To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Spontaneous order

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spontaneous order, also named self-organization in the hard sciences, is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos. It is a process in social networks including economics, though the term "self-organization" is more often used for physical changes and biological processes, while "spontaneous order" is typically used to describe the emergence of various kinds of social orders from a combination of self-interested individuals who are not intentionally trying to create order through planning. The evolution of life on Earth, language, crystal structure, the Internet and a free market economy have all been proposed as examples of systems which evolved through spontaneous order.[1]

Spontaneous orders are to be distinguished from organizations. Spontaneous orders are distinguished by being scale-free networks, while organizations are hierarchical networks. Further, organizations can be and often are a part of spontaneous social orders, but the reverse is not true. Further, while organizations are created and controlled by humans, spontaneous orders are created, controlled, and controllable by no one.[citation needed] In economics and the social sciences, spontaneous order is defined as "the result of human actions, not of human design".[2]

Spontaneous order is an equilibrium behavior between self-interested individuals, which is most likely to evolve and survive, obeying the natural selection process "survival of the likeliest".[3]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    15 368
    354 713
    1 231 786
    25 303
    275 382
  • ✪ Hayek - Evolution and Spontaneous Order
  • ✪ Using Gibbs Free Energy
  • ✪ Entropy: Embrace the Chaos! Crash Course Chemistry #20
  • ✪ Self-Organization
  • ✪ Gibbs Free Energy - Equilibrium Constant, Enthalpy & Entropy - Equations & Practice Problems

