economics - individualism in modern thought - from adam smith to hayek

8/12/2019 Economics - Individualism in Modern Thought - From Adam Smith to Hayek

1/6

IND IVIDU ALISM INMO D ERNTH O U G H T : FRO MA D AM

SM ITH TOHAYEK.BYLORENZO INFANTINO . LO N D O N A ND

N EW YORK:RO U TLED GE,1998

P rofessor Infant ino h as app l ied his considerable ski l ls to t he task of freeingthe soc ia l sc iences f rom the deforming constra in ts o f methodo log ica lco l lec t iv ism . Re ly ing o n the m ethod o log ica l ind iv idua l ism p ioneered anddeve loped by Bernard de M andevi l le , Ad am Smi th , H erber t Spencer , Carl M enger ,Ludw ig von M ises, Fr iedr ich H ayek and Kar l Popper , In fan t ino renders a parsimo n i -ous s tatem ent o f the theo ry o f u n in ten t iona l o rd er . As a soc io log ist , he d i rects h isco l leagues to the s imi la r them es tha t in fo rm th e w r i t ings o f G eorg Simm el and M ax

W eber in the larger co ntext o f h is searching exam inations of the con struct iv ist icm od es o f thou ght so tho rough ly ingra ined in the major w orks o f m i le D urkhe imand Talco tt Parson s.

Those w ho fo l l ow ed i n the w ake o f M andev il le and Smi th have m ade i tposs ib le to loca te each o f the major e lements o f un in ten t iona l o rder in thesesem inal w r i t ings. Therein, the h um an species is treated as soc ia l in i ts or ig ins andcon stra ined by w hat In fan t ino ca l ls a do ub le-entry o f accoun t . Ego act ing in v iewof h is o r her ow n in te rests depends upon m eans supp l ied b y O thers. To securethese means, Ego m ust sup ply m ater ia l and services that are m eans to O thers,used in fu r ther ing the ir ow n in te rests, w h ich need no t be appro ved by n or evenknow n to Ego . Ego s ow n p lan b ecom es a cons t ituen t pa r t o f a com pos it i on o find iv idua l act ions tha t no on e cou ld have p lanned n or even im ag ined, ex ante.

O ver h is f irst th ree ch apters, In fan t ino prov ides amp le dem onstrat ion tha t theso c ia l g lue that has been o f such great co ncern to socio lo gists is clear ly reco gniz-ab le in the conc essions ind iv idua ls a re boun d to o f fe r one ano ther in the co urse o faccumula t ing the means o f the i r own sa t is fact ions. These are the norms mostre levant to the soc io log ica l en terpr ise . Ar is ing d i rect ly ou t o f in te ract ion , theym easure the re lat ionships w hich actu al ly exist in soc iety (p. 17 ). The alternativesso p rom inent ly d isp layed in the m ainst ream o f soc io log ica l theory and researchare norm s im po sed b y autho r i ty. At b est, they m easure re lat ionships as im aginedby an e l i te , w h ich a lso seeks to b r ing them abou t .

In the case of economic exchange, norms appear in the form of pr ices. But i fprices are merely the costs that individuals must accept to further their own actionplans, they can be generalized to encom pass all the accom m od ations and c onc es-sion s ind ividuals extend to oth ers in socia l exch angew hich i tsel f is inclusive of a l lvar iet ies of p urely volun tary soc ia l interact io n. Fol low ing a logical and painstakingargument , In fan t ino em bel l ishes h is thesis w i th the s imp le ob serva t ion tha t I t i sno t by ch ance tha t Sm i th s inv isib le hand w as represented b y a ne tw ork o f p r ices,and the imp ar t ia l specta to r was const itu ted b y a ne tw ork o f norm s (p . 163 ) .

