IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v36y2012i4p981-994.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economists and the analysis of government failure: fallacies in the Chicago and Virginia interpretations of Cambridge welfare economics

Author

Listed:
  • Roger E. Backhouse
  • Steven G. Medema

Abstract

The theory of government failure was developed as a reaction against Pigovian welfare economics and the Cambridge approach to economic policy analysis generally, which ostensibly lacked a theory of governmental behaviour. We argue that the Cambridge tradition--as reflected in the writings of Henry Sidgwick, Alfred Marshall and A.C. Pigou--evidences a clear sense of the potential limitations and inefficiencies of the political process that were later developed, albeit in a more systematic fashion, in the government failure literature and at the same time bring out the ways in which the Cambridge and contemporary government failure approaches diverge, in spite of their strong similarities. Copyright The Authors 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. All rights reserved., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Roger E. Backhouse & Steven G. Medema, 2012. "Economists and the analysis of government failure: fallacies in the Chicago and Virginia interpretations of Cambridge welfare economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 36(4), pages 981-994.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:36:y:2012:i:4:p:981-994
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/ber047
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Karl Beyer & Stephan Puehringer, 2019. "Divided we stand? Professional consensus and political conflict in academic economics," ICAE Working Papers 94, Johannes Kepler University, Institute for Comprehensive Analysis of the Economy.
    2. Neal Hockley, 2014. "Cost–Benefit Analysis: A Decision-Support Tool or a Venue for Contesting Ecosystem Knowledge?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 283-300, April.
    3. William Keech & Michael Munger, 2015. "The anatomy of government failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-42, July.
    4. Fabio Masini, 2013. "Facts, Theories, and Policies in the History of Economics. An Introductory Note," HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT AND POLICY, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 5-16.
    5. Pim Derwort & Nicolas Jager & Jens Newig, 2019. "Towards productive functions? A systematic review of institutional failure, its causes and consequences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 281-298, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:cambje:v:36:y:2012:i:4:p:981-994. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.