IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v9y2021i4p165-d671036.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Private Property Rights, Dynamic Efficiency and Economic Development: An Austrian Reply to Neo-Marxist Scholars Nieto and Mateo on Cyber-Communism and Market Process

Author

Listed:
  • William Hongsong Wang

    (Department of Applied and Structural Economics & History, Faculty of Economics & Business, Complutense University of Madrid, 28223 Madrid, Spain)

  • Victor I. Espinosa

    (Department of Business Administration, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Providencia 7500912, Chile)

  • José Antonio Peña-Ramos

    (Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Providencia 7500912, Chile
    Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Faculty of Political Sciences and Sociology, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain)

Abstract

The Austrian school economics and neo-Marxist theories both have been reviving in recent years. However, the current academic discussion lacks a debate between two schools of economics with diametrically opposed views. This paper is the first and an initial Austrian challenge to Neo-Marxist scholars Nieto and Mateo’s argumentation that cyber-communism and the Austrian theory of dynamic efficiency are consistent to enhance economic development. Their argument focuses on two issues: (a) the existence of circular reasoning in the Austrian theory of dynamic efficiency, and (b) dynamic efficiency and full economic development could be strongly promoted in a socialist system through new information and communication technologies (ICT) and the democratization of all economic life. While cyber-communism refers to cyber-planning without private property rights through ICT, dynamic efficiency refers to the entrepreneurs’ creative and coordinative natures. In this paper, first, we argue that the hypothesis that dynamic efficiency and cyber-communism is not compatible. Contrary to the above cyber-communist criteria, the Austrian theory of dynamic efficiency argues that to impede private property rights is to remove the most powerful entrepreneurial incentive to create and coordinate profit opportunities. Second, we argue that the cyber-communism system is inconsistent with economic development. In this regard, we explain how the institutional environment can cultivate or stifle dynamic efficiency and economic development. Having briefly outlined the central argument of Nieto and Mateo, we examine the institutional arrangement supporting cyber-communism. After that, we evaluate the implications of cyber-communism in the dynamic efficiency process. It becomes manifest that Nieto and Mateo’s accounts are too general to recognize the complexity of how economic development works.

