Public Goods and Private Interests: An Explanation for State Compliance with Federal Requisitions, 1777–1789

Author(s):  
Keith L. Dougherty
2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 710-738
Author(s):  
Edward R. Lucas

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 448-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvana Revellino ◽  
Jan Mouritsen

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explain the role of the performativity theory for understanding how the calculative instruments of accounting provoke innovation and participate in the generation of values by activating processes that pervade everything rather than being limited to categorical spaces. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on Judith Butler’s work and her notion of excitability to explain how multiple values may arise when accounting interacts with innovation. Through this lens, accounting, as a language based on signs, can be theorised as an ex-citable force involved in provoking and transforming innovation and its associated values, notably beyond innovators’ initial intentions. Thus, innovation is not a stable object but a pervasive movement diffusing multiple values. Findings By introducing the notion of pervasiveness, the paper argues that even if values can be imagined ab origine, they may not be contractible to a plan. The calculative instruments of accounting provoke innovation and participate in the generation of value(s) by activating processes that pervade everything rather than being limited to categorical spaces. In the course of this pervasive process, innovations, which are born to develop private interests, can possibly generate public goods. Originality/value The notion of pervasiveness the paper advances is used to challenge the division between business and social innovation. It well expresses the effects that ex-citable calculative practices put in place when interacting with innovation. It suggests that it is only possible to create productions – to assemble things – in ongoing processes, and the value(s) produced in such movements are always evolving and multiple. However, in this sense, they are social.


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 553-572
Author(s):  
Alain Béraud ◽  
Guy Numa

The purpose of this essay is to analyze Léon Walras’s theory of public interest goods. For him, “services and products of public interest are theoretically those that interest men as members of the community or of the State emanating from the authority to establish social conditions, that is, from the satisfaction of needs that are the same and equal to all” ([1875, 1897a] 1992, EEPA, p. 187). In Walras’s mind, this definition meant that public interest goods could not be factored into the utility function, in sharp contrast with the standard approach in public goods theory. Walras did not imply that public interest goods were not useful, but he maintained instead that their utility was felt only by the community as a whole and not by the individual. Walras developed an anti-individualistic view of the State in which the collective interest was not reducible to the sum of private interests.


Energy Policy ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 29 (13) ◽  
pp. 1085-1097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan H Wiser ◽  
Meredith Fowlie ◽  
Edward A Holt

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document