Neoliberalism and After: Scope and Limits of Interest Group Representation in Public Finance Decisions
| Published date | 01 July 2015 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0019556120150302 |
| Date | 01 July 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
NEOLffiERALISM AND AFTER: SCOPE AND LIMITS
OF
INTEREST GROUP REPRESENTATION
IN
PUBLIC FINANCE DECISIONS
AMITABH
RAJAN
This article begins with a critique
of
the neoliberal paradigm
of
governance, situates, and points out the limits and scope
of
interest-group representation in constitutional democracies
post-2008 fiscal crisis experience. Written after an in-depth
literature survey
of
recent research in the sub-disciplines
of
political economy, the author examines the postulates
of
the neoliberal framework
of
policy-advice in
public
finance decisions from the standpoints
of
discourse ethics
and
justice,
and
recommends structured channelisation
of
deprivation-consciousness through administrative law
reforms.
THE OCEAN
of
economic history is turning turbulent rather too often these
days.
It
drowns fishing boats, severely dents huge entities in the ocean and
ruins wide areas
of
coastal life. Essentially,
it
is a situation caused
by
a crisis
of
regulation and opportunistic advisories from the knowledge management
circles.
1 An equally important point is observed. Public finance theory
in such events tends to metamorphose into the prescription-demand for
massive public money bailouts without serious epistemic examination
of
the postulates
of
govemance.2
Resource generation and expenditure management principles in public
finance theory,
it
must be remembered, have the shine
of
ethical genesis.
Surveys
by
Amartya Sen and Daniel Hausman are general reminders
on
this in economics.
3 In public finance theory, specifically we have a glorious
legacy in a
sequence-from
great political economy theorists
of
the 18th and
19th centuries to the contemporaries like Musgrave, Stiglitz and Wilfred Ver
Eecke.
4 Ethical vigour in fiscal refonn theorisation is badly needed to salvage
post-crisis societies from crushing taxation5 and undeserved shrinkage
of
opportunities.
6
Are these symptoms
of
a wider phenomenon
of
a Legitimation Crisis,
akin to what Habermas thoughtfully conceptualised in 1973?7 Even after
To continue reading
Request your trial