|Peter Boettke|
Bad science led to monopoly politics is how Richard Epstein sums it up.
If you doubt this, read someone like Herbert David Croly's The Promise of American Life (1909), let alone Woodrow Wilson. Centralization of administration as a means for the rationalization of politics guided by science.
As a counter, it is useful to read Vincent Ostrom's various works challenging the modern "science" of public administration and his discussion of local public economies. Aligica and I discuss this in the first part of our Challenging Institutional Analysis and Development: The Bloomington School (Routledge, 2009). I also talk about this episode in intellectual history briefly during my podcast with Russ Roberts at EconTalk. One of the best books I ever read on the intellectual legacy of rationalization and scientific management was Judith Merkle's Management and Ideology: The Legacy of the International Scientific Management Movement (California, 1980).
Hat-tip: Bill Evers.
Ostrom's book on democracy/cies provides a nice indictment of Wilson.
Posted by: Dave Prychitko | February 10, 2010 at 10:27 AM
Exciting seeing the true liberal sage Epstein going epic!
Lord knows liberalism needs leaders now.
Posted by: Daniel Klein | February 10, 2010 at 11:53 AM
My professor of "scientific bureaucracy" taught the "science" of Freud as part of his "scientific" field ..
Posted by: Greg Ransom | February 10, 2010 at 03:12 PM
Is Epstein auditioning for the Glenn Beck show?
Posted by: Greg Ransom | February 10, 2010 at 03:13 PM
Credit Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism (2008) with raising the issue of the Progressives. Goldberg observed that Wilsonian Progressivism was admired by Mussolini.
Posted by: Jerry O'Driscoll | February 10, 2010 at 04:56 PM
Jerry's praise for *Liberal Fascism* echoes my own in this review in the Independent Review: http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_13_03_7_horwitz.pdf
Posted by: Steve Horwitz | February 10, 2010 at 04:58 PM
Question for Steve, Jerry or anyone else:
Did you read the recent set of posts at the history news network site about Goldberg's book (with his response)? If so, do you have any thoughts?
Posted by: Bill Stepp | February 10, 2010 at 05:53 PM
I did Bill. But I skimmed the two really nasty criticisms, read the other two a bit closer and then read JG's response. Tossing out the two nasty ones, which just seemed to me to be pure vitriol, I thought the other two largely raised reasonable points, but JG was pretty effective coming back at them with chapter and verse about how he had addressed most of those issues. Goldberg's book is pretty well footnoted, though it doesn't have the depth and breadth a professional historian would bring to it. I think the critics came off looking a bit hysterical and JG pretty reasonable, even if both sides scored points.
Posted by: Steve Horwitz | February 10, 2010 at 08:05 PM
I didn't read the exchange, but agree with Steve's assessment of the book. Goldberg says it isn't an academic effort, but it is heavily footnoted.
Goldberg unearthed some obscure literature, including a piece by Murray Rothbard on the Progressives. He is not an historian, so doesn't get into the subtlties of the fascist movement, etc.
My favorite line is about George Bush and his policies. Goldberg described Bush as a Christian Socialist.
Posted by: Jerry O'Driscoll | February 12, 2010 at 02:25 PM