IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/ijsepp/v43y2016i8p823-840.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An economic analysis of the philosophical common good

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Murphy
  • Jeff Parkey

Abstract

Purpose - – The purpose of this paper is to analyze economically several versions of the philosophical common good in order to contribute to the search for a viable conceptualization of the common good. Design/methodology/approach - – The paper presents an economic analysis of the common good by examining the extent to which eight different versions of the philosophical concept possess the consumption characteristics of excludability and rivalry – and thus how each version may be classified as an economic good: private, public, common, or club. Findings - – One of the examined versions of the philosophical common good is an economic common good; three versions are club goods; and four versions are public goods. Only those versions of the common good that are classifiable as public goods merit consideration as adequate conceptualizations in political and philosophical thought. In assessing the admissible versions the authors conclude that a viable conceptualization of the common good may simply be the maintenance of a peaceful social order that allows people to pursue their individual and collective goals in community. Originality/value - – The paper shows that an analysis of the philosophical common good using the economic criteria of excludability and rivalry can contribute to common good discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Murphy & Jeff Parkey, 2016. "An economic analysis of the philosophical common good," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 43(8), pages 823-840, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eme:ijsepp:v:43:y:2016:i:8:p:823-840
    DOI: 10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0168
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0168/full/html?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0168/full/pdf?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0168?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cinzia Castiglioni & Edoardo Lozza & Albino Claudio Bosio, 2018. "Lay People Representations on the Common Good and Its Financial Provision," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(4), pages 21582440188, October.
    2. Murphy Tim, 2017. "Justice and the Common Good in Dispute Resolution Discourse in the United States and the People’s Republic of China," The Law and Development Review, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 305-339, October.
    3. Pesci, Caterina & Costa, Ericka & Andreaus, Michele, 2020. "Using accountability to shape the common good," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 67.
    4. Cinzia Castiglioni & Edoardo Lozza & Andrea Bonanomi, 2019. "The Common Good Provision Scale (CGP): A Tool for Assessing People’s Orientation towards Economic and Social Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eme:ijsepp:v:43:y:2016:i:8:p:823-840. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.