I am surprised that Geoffrey Hodgson would make an elementary error in argument by taking an arbitrary definition as an absolute criterion. His argument actually says that those he is opposing are using the term "public good" in a way that contradicts current convention in the dominant faction of the economics profession. What if the definition is too narrow to fit the general case and is therefore only suitable for special case models? This is similar to the claim of conventional economists that the methodological debate is over and only their method is admissible in inquiry and debate. It's also reminiscent of religious dogmatism. It is an example of the sort of authoritarian nonsense that Paul Feyerabend was opposing in Against Method (PDF download). Yeah, I know —
Topics:
Mike Norman considers the following as important: common good, general welfare, public goods, public policy, public purpose
This could be interesting, too:
Chris Blattman writes The terrible trade-off: Why less violent cities often means more powerful and organized crime
Chris Blattman writes Managing the academic job market
Chris Blattman writes Should you work for a government you disagree with?
Mike Norman writes How Can We Cooperate When the Pandemic Is Driving Us Apart? — Jill Suttie interviews Paul Atkins
The "blessing" comes from elevating economic liberalism over social and political liberalism, which results in many paradoxes.
Why should what some liberal economists say (assume) dictate criteria outside the framework in which they serve as arbitrary criteria. Hello, model definitions are always stipulations and their necessity is logical necessity limited to the model.