Loading…
An economic analysis of the philosophical common good
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze economically several versions of the philosophical common good in order to contribute to the search for a viable conceptualization of the common good. Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents an economic analysis of the common good by examini...
Saved in:
| Published in: | International journal of social economics 2016-08, Vol.43 (8), p.823-840 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c491t-b3178140bcdd8c76df4c3b309f9b5678f658eb9dfdf776eb309ecb05a2233c853 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c491t-b3178140bcdd8c76df4c3b309f9b5678f658eb9dfdf776eb309ecb05a2233c853 |
| container_end_page | 840 |
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | 823 |
| container_title | International journal of social economics |
| container_volume | 43 |
| creator | Murphy, Tim Parkey, Jeff |
| description | Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to analyze economically several versions of the philosophical common good in order to contribute to the search for a viable conceptualization of the common good.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper presents an economic analysis of the common good by examining the extent to which eight different versions of the philosophical concept possess the consumption characteristics of excludability and rivalry – and thus how each version may be classified as an economic good: private, public, common, or club.
Findings
– One of the examined versions of the philosophical common good is an economic common good; three versions are club goods; and four versions are public goods. Only those versions of the common good that are classifiable as public goods merit consideration as adequate conceptualizations in political and philosophical thought. In assessing the admissible versions the authors conclude that a viable conceptualization of the common good may simply be the maintenance of a peaceful social order that allows people to pursue their individual and collective goals in community.
Originality/value
– The paper shows that an analysis of the philosophical common good using the economic criteria of excludability and rivalry can contribute to common good discourse. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0168 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_emera</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_IJSE-08-2014-0168</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2116075309</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c491t-b3178140bcdd8c76df4c3b309f9b5678f658eb9dfdf776eb309ecb05a2233c853</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptkDtPwzAUhS0EEqXwA9giMRvujeNHxqoqL1ViAGbL8YOmSuJit0P_PYnKgsR0hnu-o6uPkFuEe0RQDy-v7ysKipaAFQUU6ozMUHJFhcTynMyAgaCqrNklucp5CwBcKZgRvhgKb-MQ-9YWZjDdMbe5iKHYb3yx27RdzHEMa7rCxr6PQ_EVo7smF8F02d_85px8Pq4-ls90_fb0slysqa1q3NOGoVRYQWOdU1YKFyrLGgZ1qBsupAqCK9_ULrggpfDTxdsGuClLxqzibE7uTru7FL8PPu_1Nh7S-GXWJaIAyUdkbOGpZVPMOfmgd6ntTTpqBD3Z0ZMdPeZkR092RgZOjO99Mp37F_kjlP0A1P1lbA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2116075309</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An economic analysis of the philosophical common good</title><source>Criminology Collection</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>Emerald:Jisc Collections:Emerald Subject Collections HE and FE 2024-2026:Emerald Premier (reading list)</source><source>Sociology Collection</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Murphy, Tim ; Parkey, Jeff</creator><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Tim ; Parkey, Jeff</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to analyze economically several versions of the philosophical common good in order to contribute to the search for a viable conceptualization of the common good.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper presents an economic analysis of the common good by examining the extent to which eight different versions of the philosophical concept possess the consumption characteristics of excludability and rivalry – and thus how each version may be classified as an economic good: private, public, common, or club.
Findings
– One of the examined versions of the philosophical common good is an economic common good; three versions are club goods; and four versions are public goods. Only those versions of the common good that are classifiable as public goods merit consideration as adequate conceptualizations in political and philosophical thought. In assessing the admissible versions the authors conclude that a viable conceptualization of the common good may simply be the maintenance of a peaceful social order that allows people to pursue their individual and collective goals in community.
Originality/value
– The paper shows that an analysis of the philosophical common good using the economic criteria of excludability and rivalry can contribute to common good discourse.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0306-8293</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-6712</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0168</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited</publisher><subject>Civil society ; Classification ; Common good ; Concept formation ; Consumers ; Consumption ; Economic analysis ; Economics ; Fireworks ; Happiness ; Medieval period ; Philosophy ; Political philosophy ; Portable computers ; Public good ; Public goods ; Public sector ; Social economics ; Social life & customs ; Social order ; Taxonomy</subject><ispartof>International journal of social economics, 2016-08, Vol.43 (8), p.823-840</ispartof><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</rights><rights>Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c491t-b3178140bcdd8c76df4c3b309f9b5678f658eb9dfdf776eb309ecb05a2233c853</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c491t-b3178140bcdd8c76df4c3b309f9b5678f658eb9dfdf776eb309ecb05a2233c853</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2116075309?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,12846,12847,21376,21394,21395,27344,27866,27924,27925,30999,33223,33611,33769,33774,34530,36060,43733,43814,44115,44363</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parkey, Jeff</creatorcontrib><title>An economic analysis of the philosophical common good</title><title>International journal of social economics</title><description>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to analyze economically several versions of the philosophical common good in order to contribute to the search for a viable conceptualization of the common good.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper presents an economic analysis of the common good by examining the extent to which eight different versions of the philosophical concept possess the consumption characteristics of excludability and rivalry – and thus how each version may be classified as an economic good: private, public, common, or club.
Findings
– One of the examined versions of the philosophical common good is an economic common good; three versions are club goods; and four versions are public goods. Only those versions of the common good that are classifiable as public goods merit consideration as adequate conceptualizations in political and philosophical thought. In assessing the admissible versions the authors conclude that a viable conceptualization of the common good may simply be the maintenance of a peaceful social order that allows people to pursue their individual and collective goals in community.