8 7

The Q uar te r l y Jou rna l o f Aus t r i an Econ om ics vo l . 2 , no . 1 (1999) : 879 2


2/6

In h is endeavor to communica te e f fect ive ly wi th soc io log ica l co l leagues,In fan t ino has had to o vercom e a numb er o f po ten t ia l ob stac les, som e o f w h ich arem erely h isto r ical and o thers m ore direct ly theoret ical . O n the histor ical side, he

cor rects the impress ion tha t Adam Smi th found any substant ive grounds fo rd isagreem ent w i th M andevi l le . Desp i te Sm i th s asser t ion tha t M andevi l le s no-t ions were in a lmost every respect erroneous, Infant ino has juxtaposed a suff i -c iency o f passages f rom the w orks o f bo th au tho rs to estab l ish the i r theore t ica lco nsistenc y. Turning m ore direct ly to w ard the theoret ical , he dissolves the putat iveincon sistency b e tw een Sm i th s w r i t ings inM o r a l Se n t i m e n t s and W e al th o f N a ti o n s by d em onstrat ing tha t imp ar t ia l specta tor and inv isib le hand coex is t easi ly inthe ear lie r wo rk. O nce the p re tense o f log ica l mo ra l found at ions has beenre jected , as i t w as not o n ly by M andevi l le and Sm i th , bu t a lso b y H um e, anyfundam enta l d ist inc t ion be tw een the tw o ideas m ust van ish .

Sociologists should take a l ively interest in th is d iscussion, wherein they wi l lapprec ia te the conto urs o f C.H . Coo ley s look ing g lass se l f, G .H . M ead s gener -

a l ized o ther and a neat sor t ing ou t o f the soc ia l -sc ien t i f i c mean ing tha t canprop er ly be assoc ia ted w i th the idea o f sym pathy. Re ly ing on A dam Sm i th (197 6,pp . 158 59) , In fan t ino suggests tha t sym pathy m ere ly a l low s us to see ourse lvesas o thers see us or as they w ou ld see us i f they knew every th ing about us (p . 25) .N ot hing in the co ncep t l inks sym pathy t o a shar ing of values or go als. As he says, sym pathy is no t a sent im ent , and pu t t ing onese lf in the O ther s p lace does notmean shar ing his sentiments ; i t is s imply equivalent to adopting his observationpo st (pp . 29 30) . Those w hose in t rod uct ion to the h isto ry o f soc ia l thought m ayhave been s l igh ted o r fo rgo t ten shou ld be imp ressed b y the soc ia l psycho log ica lsop h ist ica t ion o f these e igh teenth-century w r i te rs. They insisted on the p r imacy o fl ea rn ing ove r na tu re and the u t te r impo r tance o f w ha t we now ca ll p r ima rysoc ia l iza t ion . H ow ever st rong ly co ntem po rary soc io log ists and soc ia l psycho lo-gists may agree on these points, they appear hesi tant to a l low histor ical appl ica-

t ions, w h ich w ou ld e limina te the idea tha t hum an be ings have depended a t som ecr i t ica l po in t on the beq uest o f a soc ie ta l templa te f rom som e m yster ious source o ro ther .

O n the theore t ica l side m ost d i rect ly , In fan t ino has been ob l iged to g rapp lew i th the soc io log ica l con cept o f unequa l exchange. H is t rea tment o f th is m at te r isexce l len t , bu t he m ay have underest im ated the impo r tance o f the concept to m anysoc io log ists and the tenac i ty w i th w h ich they em brace i t . The mainst ream o f thesoc io log ica l l i te ra ture on inequa l i ty is g rounded in one way or another on thepo ssib i l i ty of un equ al exchange. Infant ino traces the b asic idea to the m ercanti l istsw ho h e ld exchange to be a zero-sum prop os i t ion (p . 39) . The theory o f un in ten-t iona l o rder , beg inn ing w i th the ideas o f spec ial iza t ion and the d iv ision o f labor ,depends fundamental ly on an exchange process that is posi t ive sum. I t is equal ly

c lear tha t methodo log ica l co l lec t iv ism depends just as heav i ly on mercant i l i s tteachings, rew orked as m ay be, into a neoc lassical form t hat can be descr ibed asempir ical at f inal equi l ibr ium (e.g., Co lem an 1990 ) o r i n to a D u rkhe im ian fo rmwhere in the va lues o f an e l i te can s tand proxy fo r the d ic ta tes o f a co l l e c t i ve co n sc ie n ce (e.g., B lau 1964). This is not the place to d iscuss the socio logicalaff in i ty for the z ero-sum gam e. Suff ice i t to say that Infant ino h as rested his case onabso lu te ly so l id g round. Exchange is an ana ly t ic concept tha t , by de f in i t ion ,exc ludes every e lem ent o f fo rce and f raud. W hether o r no t an abso lu te ly pure

8 8 TH E Q U A RTERLY JO U R N A L O F A U STRIA N EC O N O M IC S V O L. 2 , N O . 1 (SPRIN G 1 99 9)


3/6

exchange has ever been t ransacted betw een tw o h um an be ings is c lear ly no t anempi r ica l quest ion inso far as we are dea l ing wi th ax ioms; bu t the conceptua ld ist inct ion is perfec t ly clear. In defen se of the socio logists, it can b e said that o nce

t h e a c t o r and a c t i o n have been b an ished, W eber s d ist inc t ion b e tw een c lass(market) and par ty (power) becomes mean ing less and wi th i t the d is t inc t ionbetw een exchange and coerc ion .

The ambivalence of socio logists to the presence of actors emerges as animp or tan t them e in the cr it i ca l chapters tha t fo l low . The inco rpora t ion o f cho iceleaves am ple space fo r ignorance, e r ro r , fo rce , and f raud; bu t the co ntrary does no tho ld . I f cho ice is e limina ted, no th ing remains bu t s t imu lus and respo nse. N otw i th -stand ing the d im in ish ing residua ls o f igno rance and er ror , i t w i l l no longer m at te rwhether one says that responses have been tr iggered, e l ic i ted, induced, or co-erced.

D urkhe im is t rea ted o ver tw o chapters that i l lus t ra te a lm ost paradox ica lly howa thoroughgo ing construct iv is t ic cast o f mind can be t ransformedwi th on lynom ina l changesinto a con sisten t s ta tem ent o f the c ybernet ics o f un in ten t iona lorder. D urkheims mo st g lar ing defic i t w as his ignorance of the eco nom ics of h is day.H is po lemics directed at econom ists, mem bers of the O rthodo x Schoo l, etc., areremarkable in their neglect of form al citat ion. Infant ino q uotes Bergson, w ho w rotethat wi th Durkheim one never encountered a fact (quoted in Lukes 1972, p. 52).Infantino reveals D urkheim s straw m an as no ne o ther than Joh n Stuart M il l. Thischoice is remarkable in view o f the avalanche of new ideas w hich anim ated t he socia lscience s in the w ake of a st il l recent m arginal ist revo lut ion .

D urkhe im s car ica ture o f eco nom ists as pos it ing o r ig ina lly iso la ted and inde-pend ent ind iv idua ls, who con sequent ly en ter in to re lat ionsh ip o n ly to co-opera te(Du rkhe im 1 964 , p . 279) w as i r respo nsib ly fa lse in 18 93, bu t w as car ried fo rw ardnon ethe less by Parsons and co nt inues to th is day to in fo rm the soc io log ica l v iew o fi t s ow n ra ison d e t re . The D urkhe imian so lu t ion to a prob lem o f o rd er , w h ich cou ld

not have been app roached b y the eco nom ists he im ag ined, w as to c ast the Sta te asthe supreme organ o f mora l d isc ip l ine (Durkhe im 1958, p . 72) , making i t anindepend ent var iab le in the H ege l ian m anner (p . 63) .

Durkhe im never ventured in to the arena o f soc ia l o r ig ins. He was contentmerely to stress the impossib i l i ty that any such creature as h o m o e c o n o m i c u s cou ld have em erged to take on the task o f soc ie tal a rch itect . From th is vantagepo in t , he fe l t jus t i f ied in a rgu ing tha t soc ie ty cou ld on ly be a phenomenon su igener is . In fan t i no s exp l i ca t i on o f th i s t r oub lesome concep t focuses on Du rk -he im s dec i s ion to d i sa l l ow by cons ide ra t i on the resu l t s o f i n te rac t i on by i t spr inc ipa l par t ies in favor o f a r e a l t h i r d p e r s o n u p o n w h o m t h e se r e su l t s b e c a m ecrys ta l l i zed . Th i s th i r d pe rson becomes the common senso r ium tha t subo rd i -na tes ind iv idua ls to th e com m on goa ls, wh ich , in D urkhe im s v iew , were necessary

to soc ie ty s ex istence (p . 75 ) . In de fense o f the O pen Socie ty , here and insubsequent chapters , In fan t ino is on ly ob l iged to de fend the propos i t ion tha thum an be ings bene f i t ( o r su f fe r ) f rom the i r ow n exp e r iences. If th i s i s t r ue thent h e p r i vi le g e d p o i n t o f v i e w o n t h e w o r l d m u st b e t h a t o f a r e c o g n i z a b le e l it eand no t a rea li t y su i g e n e r i s . H e p l a c e s D u r k h e i m s m e t h o d i n t h e l ar g e r c o n t e x to f co l l ec t iv i st thou gh t , w i th i t s co nce i t o f de f i n ing the soc ia l Ab so lu te w h ichwi l l a lways be l imi ted to p lac ing some ind iv idua ls in an un just i f ied pos i t ion o fpr iv i lege (p . 76) .

