Rev Austrian Econ (2010) 23:107–110 DOI 10.1007/s11138-009-0100-x Response to Congleton and Wagner’s reviews of “Is the Welfare State Justified?” Daniel Shapiro Published online: 5 November 2009 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009 I am grateful to the editors of the Review of Austrian Economics to have the opportunity to respond to Roger Congleton and Richard Wagner’s reviews of Is the Welfare State Justified? (Shapiro 2007, henceforth IWSJ). The book’s arguments were addressed to people in a variety of disciplines, in particular, philosophers and economists, and the reviews by these thoughtful economists provide me with an opportunity to clarify some matters that were perhaps not sufficiently emphasized in IWSJ as well as to respond to some important criticisms. In particular, I will focus on the aims or methodology of IWSJ and whether the alternatives I argue are superior to the social insurance and government welfare—which I describe as “market-based alternatives” to the welfare state—should instead be considered as modifications of the welfare state. The aim of IWSJ is to show that philosophers who support central welfare state institutions such as Social Security, National Health Insurance, and government welfare, should, given their own principles or values, support more market-based alternatives
The Review of Austrian Economics – Springer Journals
Published: Nov 5, 2009
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud