Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics https://www.ejpe.org/journal <p>The Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics (EJPE) is a peer-reviewed bi-annual academic journal located at <a href="https://www.eur.nl/">Erasmus University Rotterdam</a>. EJPE publishes research on the methodology, history, ethics, and interdisciplinary relations of economics.</p> en-US editors@ejpe.org (The Editors) ackermans@esphil.eur.nl (Lennart Ackermans) Thu, 01 Apr 2021 13:58:17 +0200 OJS 3.3.0.4 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 Galbraith’s Integral Economics (1933–1983) https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/587 Alexandre Chirat Copyright (c) 2021 Alexandre Chirat https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/587 Thu, 01 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0200 Review of Massimiliano Vatiero’s The Theory of Transaction in Institutional Economics: A History. New York, NY: Routledge, 2021, 104 pp. https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/592 Douglas W. Allen Copyright (c) 2021 Douglas W. Allen https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/592 Wed, 21 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0200 I Choose for Myself, Therefore I Am https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/470 <p>Behavioral economics and existentialism both present informative perspectives on human choice. We argue in this article that the dialogue between the two approaches can enrich the current debate about the normative implications of behavioral economics. While behavioral economics suggests that our capacity to choose is constrained by cognitive biases and environmental influences, existentialism emphasizes that we can (and should) treat ourselves as free and ‘becoming’ beings in spite of the many constraints we face. Acknowledging these two perspectives in the form of a theoretical synthesis—which we propose to call <em>existentialist behavioral economics</em>—provides us with reasons why we should protect our choices ‘as our own’ and how doing so may be more difficult than we anticipate. It also provides a framework to analyze the threat of identity-shaping social and technological developments, such as preference-altering nudges and artificially intelligent prediction algorithms.</p> Malte Dold, Alexa Stanton Copyright (c) 2021 Malte Dold, Alexa Stanton https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/470 Mon, 31 May 2021 00:00:00 +0200 How Economists Ignored the Spanish Flu Pandemic in 1918–1920 https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/549 <p>The current Covid-19 pandemic has attracted significant attention from epidemiologists and economists alike. This differs from the 1918–1920 Spanish influenza pandemic, when academic economists hardly paid attention to its economic features, despite its very high death toll. We examine the reasons for that by contrasting the ways epidemiologists and economists reacted to the Spanish flu at the time and shortly after the pandemic. We also explore, but less extensively, some economic and epidemiologic writings during the twenty-five years that followed.</p> Mauro Boianovsky, Guido Erreygers Copyright (c) 2021 Guido Erreygers, Mauro Boianovsky https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/549 Sun, 23 May 2021 00:00:00 +0200 Pandemic Windfalls and Obligations of Justice https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/550 <p>The Covid-19 pandemic has caused significant economic hardships for millions of people around the world. Meanwhile, many of the world’s richest people have seen their wealth increase substantially during the pandemic, despite the significant economic disruptions that it has caused on the whole. It is uncontroversial that these effects, which have exacerbated already unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality, call for robust policy responses from governments. In this paper, I argue that the disparate economic effects of the pandemic also generate direct obligations of justice for those who have benefitted from pandemic windfalls. Specifically, I argue that even if we accept that those who benefit from distributive injustice in the ordinary, predictable course of life within unjust institutions do not have direct obligations to redirect their unjust benefits to those who are unjustly disadvantaged, there are powerful reasons to hold that benefitting from pandemic windfalls does ground such an obligation.</p> Brian Berkey Copyright (c) 2021 Brian Berkey https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/550 Fri, 04 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0200 Mandated Shutdowns, the Ratchet Effect, and The Barstool Fund https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/559 <p>Perhaps the most contentious part of the response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been the decision by governments to mandate—or effectively mandate—the shutdown of certain businesses. The justification for doing so is broadly consequentialist. The public health costs of not shutting down are so great that potential benefits from allowing businesses to open are dwarfed. Operating within this consequentialist framework, this paper identifies an underappreciated set of social costs that are a product of the present public policy that pairs mandated shutdowns with government subsidies. Such policy is prone to being an instance of what Robert Higgs calls the ratchet effect. Given that ratchets tend to be both costly and sticky, it is best to avoid allowing them to come into existence. This paper identifies a way of circumventing this particular ratchet; namely, by replacing governmental subsidies with support from private charitable funds like <em>The Barstool Fund</em>.</p> Jeffrey Carroll Copyright (c) 2021 Jeffrey Carroll https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/559 Tue, 08 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0200 Vaccine Refusal Is Not Free Riding https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/555 <p>Vaccine refusal is not a free rider problem. The claim that vaccine refusers are free riders is inconsistent with the beliefs and motivations of most vaccine refusers. This claim also inaccurately depicts the relationship between an individual’s immunization choice, their ability to enjoy the benefits of community protection, and the costs and benefits that individuals experience from immunization and community protection. Modeling vaccine refusers as free riders also likely distorts the ethical analysis of vaccine refusal and may lead to unsuccessful policy interventions.</p> Ethan Bradley, Mark Navin Copyright (c) 2021 Ethan Bradley, Mark Navin https://www.ejpe.org/journal/article/view/555 Sat, 12 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0200