Geoffrey M. Hodgson — Education is not a public good

I am surprised that Geoffrey Hodgson would make an elementary error in argument by taking an arbitrary definition as an absolute criterion.

His argument actually says that those he is opposing are using the term "public good" in a way that contradicts current convention in the dominant faction of the economics profession.

What if the definition is too narrow to fit the general case and is therefore only suitable for special case models?

This is similar to the claim of conventional economists that the methodological debate is over and only their method is admissible in inquiry and debate.

It's also reminiscent of religious dogmatism.

It is an example of the sort of authoritarian nonsense that Paul Feyerabend was opposing in Against Method (PDF download).

Yeah, I know — "Anarachism," "Postmodernism," "epistemological relativism," and all that. The basis for asserting these types of view derives from an analysis of the role of power in discourse.

This is a classic power play at the level of John Bates Clark and James Buchanan. As an institutionalist, Hodgson should know this. Or maybe he does?

I actually like the conventional definition in some respects, but as guideline rather than a dogma. I don't receive it as "blest."

The "blessing" comes from elevating economic liberalism over social and political liberalism, which results in many paradoxes.

Why should what some liberal economists say (assume) dictate criteria outside the framework in which they serve as arbitrary criteria. Hello, model definitions are always stipulations and their necessity is logical necessity limited to the model.

As for conventional economics and lot more, the influence of these views will recede as the Anglo-American influence declines in a changing world where the Global East and South are rising and the North and West are waning.

New Politics

Education is not a public good

Geoffrey M. Hodgson | Research Professor of Business Studies in the University of Hertfordshire, and also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Institutional Economics.

Francine Mestrum — Promoting the Social Commons

Firstly, the term ‘social commons’ is meant to be analogous with the protection of the so-called ecological ‘commons’. Defending ‘the commons’ means focusing on that which is shared by all human beings. It is the very foundation of collective life of humanity. It also means resisting the current commodification of everything and a breakaway from the dominant logic. The ‘social commons’ are human-made commons, meant to protect individuals and societies.

Secondly, the notion of ‘social protection’ is, paradoxically, being hollowed out by the new global initiatives of the ILO, the World Bank and other international organisations. Some of their proposals have an important potential for improving the situation of poor people, but others barely go beyond the already existing poverty reduction policies. We think that in the long term, more is needed.

Thirdly, we noticed that the concept of ‘social protection’ has a very low appeal to young people who were raised in a neoliberal world in which individual freedom and competitiveness are presented as being natural. But these same young people do understand the value of solidarity and sharing with others. Changing the concept of social protection to social commons may change the perception and the understanding of an idea that may positively shape their future. It may also open up new analytical insights and lead to a new praxis fit for the 21st century.

Fourthly, and most importantly, we think that not only individuals need to be protected, but also societies. With its focus on competitiveness, neoliberalism is destroying social relationships, societies and communities. This collective dimension is particularly important when one knows that poverty is never a problem of poor people alone, but is the problem of societies with a skewed income distribution. It thus cannot be eradicated if the whole of society is not involved in solving it. This requires solidarity and active participation of all. Universalism will therefore be a major characteristic of ‘social commons’. This is based on the fact that social relationships are not purely contractual but are constitutive of each one’s individuality. Indeed, society is necessary for the survival of individuals.

Global Social Justice
Promoting the Social Commons
Francine Mestrum
(h/t Michel Bauwens at P2P Foundation Blog)