BO O K REV IEW S 8 9


4/6

In fan t ino u ses chapter 5 to d raw ou t the de ta i led st rugg le be tw een D urkhe imsprofound disdain for the market and his most genuine socio logical insights. Bycare fu l ly no t ing D urkhe im s f requent lapses in to m ethod o log ica l ind iv idua lism , he

i s ab le to reconc i l e Du rkhe im bo th w i th H e rbe r t Spence r and G eo rg Simm e l . Thepr ice to be pa id fo r th is reconc i l ia t ion is the e l imina t ion o f soc ia l rea l ism, whereas The advantages l ie in the poss ib i l i ty o f reach ing a c lear soc io log ica lm e thod , and o f th row ing fu ll li gh t on the com p lex phenom enon tha t i s un in ten-t iona l o rder (p . 98) .

Chapter 6 do cum ents the metho do log ica l ind iv idua l ism tha t had deve loped insoc io logy a genera t ion be fore Ta lco t t Parsons embarked upon a career tha testab l ished h is p reeminence over a genera t ion o f soc io log ica l theore t ic ians.I n f an t i n o c o m p a r e s k e y w r it i n g s o f C a rl M e n g e r w i t h t h o se o f S im m e l an d t h e ne x am i n e s t h e w o r k o f M a x W e b e r a id e d b y t h e c r i t ic a l e y e o f L u d w i g v o n M i se s.Fo l l ow ing M enge r , Simm e l re jec ted the cen t ra l thes is o f h i s to r i ca l r ea l i smthat h is to r ica l sc ience is s imp ly a mi r ro r image o f the event as i t rea l ly hap-

pened in favor o f an a priori argumen t to w hich historians resort, i f only im plicitly, toarrange the facts into pattern s of re l ief an d b ack groun d (Simm el 197 7, pp. vi iv i i iand 76 77 ) . W i th M enge r he asse r ted the evo lu t i ona ry o r i g ins o f mo ney as a too lcapab le o f b e ing pu t to a va r ie ty o f u n fo reseeab le uses. Simm e l s co n ten t i o nt h a t p u r e l y m o n e t a r y o b l i g a t i o n s a r e t h o s e m o s t c o n g r u e n t w i t h p e r s o n a lf r eedom de r i ves f r om the sepa ra t i on tha t money a f fo rds be tween se rv i cesrende red and the goa l s tha t a re p r i va te l y pu rsued by ac to rs . Th i s opens ou rv iew to a soc ie ty t ha t r enou nces a un i ta r y sys tem o f ends (p . 114 ) .

M ax W eber t reated soc io logy as un ive rsa l h is to ry rather than as a socialsc ience tha t a ims a t un i ve rsal ly va l i d p rop os i t ion s (M ises 1976 , p . 106 ) .P ro fesso r In fan t i no i s thus ob l i ged to redu ce W eber s fou r -fo ld t yp o logy to thefundamen ta l d i cho tomy o f va lue - ra t i ona l and i ns t rumen ta l l y ra t i ona l ac -

t i ons , on the w ay to p resen t i ng the i deas and i nsigh ts tha t m os t ev iden t l y p laceh im in the t rad i t i on o f m e thodo log ica l i nd i v idua l ism (p . 129 ) .W eber re jected psycho log ism , a rgu ing tha t soc io logy b ears no c loser re la-

