxy. By leaving it up to the catallaxy, possibly voluntary associations will spontaneously emerge that will provide goods and services to the poorest individuals in the Great Society. While some may object that such voluntary associations would never emerge, seeing that all rational actors in the market order are self-interested, this objection is clearly wrong. One can observe a range of such philanthropic associations in this day and age, which is remarkable seeing that a system of welfare is provided for apart from this by the government. Individuals, for whatever reason, still find themselves wanting to provide services to the poor, even though many are also simultaneously being helped by the government. While this is not to suggest that such government help is exhaustive and independent assistance is not needed, it does go to show that it is probable in a market where no such government aid is available more non-governmental aid will occur.
Works Cited (All from Sparkie's personal library.)
Bellamy, Richard. Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Comprimise. London: Routledge, 1999.
Fleetwood, Steve. Hayek’s Political Economy: The Socio-economics of Order. London: Routledge, 1995.
Gamble, A. Hayek on Liberty. London: Routledge, 1998.
Hayek, Friedrich. Law Legislation and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice. Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.
---. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.
Kelly, Paul. Liberalism. Malden: Polity Press, 2005.
Kley, R. Hayek’s Social and Political Thought. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Lukes, Steven. Liberals and Cannibals. New York: Verso, 2003.
Miller, D. Market, State and the Community: Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.
Tomlinson, Jim. Modern Thinkers on Welfare edited by Vic George. Chapter One. “Hayek”. London: Prentice Hall, 1995.