Transcription

Ladies and Gentlemen in the hope to be able to offer something which will be of interest not only to economists but also to natural scientists generally. I have chosen a problem to discuss which although it arose from my study of economic problems seems to me to apply in a much wider field in fact everywhere where the increasing complexity of the phenomena of which we have to deal forces us to abandon the hope of finding simple explanations of cause and effect and have to substitute an explanation of the evolution of complex structures I like to speak in this connection of the twin problems of the spontaneous formation of orders and evolution. There is usually an evolutionary process by which alone we can account for but account for a very limited extent the existence of certain types of structures. In this sense I can agree with what sir John Hicks said yesterday that the degree to which in these sciences we can make predictions is very limited what I like to say in this connection is that we are confined to pattern predictions to the likelihood of the formation of certain structures without ever being able to make various special prediction of particular events. In this sense as Sir John Hicks indicated we are sciences of a certain order that we have in common with such an enormous field as the biological theory of evolution which on the strict tests which John has yesterday suggested would also not be a science since it is not able to make specific predictions and the same is true in our fields. Now the whole interrelation between the theory of evolution and other accounts of the existence and formation of complex structure of interaction has a very complex and paradoxical history and I will allow myself even if it delays the length of my lecture to tell you little about the historical evolution which in itself has had profound effects on our attitude to these phenomena. Of course in recent times the application of evolution to social phenomena has been rather unjustifiably discredited when social scientists had to learn from Charles Darwin and developed something known as Social Darwinism as if the idea of evolution were originally an idea of the biological sciences while in fact there is a much older tradition of evolution in the study of society and it can be demonstrated that it was Darwin who borrowed it from the social sciences and not the other way around. There is another deep connection on which I want to say a few words that our attitude to all partial phenomena particularly our judgement of various moral views is very closely connected with an age old tradition which starts in antiquity with no less a person then Aristotle who has given us a wholly a-evolutionary conception of social institution which through its effect on St. Thomas Aquinas has become the attitude of a large part of Christianity towards everything which amounted to a growing development of civilisation because he had defined as good what was necessary to preserve an existing order without ever asking himself the question how was it ever possible that if all our duty was to provide for the preservation of what is that mankind ever greatly developed. It has even been asserted by a modern economic historian that Aristotle could not have seen the problem of evolution and the problem of the connection of evolution with a operating market economy because at the time when he lived the market economy as we call it as a result of evolution did not yet exist. Now on two points I can give you rather interesting brief evidence since my assertion that Aristotle did not possess any conception of evolution which prevented him from ever understanding social problems has remarkably been confirmed by the grand latest history of the biological sciences, one of the greatest history of any modern science which I have recently come across Ernst Mayr's The Growth of Biological Thought. In which he to my great satisfaction this has been a part of my argument for a long time explicitly argues this idea that the universe could have a development from an original state of chaos that higher organism that evolved from lower ones was totally alien to Aristotle's thought to repeat Aristotle was opposed to evolution of any kind. Now that had a profound effect on his views about society which we have inherited from him. A view which I have always suggested that which was good that served the preservation of existing institutions that he never asked himself how in fact in his very lifetime Athens had about doubled in size a largely increased population had arisen but he detested the market as so many intellectuals did. But I will just give you another illustration of how lively the market at the time was which comes from a contemporary of Aristotle one of these writers of comedies of his time of whom only fragments are preserved but that particular one is especially amusing because Mr Euboulos as his name was was even then common attitude of the intellectuals to commercial affairs expressed his contempt for the role of the market in a few lines that have been preserved in which he tells us you will find in Athens things of all sorts and shapes for sale in the self same place figs, summoners, grapes turnips pears apples witnesses sausages, honeycombs, roses, medlars, chickpeas, water clocks, myrtle, lambs, bluebells, laws, impeachments, lawsuits, curds, bee stings and the ballot box. Now that in a society in which the comedians could make fun about the market in such a form clearly the market was most active. Now why did Aristotle not see it and what effect had it well the fact is that at that time the idea of evolution had hardly yet arisen in any field except two and the original insight of man and the fact that his institutions have gradually grown not as the result of intellectual deliberate design but as a matter of slowly growing tradition existed even then in two fields law and linguistics. At least the ancient Roman students of law and linguistics were fully aware that these institutions had not been deliberately designed by the human mind but had grown by a process of evolution. And that was a concept of evolution remained for the next two thousand years. But in the eighteenth century things began to change. A first remarkable instance is at the very beginning of the eighteenth century when a man - a Dutchman living in England called Bernard Mandeville began to study the formation of institution and already pointed out the four paradigms or paradigmater as I still prefer to call them of these phenomenon the two classical ones of law and language but adding to them morals money and the market. David Hume was a great figure who took over from Mandeville this idea and created the tradition of Scottish philosophers and particularly and basically relevant to what I shall have going to say that the deep insight that human morals are not the design of human reason an insight of double importance it followed for him that if human morals were not the design of human reason it also followed that reason science did not allow us to judge human morals you could never derive moral conclusions from purely factual statements an idea which is nowadays mainly usually ascribed to Max Weber but which ever since the time of David Hume was well established. But in this connection of course he arose the problem what were our morals really due too and the conclusion from his principle is not that science has nothing to say about morals at all but that the questions that we can legitimately ask are rather limited a question which we can still ask which we can demand an answer from science is what are the morals which we have inherited due to? How came it about that we developed those morals and never others? And certainly and clearly connected with it a certain question which is also a scientific question what have these morals done to us? what has been the effect of mankind developing this particular kind of morals as a field in which I as an economist had to pursue these problems worthy of enormous importance is the field of the morals of property honesty and truth there are moral rules that are not the creation of human design which on the union terms we can not scientifically say whether they are good or bad. Unless we look at them from the point of view of what effect they had on the development of humankind of the number of humans and of their civilisation This remains a basic question. At the same time we must be aware that the very tradition of several or as we usually say private property is that part of our morals which is the most disputed and disliked and that is due to the fact – politically opposed - and that is due to the fact that it truly is a tradition which is neither natural in the sense that is innate in our physical make up nor artificial in the sense of being deliberately made by human reason because as the Scottish philosophers of the eighteenth century so clearly understood man had never deliberately made his society. Indeed when we look back at history we find that these traditions never rationally justified were preserved in a variety of groups of communities because they were confirmed by supernatural beliefs not scientific reasons but beliefs which I think I should put respectfully to call ceremonial truths or they are not truth in the sense of scientific truths demonstrable truths but truths in the sense of making men actually do what was good for them good for them in the sense of helping them to maintain even larger numbers of themselves yet without being able to give the actual reasons why they ought to do them truths which stand between the natural insights which are innate in us and the rational insights which we construct from our reason but which belong to the intermediate field of tradition which is a result of a product of selective evolution in many ways similar to the selective evolution of which for the first time we got a full theory developed by Charles Darwin and the Darwinian school but then fundamentally respects different function. I referred before that it was a great misfortune that the social scientists about a hundred years ago had to borrow the idea of evolution from Charles Darwin and borrowed with it the particular mechanism which Charles Darwin or rather Neo-Darwinism later had provided as an explanation of this process of evolution which is very different from the mechanism of cultural evolution as I shall call it now that was a misfortune and a quite unnecessary misfortune due to the fact that is seems that by that time the social scientists had forgotten what was a much older tradition in their own field and weren't even aware that Charles Darwin developed his ideas largely by learning of the idea in the other field I believe recently it has even been shown that the crucial idea came to Darwins mind in eighteen thirty eight when he was reading what book? The wealth of nations of Adam Smith which of course was a classical exposition of the Scottish idea of evolution and which seems to have been the decisive influence even on Charles Darwin Darwin himself admitted that he was influenced by the school but he usually mentions Malthus as an influence which he recollected but his notebooks now show that what he was reading at the critical moment seems to have the Wealth of Nations of Adam Smith. Now the result is that this first great success in developing an actual theory of evolution in first the field of biology made people believe that this example had to be followed. Now I might just insert here another illustration of my story which I have only just recently discovered but which perhaps much more clearly then anything else confirms my basic assumption that the conception of evolution derives from the study of society and was taken over by the study of nature I can demonstrate very easily that the term genetic which today is the exclusive term for biological evolution was actually coined in Germany in the eighteenth century by a man like Herder, Wieland and Schiller and was used in the quite modern term by Wilhelm von Humboldt long time time before Darwin The Humboldt passages are so interesting that I will even quote some Humboldt spoke in eighteen thirty six about the fact that the definition language can only be a genetic one and goes on to argue that the formation of language successively through many stages like the origin of natural phenomena is clearly a phenomena of evolution and all that was ready in the theory of languages thirty years before Darwin applied it to the natural sciences yet it had been forgotten or at least ignored outside the two classical instances of language, law and I may now add economics including the market and money. And when it was reintroduced by the social Darwinists all the parts of the explanation of the mechanism were also taken over. So my next task will be clearly to distinguish what the social theories of evolution and the biological theories of evolution have in common and what they do not have in common. We shall begin with the must more important differences before I turn to the crucial but very confined similarity between the two as the differences are the following and are now concentrating on the account of the mechanism of biological evolution given by neo Darwinism Darwin was on some of these point still himself not quite sure particularly on the first point I shall mention. Cultural evolution depends wholly on the transmission of acquired characteristics exactly what is absolutely excluded from modern biological evolution if one were to compare cultural evolution with biological evolution you would have to compare it with Lamarckian rather then with Darwinian theory. Number two the transmission of habits and information from generation to generation in cultural evolution is of course not only passed from the physical ancestor to the physical descendants but in the sense of cultural evolution all of our predecessors may be our ancestors and all of the next generation may be our successors it not a process preceding from physical parent to physical child but proceeding in a wholly different manner. Thirdly that perhaps is even more important the process of cultural evolution undoubtedly rests not on the selection of individuals but on the selection of groups biologists still dispute I believe what role groups selection plays in biological evolution there is no doubt that in cultural evolution group selection was the central