Originality/value
– The paper shows that an analysis of the philosophical common good using the economic criteria of excludability and rivalry can contribute to common good discourse.</description><subject>Civil society</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Common good</subject><subject>Concept formation</subject><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Consumption</subject><subject>Economic analysis</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Fireworks</subject><subject>Happiness</subject><subject>Medieval period</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Political philosophy</subject><subject>Portable computers</subject><subject>Public good</subject><subject>Public goods</subject><subject>Public sector</subject><subject>Social economics</subject><subject>Social life & customs</subject><subject>Social order</subject><subject>Taxonomy</subject><issn>0306-8293</issn><issn>1758-6712</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>BGRYB</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><sourceid>HEHIP</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><sourceid>M0O</sourceid><sourceid>M2R</sourceid><sourceid>M2S</sourceid><recordid>eNptkDtPwzAUhS0EEqXwA9giMRvujeNHxqoqL1ViAGbL8YOmSuJit0P_PYnKgsR0hnu-o6uPkFuEe0RQDy-v7ysKipaAFQUU6ozMUHJFhcTynMyAgaCqrNklucp5CwBcKZgRvhgKb-MQ-9YWZjDdMbe5iKHYb3yx27RdzHEMa7rCxr6PQ_EVo7smF8F02d_85px8Pq4-ls90_fb0slysqa1q3NOGoVRYQWOdU1YKFyrLGgZ1qBsupAqCK9_ULrggpfDTxdsGuClLxqzibE7uTru7FL8PPu_1Nh7S-GXWJaIAyUdkbOGpZVPMOfmgd6ntTTpqBD3Z0ZMdPeZkR092RgZOjO99Mp37F_kjlP0A1P1lbA</recordid><startdate>20160808</startdate><enddate>20160808</enddate><creator>Murphy, Tim</creator><creator>Parkey, Jeff</creator><general>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HEHIP</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2R</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160808</creationdate><title>An economic analysis of the philosophical common good</title><author>Murphy, Tim ; Parkey, Jeff</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c491t-b3178140bcdd8c76df4c3b309f9b5678f658eb9dfdf776eb309ecb05a2233c853</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Civil society</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Common good</topic><topic>Concept formation</topic><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Consumption</topic><topic>Economic analysis</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Fireworks</topic><topic>Happiness</topic><topic>Medieval period</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Political philosophy</topic><topic>Portable computers</topic><topic>Public good</topic><topic>Public goods</topic><topic>Public sector</topic><topic>Social economics</topic><topic>Social life & customs</topic><topic>Social order</topic><topic>Taxonomy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Murphy, Tim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parkey, Jeff</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Social Science Database</collection><collection>Sociology Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>International journal of social economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Murphy, Tim</au><au>Parkey, Jeff</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An economic analysis of the philosophical common good</atitle><jtitle>International journal of social economics</jtitle><date>2016-08-08</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>823</spage><epage>840</epage><pages>823-840</pages><issn>0306-8293</issn><eissn>1758-6712</eissn><abstract>Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to analyze economically several versions of the philosophical common good in order to contribute to the search for a viable conceptualization of the common good.
Design/methodology/approach
– The paper presents an economic analysis of the common good by examining the extent to which eight different versions of the philosophical concept possess the consumption characteristics of excludability and rivalry – and thus how each version may be classified as an economic good: private, public, common, or club.
Findings
– One of the examined versions of the philosophical common good is an economic common good; three versions are club goods; and four versions are public goods. Only those versions of the common good that are classifiable as public goods merit consideration as adequate conceptualizations in political and philosophical thought. In assessing the admissible versions the authors conclude that a viable conceptualization of the common good may simply be the maintenance of a peaceful social order that allows people to pursue their individual and collective goals in community.
Originality/value
– The paper shows that an analysis of the philosophical common good using the economic criteria of excludability and rivalry can contribute to common good discourse.</abstract><cop>Bradford</cop><pub>Emerald Group Publishing Limited</pub><doi>10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0168</doi><tpages>18</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0306-8293 |
| ispartof | International journal of social economics, 2016-08, Vol.43 (8), p.823-840 |
| issn | 0306-8293 1758-6712 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_emerald_primary_10_1108_IJSE-08-2014-0168 |
| source | Criminology Collection; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Social Science Premium Collection; ABI/INFORM Global; Emerald:Jisc Collections:Emerald Subject Collections HE and FE 2024-2026:Emerald Premier (reading list); Sociology Collection; PAIS Index; Sociological Abstracts |
| subjects | Civil society Classification Common good Concept formation Consumers Consumption Economic analysis Economics Fireworks Happiness Medieval period Philosophy Political philosophy Portable computers Public good Public goods Public sector Social economics Social life & customs Social order Taxonomy |
| title | An economic analysis of the philosophical common good |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T08%3A49%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_emera&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20economic%20analysis%20of%20the%20philosophical%20common%20good&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20social%20economics&rft.au=Murphy,%20Tim&rft.date=2016-08-08&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=823&rft.epage=840&rft.pages=823-840&rft.issn=0306-8293&rft.eissn=1758-6712&rft_id=info:doi/10.1108/IJSE-08-2014-0168&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_emera%3E2116075309%3C/proquest_emera%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c491t-b3178140bcdd8c76df4c3b309f9b5678f658eb9dfdf776eb309ecb05a2233c853%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2116075309&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |