Abstract
Michael Oakeshott’s account of political economy is claimed to have found its ‘apotheosis under Thatcherism’. Against critics who align him with a preference for small government, this article points to Oakeshott’s stress on the indispensability of an infrastructure of government-provided public goods, in which individual agency and associative freedom can flourish. I argue that Oakeshott’s account of political economy invites a contestatory politics over three types of public goods, which epitomize the unresolvable tension he diagnosed between nomocratic and teleocratic conceptions of the modern state. These three types are the system of civil law, the by-products of the operation of civil law and public goods which result from policies. The article concludes that Oakeshott offers an important corrective to political theories which favour either market mediation or radical democratic governance of the commons as self-sustaining modes of providing and enjoying goods.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 561-584 |
| Number of pages | 24 |
| Journal | European Journal of Political Theory |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Early online date | 6 Dec 2019 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Jul 2022 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:The author would like to thank Astrid von Busekist, Peggy Kohn, Paul Nieuwenburg, Tom Theuns, as well as two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this journal, for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2019.
Keywords
- Michael Oakeshott
- privatization
- public goods
- the commons
- welfare state