problem that where groups which had developed certain kinds of habits even certain kinds of complementarities between different habits in the same group which decided the direction of cultural evolution and in that respect it is fundamentally different from biological evolution. Now this implies what I shall call number four perhaps it then implied that of course the transmission of cultural evolution is not of innate characteristics but is all the be learned in the process of growing up the contribution of natural evolution to this is a long period of adolescence of man which gives him a long chance of leaning but what is transmitted in cultural evolution is taught or learned by imitation now that has produced a immaterial structure of beliefs and opinions which recently Sir Karl Popper has just given the name of world three, a wealth of structures which exist at any one moment only because they are known by a multiplicity of people but which yet despite of their immaterial character can be passed on from generation to generation and finally cultural evolution because it does not depend on accidental variation in their selection but on deliberate efforts which contribute to it is infinitely faster then natural evolution can ever be. That in that time of ten or twenty thousand or perhaps forty thousand years that modern civilisation has grown up man could have developed all that he has developed by the process of biological evolution is wholly out of the question in this respect the much greater speed of cultural evolution is decisive now having got here you will ask what similarity there remains they seem wholly different altogether there are two fundamental similarities between the two which justify up to a point the application of the same name 'evolution'. The first is that the principle of selection is the same in biological evolution and in cultural evolution what is being selected is what contributes to assist man in his multiplication it assists him in growing in numbers just as those physical properties which helps individuals to survive those cultural properties which are being selected are those which helps the group which has adopted it to multiply faster then other groups in this form gradually to displace and take the place of the other. And there is a second close similarity which is very important but generally not understood and it may even surprise you at first when I mention it both biological evolution and cultural evolution do not know any laws of evolution laws of evolution in the sense of necessary stages through which the process has to pass this is a wholly different conception of evolution which asserts since Hegel and Marx and similar thinkers that they discovering laws or sequences of stages through which the evolutionary process must pass. There is not only no justification for such an assertion much worse they are in conflict with the other ideas of evolution both biological evolution and cultural evolution consist in a mechanism of adaptation to unknown future events now if this is an adaptation to unknown future events it is wholly impossible that we should know laws it must follow because this development is by definition determined by events which we can not foresee and not know. And that brings me to what ought to have been my central subject but for which I am afraid I do not have as much time now as I would like to have what is the essential subject of the cultural evolution to which I have attached such importance as I indicated before there are two general characteristics which all civilisations which have survived and expanded have so far possessed and against which all revolutionaries have at all times protested this is the tradition of private or as I prefer to call several property and the tradition of the family I haven't time here to consider any further the tradition of the family it would be a much more difficult problem because I believe there are changes in our factual knowledge which will probably lead to fundamental changes in the tradition of the family so I will confine my self wholly to the proposition of private property which of course is that tradition against which for two thousand years all revolutionaries have directed their efforts. Nearly all religious reformers with very few exceptions invented a new religion which abolished several property and usually also the family but none of these reformers or none of these revolutionary religions which constantly crop up have ever lasted for more then a hundred years and I think the most resent one of that type which we also must regard as such a religion opposed to property and the family that of communism has not yet lasted for its hundred years and I very much doubt whether it will reach its hundred years. But all the great religions which have come to expand and to be held by an ever increasing part of the world have these two things in common that they affirmed private property and the family not only the three monotheistic religions rather the two or three great eastern religions all agree on these two features and my contention is that it is because they affirmed and preserved those traditions in their groups that these groups were selected for indefinite expansion because they made possible the multiplication of the people who obeyed moral rules dictated by them. Now such religious support was indispensable because if it is true what is my main and starting contention that the morals of private property and those and those of the family are neither natural in the sense of innate nor rational in the sense of designed it is a great problem why any group should long enough stuck to a habit in order to give the process of chance of it to expand and select only groups which for long periods believed in what I have meant to call symbolic truth I could not remember the word a moment ago. Only traditions which succeeded in making call to certain symbolic truth would be lead to maintain moral rules whose advantages they never understood it implies the assertion that the institution of private property was never due to the fact that a smaller proportion of a population who could see how private property benefited them defended their interest it had only exist a much larger numbers then those who knew that they benefited from private property supported these beliefs and it was possible only due to religious beliefs which taught it to them. This is what I meant before when I said we owe civilisation to beliefs which in our modern opinion we no longer regard as true which are not true in the sense science scientific truth but which nevertheless were a condition for the majority of mankind to submit to moral rules whose functions they did not understand they could never explain in which indeed to all rationalist critics very soon appeared to be absurd. Why should people respect private property if this private property seems to benefit only the few people who have it in societies where very soon very much larger numbers existed then those in the primitive agricultural societies still a majority who owned the instruments of their production. That creates a situation which is historically very interesting did mankind really owe its civilisation to