Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-xjl2h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-24T20:57:34.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Austrian Economics

Institutional Diversity and The Economic Calculation Debate

The Feasibility Issue Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2025

Paul Dragos Aligica  and
Adrian Miroiu
Paul Dragos Aligica
Affiliation:
University of Bucharest
Adrian Miroiu
Affiliation:
The Romanian Academy

Summary

This Element brings together the problems of economic calculation, institutional diversity, and institutional feasibility, arguing that these themes are deeply interconnected and mutually reinforcing. Building on recent developments in institutional theory, political economy, social philosophy, and logical analysis, the Element revisits the classic debates surrounding alternative economic and governance systems. The discussion is organized around three core elements: (1) an overview of recent developments in institutional theory and social philosophy, that driven by technological advances have revitalized debates on alternative economic and governance systems; (2) a reexamination of the economic calculation debate, tracing its evolution from Austrian economics to a broader theoretical synthesis incorporating institutional political economy and conflict theory; and (3) a discussion of the formal, logical, and philosophical foundations for thinking about feasibility and realizability, offering analytical tools for evaluating the plausibility of institutional alternatives within specific historical and social contexts.
Get access

Keywords

institutionsgovernancefeasibilitycomparative economic systemsmarket processpublic choicepolitical philosophyinstitutional epistemologypossibilismnon-ideal theory

Information

Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Austrian Economics
Online ISBN: 9781009677431
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 24 July 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Element purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aligica, P. D. & Boettke, P. J. (2009). Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School. London Routledge.10.4324/9780203876282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P. D. & Tarko, V. (2012). “Polycentricity: From Polanyi to Ostrom, and Beyond.” Governance, 25(2), pp. 237–262.10.1111/j.1468-0491.2011.01550.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aligica, P. D. & Tarko, V. (2013). “Co-Production, Polycentricity and Value Heterogeneity: The Ostroms’ Public Choice Institutionalism Revisited.” American Political Science Review, 107(4), pp. 726-741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, M. (2006). “The Varieties of Capitalism Paradigm: Not Enough Variety?” Socio-Economic Review, 4(1), pp. 87–108.Google Scholar
Amable, B. (2003). The Diversity of Modern Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/019926113X.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amable, B. & Petit, P. (2001). “The Diversity of Social Systems of Innovation and Production during the 1990s.” Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), pp. 173–197.Google Scholar
Anderson, E. (2010). The Imperative of Integration. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, N. P. (1988). The Invisible Hand in Economics and Politics: A Study in the Two Conflicting Explanations of Society: End-States and Processes. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Boettke, P. J. (2015a). Why Perestroika Failed: The Politics and Economics of Socialist Transformation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boettke, P. J. (2015b). Living Economics: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute.Google Scholar
Boettke, P. J. & Candela, R. A. (2015). “Rivalry, Polycentricism, and Institutional Evolution.” In Coyne, C. J. & Storr, V. H. (eds.), New Thinking in Austrian Political Economy. Emerald Group, Advances in Austrian Economics, Vol. 19. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 1–19.10.1108/S1529-213420150000019001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, P. J. & Candela, R. A. (2023). “On the Feasibility of Technosocialism.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 205, January, pp. 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, P. J. & Coyne, C. J. (2009). “Context Matters: Institutions and Entrepreneurship.” Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 5(3), pp. 135–209.10.1561/0300000018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, P. & Fink, A. (2011). “Institutions First.” Journal of Institutional Economics, 7(4), pp. 499–504.10.1017/S1744137411000063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettke, P. J., Coyne, C. J. & Leeson, P. T. (2014). “Hayek versus the Neoclassicists: Lessons from the Socialist Calculation Debate.” In Garrison, R. W. & Barry, N. P. (eds.), Elgar Companion to Hayekian Economics. Cheltenham Edward Elgar, pp. 278–293.Google Scholar
Boettke, P. J., Lemke, J. S., & Palagashvili, L. (2015). “Polycentricity, Self-Governance, and the Art & Science of Association.” The Review of Austrian Economics, 28, pp. 311–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromley, Daniel W. (2006). Sufficient Reason: Volitional Pragmatism and the Meaning of Economic Institutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J. M. (2004). “Constitutional Political Economy.” In The Encyclopedia of Public Choice. Boston, MA: Springer, pp. 60–67.Google Scholar
Bull, R. & Segerberg, K. (2001). “Basic Modal Logic.” In Gabbay, D. M. & Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic, pp. 1–81.Google Scholar
Cernat, L. (2006). Europeanization, Varieties of Capitalism and Economic Performance in Central and Eastern Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, K. A. & Primo, D. M. (2012). A Model Discipline: Political Science and the Logic of Representations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195382198.003.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coates, D. (2005). Varieties of Capitalism, Varieties of Approaches. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Crouch, C., Streeck, W., Boyer, R. et al. (2005). “Dialogue on ‘Institutional Complementarity and Political Economy’.” Socio-Economic Review, 3(2), pp. 359–382.10.1093/SER/mwi015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. (2014). Utopophobia: Confronting the Limits (If Any) of Justice, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 42(2), pp. 113–134.Google Scholar
Gaus, G. F. (2016). The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gheaus, A. (2013). “The Feasibility Constraint on the Concept of Justice.” The Philosophical Quarterly, 63(252), pp. 445–464.10.1111/1467-9213.12058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, P. & Lawford‐Smith, H. (2012). “Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration.” Political Studies, 60, pp. 809–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. (2014). Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (1995). “Political Ideals and Political Practice.” British Journal of Political Science, 44, pp. 635–646.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. & Tilly, C. (2008). The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A. & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, R. (2002). Trust and Trustworthiness. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1937). “Economics and Knowledge.” Economica, 4(13), pp. 33–54.10.2307/2548786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (2013 [1945]). “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” In Epstein, R. A., Priest, G. L., & Komesar, S. K. (eds.), Modern Understandings of Liberty and Property. London: Routledge, pp. 27–38.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (1988). The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. Ed. Bartley, W. W.. London: Routledge.10.7208/chicago/9780226321158.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayek, F. A. (2014). “The Facts of the Social Sciences.” In Caldwell, B. J. (ed.), The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Vol 15: The Market and Other Orders. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press (pp. 57–70).Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1971). A Bias for Hope: Essays on Development and Latin America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2015). “Much of the ‘Economics of Property Rights’ Devalues Property and Legal Rights.” Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(4), pp. 683–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, G. M. (2016). “Some Limitations of the Socialist Calculation Debate.” Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch, 136(1), pp. 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopmans, T. C. & Montias, J. M. (1971). “On the Description and Comparison of Economic Systems.” In Eckstein, A. (ed.) Comparison of Economic Systems: Theoretical and Methodological Approaches. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 27–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, O. (1936). “On the Economic Theory of Socialism. I.” The Review of Economic Studies, 4(1), pp. 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, O. (1937). “On the Economic Theory of Socialism. II.” The Review of Economic Studies, 4(2), pp. 123–142.10.2307/2967609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, D. & Myant, M. (2007). Varieties of Capitalism in Post-Communist Countries. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoie, D. (1985). Rivalry and Central Planning: The Socialist Calculation Debate Reconsidered (Vol. 22). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lawford-Smith, H. (2012). “Understanding Political Feasibility.” Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(3), pp. 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipsey, R. G. & Lancaster, K. (1956). “The General Theory of Second Best.” The Review of Economic Studies, 24(1), pp. 11–32.10.2307/2296233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwell, G. & Oliver, P. (1993). The Critical Mass in Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1985). “Galilean Idealization.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 16, pp. 247–273.10.1016/0039-3681(85)90003-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. J. (1992). Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, J. F. (2019). Political Pluralism, Disagreement and Justice: The Case for Polycentric Democracy. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315391021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511808678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D.C. (2005). Understanding the Process of Economic Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nove, A. (1991). The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited. London: Harper Collins Academic.Google Scholar
Oliver, P. E. & Marwell, G. (2001). “Whatever Happened to Critical Mass Theory? A Retrospective and Assessment.” Sociological Theory, 19(3), pp. 292–311.10.1111/0735-2751.00142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1998). “A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997.” American Political Science Review, 92(1), pp. 1–22.10.2307/2585925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1999). “Polycentricity, Complexity, and the Commons.” The Good Society, 9(2), pp. 37–41.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2000). “Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), pp. 137–158.10.1257/jep.14.3.137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2008). “Developing a Method for Analyzing Institutional Change.” In Durlauf, S. N. & Blume, L. E. (eds.) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. 2nd ed., Vol. 2. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 595–599.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2010). “Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems.” American Economic Review, 100, pp. 641–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, V. (2014). “Polycentricity: The Structural Basis for Self-Governing Societies.” In Sabetti, F. & Aligica, P. D. (eds.) Choice, Rules and Collective Action: The Ostroms on the Study of Institutions and Governance. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 103–124.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. University of Ann Arbor: Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. & List, C. (2012). Group Agents: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poteete, A. R., & Ostrom, E. (2004). “In Pursuit of Comparable Concepts and Data about Collective Action.” Agricultural Systems, 82(3), pp. 215–232.10.1016/j.agsy.2004.07.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryor, F. L. (2005). “Comparative Economic Systems.” In Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Vol. 3). Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 2383–2391.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.10.4159/9780674042605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. (1999). The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.2307/j.ctv31xf5v0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrik, D. (2007). One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Room, G. (2011). Complexity, Institutions and Public Policy: Agile Decision-Making in a Turbulent World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9780857932648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southwood, N. (2018). “The Feasibility Issue.” Philosophy Compass, 13(1), pp. 1–13.10.1111/phc3.12509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugden, R. (2020). “The Community of Advantage.” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 13(1), pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. (2013). Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199978267.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Benthem, J. (2001). “Correspondence Theory.” In Gabbay, D. M. & Guenthner, F. (eds.) Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic, pp. 325–408.10.1007/978-94-017-0454-0_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volacu, A. (2017). “Bridging Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory.” Political Studies, 66(4), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Ward, B. (1967). The Socialist Economy: A Study of Organizational Alternatives. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Wiens, D. (2015a). “Against Ideal Guidance.” Journal of Politics, 77(2), pp. 433–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, D. (2015b). “Political Ideals and the Feasibility Frontier.” Economics and Philosophy, 31(3), pp. 447–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Young, O. R. (2002). The Drama of the Commons. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this Element complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Institutional Diversity and The Economic Calculation Debate
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Institutional Diversity and The Economic Calculation Debate
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Institutional Diversity and The Economic Calculation Debate
Available formats
×