t ion to psycho logy than to any o ther sc ience. He was among the f i rs t to der ivedec l in ing marg ina l u t i l i ty f rom the mul t ip l i c i ty o f means and ends in the face o fscarci ty, independently of any physio logical or psychological tendencies to sat ia-t ion . A long w i th Bor is Bru tzkus and M ises, he grasped t he imp or tance o f marketpr ices fo r ca lcu lat ions tha t cou ld app roach any reasonab le s tandard o f econ om icef f ic iency. M ost impo r tan t ly , W eber insisted o n the u l t imacy o f the ind iv idua l insoc ia l ac t ion . For som e co gn i t ive p urp oses, en t i t ies such as assoc ia t io ns, co rpo -ra t ions, and s ta tes cou ld be t rea ted as the sub jects o f r igh ts and dut ies or asthe pe r fo rm ers o f l ega l ly s ign i f i can t ac t i ons . Bu t W ebe r im m ed ia te l y spec i f i ed

tha t th e sub jec t i ve i n te rp re ta t i on o f ac t i on i n soc io log i ca l wo rk n ecessi ta tedt rea tmen t o f these co l l ec t i v i t ies as so le l y the resu l tan ts and m od es o f o rgan i za-t i on o f the p a r t i cu la r ac ts o f i nd i v idua l pe rsons (W eber 1978 , p . 107 ) . Toacknow ledge the p ar t icu la r acts o f ind iv idua l persons is to avo id the con struct iv istre i fi ca t ion , w h ich d iscovers them as m ere em anat ions o f the supra ind iv idua l .

Infant ino s f inal sub stantive ch apter is devo ted to the ear ly Parson s, intro du cedas an ind iv idua l whose most bas ic impu lses d i rected h im to i l luminate what hecons idered the necessar i ly mora l foundat ions o f human soc ie ty by means o f a



5/6

soc io logy in wh ich the exp lana t ion o f soc ia l ac t ion co u ld be fo und in i ts ju st i f ic a-t i o n (pp . 15 85 9) . Im pressed p erhaps by the s ta rt l ing successes o f M ende leev andothers in the p hys ica l sc iences, Parsons co nce ived a c ont inu um for the sc iences

that began on the left , le t us say, wi th the sciences of u l t imate means such asphys ics and chemist ry wh ich dea l w i th mat te r i tse l f . Ly ing to the r igh t o f thesesc iences were those l i ke eng ineer ing and economics wh ich t rea t the re la t ionbetw een m eans and end s. O n th is basis Parsons fe l t com petent to p red ic t thescienc e of u l t im ate ends, i .e., socio lo gyaw ait ing disco very at the r ight extrem-i ty o f the cont inuum. He fa i led to no te tha t metaphys ics is loca ted to the le f t o fphys ics, nor d id he co ns ider tha t h is ow n creat ion m ight tu rn ou t to be o f simi la rstuff.

Infant ino documents Parsonss misreading of Spencer, h is neglect of Simmel,and his em brac e of W ebers fai lure, set ou t in the previous chapter, to grasp thatindividuals who pursue duty, hono r, and beauty to the neglect of m ater ia l gain thosevalue the form er m ore highly. Parson s w as thus dispo sed to treat the volun tarism in hisact ion t heo ry as a spec ies of subm ission to a transcend ent n orm ative order a lreadyoutl ined b y D urkheim. Infant ino notes Parsonss cr i t ic ism that D urkheims ind ivid-ual is a mere theo retical abstraction . As Parson s (194 9, p . 35 5) said, th is indiv idu al is the f ic t iona l hum an be ing w ho has never en tered in to any soc ia l re lat ionsh ip . I f the f ic t ion a l hum an b e ing is e l im ina ted, how ever , w e m ust p ro test w i th Pro fessorInfant ino that society canno t be a sui gen erisreality, greater than th e sum of i ts parts(p. 15 2). Parson s w as required at this junctu re to cho ose betw een the co ncrete andthe f ict ional actorbut he d id not. Infant ino f inds the ro ot s of th is ob st inate inco nsis-tency in Parsons s mora l ism re in forced b y a re fusal to con sider the u n in tendedcon sequenc es o f act ion .

The quest ion o f impor tance, bo th to c i t i zens and theore t ic ians, is whethersoc ia l o rder em erges f rom a ne tw ork o f con d i t ions. I f i t does, there is no need fo ran impo sed o rder o f u l t imate ends. O n the o ther hand, o f cou rse , i f the ne tw ork o f

co nd i t ions is po w erless, individ uals are pow erless to act freely on th eir ow n beh al fand m ust be du ly co nstra ined. W hat D urkhe im , Parson s, o r any o f us may perce iveas a con sisten t co l lec t ion o f end s is, in real i ty , a co l lec t ion o f m eans em bed ded inthe cond i t ions we impose upon each o ther fo r the i r rec ip roca l appropr ia t ion .Ac t i on can thus be exp la ined , as Infant ino says, by means of the personalob ject ive o f the actor , and i t can be ju st i f iedthrou gh socia l ly accep ted reasons , inw h ich the cond i t ion s impo sed on Ego by the O ther are re f lec ted in a do ub le-en-t r y o f accoun t ( p . 159 ) .