beliefs which in the scientific sense were false beliefs and further to beliefs which man very much disliked because I can really not very much doubt that if my thesis is true mankind was civilised by a process which is intensely disliked by being made to submit to rules which it neither could understand nor liked but I believe that this is perfectly true and I believe I can claim that before the birth of the science of economics before the eighteenth century began to explain why the market society could arise only on the basis of institution of private property it would have been impossible for mankind ever to multiply as much as it did and equally it was only in the eighteenth century essentially David Hume Adam Smith and his contemporaries who did clearly see that the mechanism of selection was that those groups were selected which thanks to the institution of private property were able to multiply faster then others now this is of course a criterion which again has become very unpopular and which only the economists and only some of the economists understand at the present time the general attitude of the other is to think that the multiplication of mankind is a great misfortune that nothing we have to fear more then a too rapid multiplication of mankind and we are constantly painted the horror of a society in the near future which will be a society of standing room only. Now there are several things to be said about this I must abbreviate it or this could be a subject of another very interesting lecture The first is that the fear of an increase of population leading to impoverishment is wholly unfounded and it is never in history yet happened that an increase of population led to people becoming poorer the contrary impression is due to the fact that the concept of poor and rich is mentioned in terms of averages not in terms of individuals it is true that economic progress based on the private property and the division of labour leads to a faster increase of the poor then of the rich with the result that average incomes may indeed fall as a result of the population but nobody need to have become poorer for this reason it only means that the poor have increased more then the rich that therefore the average is brought down but nobody has been pulled down by the result of this development An explanation of this both of the actual fact and the mistake which derives largely from Malthus is that with an increase of population human labour must also be subject of decreasing returns. That would be true in a world like the one on which Malthus was largely thinking where human labour was uniform and all people or nearly all people were working in agriculture and that such a society indeed an increase of population would lead to reduction of the product per unit of labour but the great benefit of an increase in population is that it makes possible a constant differentiation of human activities an increase in the quantity of man is not an increase in the number of one factor of production its a constant growth of new additional and different factors of production which in collaboration can produce much more it seems indeed that in a way the increase of population leads to an increase in civilisation brings increasing rather then decreasing returns. Let me repeat there is no evidence that ever in history an increase of population has lead to a real impoverishment of the existing population. There are two or three special cases which I must mention it has of course happened that when other circumstances destroyed the source of income which made an increase of population possible great poverty resulted the classic case of course being Ireland in the nineteenth century which on the potato had to increase its population to something like four times what it had been before when the potato disease struck removed the source of the income and led to the result of this greatly increased population could no longer be nourished Another case which we must consider separately and that I think ought to give us cause to serious reflection that there are instances and we are now creating instances when increase of local population is due not to an increase of that population to produce more but to foreign help and that in instances they are probably they will never be space or food for a larger home produced population in these places I can give you as instances the much quoted instance of the region immediately south of the Sahara the so called Sahel regions which are clearly not able now to feed their population and which we are exhorted to help to feed with the result of course that we cause their further increases in population which will be our responsibility because for all one knows they will never have an opportunity in their own region to produce enough I think it raises extremely serious problems for our present policy of help to some underdeveloped countries All this changes of course our attitude to policy in a great many ways but the crucial one is still the one towards the necessity and essential condition of the institution of several property and particularly in the means of production as an indispensable instrument of preserving the present population of the mankind Half the mankind at least officially we are told believes in the opposite believes that it is by abolition of the institution of several property that we not only can still maintain the present population but that we can provide for it better then we did now if what I am said is right if it is true what I could only hint at that several property is the indispensable basis of that utilisation of widely dispersed knowledge on which the market economy rests it means that the opposite view chiefly that represented by communism would lead not to an improvement of the population but probably bring it about that half something like half the present population of the world would die we have various significant illustrations of this quite a number of countries who were great exporters of food so long as they were operated on a market economy not only Russia but also Argentina and others are already no longer able themselves to maintain their own population which has not increased a great deal nothing like as much as the population in the west but the final conclusion is therefore what seems to be a political conclusion a conclusion about the consequences of two alternative ethical systems to which the two half's the world now adhere if it is true that we can maintain even the present population of the world only by relying on that whole system of market economy resting on the several properties in the instrument of production and that its abolition would lead to something like a large proportion of mankind dying of hunger that would seem and undesirable result. Even if the scientist is not allowed to call it undesirable I can say a result which most people would not desire if they knew it and the last conclusion which I am afraid I will draw even at the risk of totally discrediting this glorious meeting of scientists here that the contrary view which believes that we can do better in maintaining the present population of the world by abolishing several property is well meant but very foolish.