Suggested Citation

  • William Hongsong Wang & Victor I. Espinosa & José Antonio Peña-Ramos, 2021. "Private Property Rights, Dynamic Efficiency and Economic Development: An Austrian Reply to Neo-Marxist Scholars Nieto and Mateo on Cyber-Communism and Market Process," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jecomi:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:165-:d:671036
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/9/4/165/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7099/9/4/165/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jesús Huerta de Soto, 2010. "Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13905.
    2. Anthony M Endres & David A Harper, 2020. "Economic development and complexity: the role of recombinant capital," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 44(1), pages 157-180.
    3. Daron Acemoglu & Suresh Naidu & Pascual Restrepo & James A. Robinson, 2019. "Democracy Does Cause Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(1), pages 47-100.
    4. ., 2017. "Expectations, capital and entrepreneurship," Chapters, in: Time, Space and Capital, chapter 7, pages 128-157, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Per L. Bylund & G.P. Manish, 2017. "Private Property and Economic Calculation: A Reply to Andy Denis," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(3), pages 414-431, July.
    6. Allin Cottrell & Paul Cockshott, 2008. "Computadores y democracia económica," Revista de Economía Institucional, Universidad Externado de Colombia - Facultad de Economía, vol. 10(19), pages 161-205, July-Dece.
    7. Paul Cockshott, "undated". "Calculation, Complexity and Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Once Again," Papers deposited by Authors _014, Post-Keynesian Archive.
    8. Foss,Nicolai J. & Klein,Peter G., 2012. "Organizing Entrepreneurial Judgment," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521697262, January.
    9. Ennio E. Piano & Louis Rouanet, 2020. "Economic calculation and the organization of markets," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(3), pages 331-348, September.
    10. Cockshott, W Paul & Cottrell, Allin F, 1997. "Labour Time versus Alternative Value Bases: A Research Note," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 21(4), pages 545-549, July.
    11. Boettke, Peter J. & Candela, Rosolino A., 2017. "Price theory as prophylactic against popular fallacies," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 725-752, September.
    12. Daron Acemoglu & James A. Robinson, 2019. "Rents and economic development: the perspective of Why Nations Fail," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 13-28, October.
    13. Audrey Redford, 2020. "Property rights, entrepreneurship, and economic development," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 139-161, March.
    14. Baumol, William J., 1996. "Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 3-22, January.
    15. Peter Lewin & Nicolás Cachanosky, 2018. "Value and capital: Austrian capital theory, retrospect and Prospect," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 31(1), pages 1-26, March.
    16. Boettke, Peter J., 2020. "Property, predation and socialist reality," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 185-197, April.
    17. Fikret Adaman & Pat Devine, 2002. "A Reconsideration of the Theory of Entrepreneurship: A participatory approach," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 329-355.
    18. Adaman, Fikret & Devine, Pat, 1996. "The Economic Calculation Debate: Lessons for Socialists," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 20(5), pages 523-537, September.
    19. Bruce Caldwell, 1997. "Hayek and Socialism," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 35(4), pages 1856-1890, December.
    20. Boettke, Peter & Coyne, Christopher (ed.), 2015. "The Oxford Handbook of Austrian Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199811762.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Vicente Moreno‐Casas & Philipp Bagus, 2022. "Dynamic efficiency and economic complexity," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 115-134, February.
    2. Victor I. Espinosa & William Hongsong Wang & Jesús Huerta de Soto, 2022. "Principles of Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Decision-Making for Behavioral Development Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Victor I. Espinosa & Miguel A. Alonso Neira & Jesús Huerta de Soto, 2021. "Principles of Sustainable Economic Growth and Development: A Call to Action in a Post-COVID-19 World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-14, November.
    2. Victor I. Espinosa & William Hongsong Wang & Jesús Huerta de Soto, 2022. "Principles of Nudging and Boosting: Steering or Empowering Decision-Making for Behavioral Development Economics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, February.
    3. Victor I. Espinosa & José Antonio Peña-Ramos & Fátima Recuero-López, 2021. "The Political Economy of Rent-Seeking: Evidence from Spain’s Support Policies for Renewable Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-16, July.
    4. Darcy W E Allen, 2020. "When Entrepreneurs Meet:The Collective Governance of New Ideas," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number q0269, October.
    5. Yahya Madra & Fikret Adaman, 2013. "Neoliberal reason and its forms:Depoliticization through economization," Working Papers 2013/07, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    6. Anthony J. Evans, 2016. "The unintended consequences of easy money: How access to finance impedes entrepreneurship," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 233-252, September.
    7. Moreno-Casas, Vicente & Espinosa, Victor I. & Wang, William Hongsong, 2022. "The political economy of complexity: The case of cyber-communism," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 566-580.
    8. Grafström, Jonas, 2020. "An Austrian economic perspective on failed Chinese wind power development," Ratio Working Papers 336, The Ratio Institute.
    9. Makovi, Michael, 2016. "The Freedom of the Prices: Hayek's Road to Serfdom Reassessed," MPRA Paper 72071, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. William Hongsong Wang & Vicente Moreno-Casas & Jesús Huerta de Soto, 2021. "A Free-Market Environmentalist Transition toward Renewable Energy: The Cases of Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-27, July.
    11. Saul Estrin & Tomasz Mickiewicz & Anna Rebmann, 2017. "Prospect theory and the effects of bankruptcy laws on entrepreneurial aspirations," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 977-997, April.
    12. Niklas Elert & Dan Johansson & Mikael Stenkula & Niklas Wykman, 2023. "The evolution of owner-entrepreneurs’ taxation: five tax regimes over a 160-year period," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 33(2), pages 517-540, April.
    13. Mario Menegatti, 2021. "Risk aversion in two-period rent-seeking games," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 188(1), pages 269-287, July.
    14. Elert, Niklas & Stenkula, Mikael, 2020. "Intrapreneurship: Productive, Unproductive, and Destructive," Working Paper Series 1367, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    15. J. Barkley Rosser, 2020. "Austrian themes and the Cambridge capital theory controversies," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 415-431, December.
    16. Marta Podemska-Mikluch, 2021. "Taxonomy of Entrepreneurship – A Means-Oriented Approach," Studies in Public Choice, in: David J. Hebert & Diana W. Thomas (ed.), Emergence, Entanglement, and Political Economy, pages 63-72, Springer.
    17. Henrik Egbert & Teodor Sedlarski, 2020. "The foundations of contemporary economics: Gordon Tullock and public choice," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 107-118.
    18. Stefan Kolev & Nils Goldschmidt & Jan-Otmar Hesse, 2020. "Debating liberalism: Walter Eucken, F. A. Hayek and the early history of the Mont Pèlerin Society," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(4), pages 433-463, December.
    19. Paul Lewis, 2021. "Entrepreneurship, novel combinations, capital regrouping, and the structure-agency relationship: an introduction to the special issue on innovation and Austrian economics," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12, March.
    20. Dic Lo & Russell Smyth, 2004. "Towards a re-interpretation of the economics of feasible socialism," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(6), pages 791-808, November.

    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:gam:jecomi:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:165-:d:671036. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.