In con c lud ing , In fan t ino summ ar izes the e lem ents o f any theo ry o f in ten t iona lorder as psycho log ism , the ra t iona l co nstruct ion o f p re ferences, and the idea tha tthe resu l ts o f soc ia l ac t ion can be c on ce ived as a pro cess o f m aximiza t ion (p . 169 ) .Against these prescr ipt ion s he o ffers a view that, despi te i ts venerab le age, rem ains

revo lu t ionary . W e learn to be se lves a f te r se t t l ing w i th in ou rse lves the m od e ls,norm s, and b e l ie fs w e have absorbed f rom the soc io h isto r ica l context in to w h ichw e a re bo rn .

Those fami l iar wi th Professor Infant inos sources wi l l be del ighted by theef f ic ien t ease o f h is a rgum ents. O thers, w ho read w i th a cr i t i ca l eye , w i ll apprec ia teh is we l l -documented inv i ta t ions to the semina l works wh ich in fo rm h is v iews.Before ado pt ing the te rm p raxeo logy to d esignate the mo st fundamen ta l o f thesc iences o f hum an act ion , Ludw ig von M ises had re fer red to th is d isc ip l ine as

BO O K REV IEW S 9 1


6/6

soc io logy. In a few pages Dr . In fan t ino has demonstra ted the sense and sub-stance o f M isess ear l ier usagebo th as to m etho d and subjectfor a socio logytha t can pursue the un l imi ted prospects o f the un in ten t io na l o rder tha t inev i tab ly

em erges f rom purpo sive soc ia l ac t ion .

K ENNET H H . M A C K I N T O S H

U n iv e rsi t y o f Ce n t ra l A rk a n s a s

Blau , Pe te r M ichae l. 1964 . Exchange and Pow er i n Soc ia l Li fe . New York : John W i ley .

Coleman, James Samuel. 1990. Fo u n d a t i o n s o f So c i a l T h e o r y . Cambr idge , M ass .: H arvard U n iver -sity Pr ess.

Durkhe im, mi le . 1958 . Pro fession a l Eth i cs and C iv i c M ora ls . Trans. by Cornelia Brookfie ld. Glen-co e, Ill.: Free Press.. 1964 . T h e D i v i si o n o f L ab o r i n So c i e t y . Trans. by G eorge Simp son. N ew York: Free Press.

Lukes, Steven. 19 72. m i l e D u r k h e i m : H i s L if e a n d W o r k , A H i sto r i c a l an d C r i t ic a l Stu d y . N e w Yo rk :H a rp e r a n d Ro w .

M ises, Ludw ig von . 1976 . Ep i s te mo l o g i c a l P ro b l e ms o f Ec o n o m i c s . Trans. by G eorge Reisman. N ewYork : N ew York U n iversi ty Press.

Parson s, Talcot t . 194 9.T h e S t ru c tu r e o f So c i a l Ac t i o n : A Stu d y i n So c i a l Th e o r y w i t h Sp e c i a l Re fe r - e n c e t o a G r o u p o f R e c e n t Eu r o p e a n W r i t e r s . Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Simmel , Georg . 1977 .T h e P r o b l e ms o f t h e Ph i l o so p h y o f H i sto r y : An Ep i s te mo l o g i c a l Essa y . Trans.by G uy O akes. New York : Free Press.

Sm ith , Ad am. 1976 . T h e Th e o r y o f M o r a l Se n t i m e n ts . Indianap olis , Ind.: L iberty C lassics.

W e b e r , M a x . 1 9 7 8 . Ec o n o m y a n d S o c i e t y: A n O u t l i n e o f I n t e rp r e t i ve S o c i o l o g y . Guenther Roth andClaus W itt ich, eds. Berkeley: U nivers ity of Cali forn ia Press.


economics - individualism in modern thought - from adam smith to hayek

Documents