Contents

History

According to Murray Rothbard, Zhuangzi (369–286 BCE) was the first to work out the idea of spontaneous order. The philosopher rejected the authoritarianism of Confucianism, writing that there "has been such a thing as letting mankind alone; there has never been such a thing as governing mankind [with success]." He articulated an early form of spontaneous order, asserting that "good order results spontaneously when things are let alone", a concept later "developed particularly by Proudhon in the nineteenth [century]".[4]

The thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment were the first to seriously develop and inquire into the idea of the market as a spontaneous order. In 1767, the sociologist and historian Adam Ferguson described the phenomenon of spontaneous order in society as the "result of human action, but not the execution of any human design".[5][6]

The Austrian School of Economics, led by Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, would later refine the concept and make it a centerpiece in its social and economic thought.

Examples

Markets

Many economic classical liberals, such as Hayek, have argued that market economies are a spontaneous order, "a more efficient allocation of societal resources than any design could achieve."[7] They claim this spontaneous order (referred to as the extended order in Hayek's The Fatal Conceit) is superior to any order a human mind can design due to the specifics of the information required.[8] Centralized statistical data cannot convey this information because the statistics are created by abstracting away from the particulars of the situation.[9]

In a market economy, price is the aggregation of information acquired when the people who own resources are free to use their individual knowledge. Price then allows everyone dealing in a commodity or its substitutes to make decisions based on more information than he or she could personally acquire, information not statistically conveyable to a centralized authority. Interference from a central authority which affects price will have consequences they could not foresee because they do not know all of the particulars involved.

According to Barry this is illustrated in the concept of the invisible hand proposed by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.[1] Thus in this view by acting on information with greater detail and accuracy than possible for any centralized authority, a more efficient economy is created to the benefit of a whole society.

Lawrence Reed, president of the Foundation for Economic Education, describes spontaneous order as follows:

Spontaneous order is what happens when you leave people alone—when entrepreneurs... see the desires of people... and then provide for them.

They respond to market signals, to prices. Prices tell them what's needed and how urgently and where. And it's infinitely better and more productive than relying on a handful of elites in some distant bureaucracy.[10]

Game studies

The concept of spontaneous order is closely related with modern game studies. As early as the 1940s, historian Johan Huizinga wrote that "in myth and ritual the great instinctive forces of civilized life have their origin: law and order, commerce and profit, craft and art, poetry, wisdom and science. All are rooted in the primeval soil of play." Following on this in his book The Fatal Conceit, Hayek notably wrote that "a game is indeed a clear instance of a process wherein obedience to common rules by elements pursuing different and even conflicting purposes results in overall order."

Anarchism

Anarchists argue that the state is in fact an artificial creation of the ruling elite, and that true spontaneous order would arise if it was eliminated. Construed by some but not all as the ushering in of organization by anarchist law. In the anarchist view, such spontaneous order would involve the voluntary cooperation of individuals. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, "the work of many symbolic interactionists is largely compatible with the anarchist vision, since it harbours a view of society as spontaneous order."[11]

Sobornost

The concept of spontaneous order can also be seen in the works of the Russian Slavophile movements and specifically in the works of Fyodor Dostoyevsky. The concept of an organic social manifestation as a concept in Russia expressed under the idea of sobornost. Sobornost was also used by Leo Tolstoy as an underpinning to the ideology of Christian anarchism. The concept was used to describe the uniting force behind the peasant or serf Obshchina in pre-Soviet Russia.[12]

Recent developments

Perhaps the most famous theorist of social spontaneous orders is Friedrich Hayek. In addition to arguing the economy is a spontaneous order, which he termed a catallaxy, he argued that common law[13] and the brain[14] are also types of spontaneous orders. In "The Republic of Science,"[15] Michael Polanyi also argued that science is a spontaneous order, a theory further developed by Bill Butos and Thomas McQuade in a variety of papers. Gus DiZerega has argued that democracy is the spontaneous order form of government,[16] David Emmanuel Andersson has argued that religion in places like the United States is a spontaneous order,[17] and Troy Camplin argues that artistic and literary production are spontaneous orders.[18] Paul Krugman too has contributed to spontaneous order theory in his book The Self-Organizing Economy,[19] in which he claims that cities are self-organizing systems. Credibility thesis suggests that the credibility of social institutions is the driving factor behind the endogenous self-organization of institutions and their persistence.[20]

The competitions between huge numbers of self-interested individuals will lead to many possible income distributions. Among all possible income distributions, exponential income distribution will occur with the highest probability. Following the natural selection process "survival of the likeliest", the exponential income distribution is most likely to evolve and survive, and hence is called the "Spontaneous Order" by Tao.[3] By analyzing datasets of household income from 66 countries and Hong Kong SAR, ranging from Europe to Latin America, North America and Asia, Tao et al found that, for all of these countries, the income distribution for the great majority of populations (low and middle income classes) follows an exponential income distribution.[21]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Barry, Norman (1982). "The Tradition of Spontaneous Order". Literature of Liberty. 5 (2).
  2. ^ Hayek, Friedrich A. (1969). Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Touchstone. p. 97. ISBN 978-0671202460.
  3. ^ a b Yong Tao, Spontaneous economic order, Journal of Evolutionary Economics (2016) 26 (3): 467-500 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00191-015-0432-6
  4. ^ Rothbard, Murray. Concepts of the Role of Intellectuals in Social Change Toward Laissez Faire, The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX No. 2 (Fall 1990)
  5. ^ Adam Ferguson Archived 2007-05-09 at the Wayback Machine on The History of Economic Thought Website
  6. ^ Ferguson, Adam (1767). An Essay on the History of Civil Society. The Online Library of Liberty: T. Cadell, London. p. 205.
  7. ^ Hayek cited. Petsoulas, Christian. Hayek's Liberalism and Its Origins: His Idea of Spontaneous Order and the Scottish Enlightenment. Routledge. 2001. p. 2
  8. ^ Hayek, F.A. The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism. The University of Chicago Press. 1991. p. 6.
  9. ^ Hayek cited. Boaz, David. The Libertarian Reader. The Free Press. 1997. p. 220
  10. ^ Stossel, John (2011-02-10) Spontaneous Order, Reason
  11. ^ Marshall, Gordon; et al. (1998) [1994]. Oxford Dictionary of Sociology (2 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 19–20. ISBN 978-0-19-280081-7.
  12. ^ Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion By Harold Joseph p. 388 Berman Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Religion and law ISBN 0-8028-4852-4 https://books.google.com/books?id=j1208xA7F_0C&lpg=PA388&ots=p0N6U4zWbf&pg=PA388
  13. ^ The Constitution of Liberty; Law, Legislation and Liberty
  14. ^ The Sensory Order
  15. ^ http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/~gsd/595e/docs/41.%20Polanyi_Republic_of_Science.pdf[permanent dead link]
  16. ^ Persuasion, Power, and Polity
  17. ^ Dizerega, Gus (2001-02-10). Persuasion, Power and Polity: A Theory of Democratic Self-Organization (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences) (9781572732575): Gus Dizerega, Alfonso Montuori: Books. ISBN 978-1572732575.
  18. ^ "pp.195-211: Troy Earl Camplin". Studies in Emergent Order. 2010-08-20. Retrieved 2018-09-17.
  19. ^ The Self-Organizing Economy
  20. ^ Grabel, Ilene (2000). "The political economy of 'policy credibility': the new-classical macroeconomics and the remaking of emerging economies". Cambridge Journal of Economics. 24 (1): 1–19. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.366.5380. doi:10.1093/cje/24.1.1. Retrieved 20 October 2016.
  21. ^ Yong Tao et al. Exponential structure of income inequality: evidence from 67 countries. Journal of Economic Interaction and Coordination (2017) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11403-017-0211-6
This page was last edited on 1 May 2019, at 21:36
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.