Is Spontaneous Order a Form of Social Justice - Essay Example

Is ‘spontaneous order’ a form of social justice for Hayek? Is ‘spontaneous order’ a form of social justice for Hayek? The objective of this essay is to provide a brief summary and analysis of the topic under discussion. The objective will be achieved through a brief explanation of the terms like spontaneous order and social justice separately. The other supporting terms like the rule of law and catallaxy would also be discussed in general to provide a clear idea about all. Then from the literature review, the views of various authors related to theory of Hayek will be taken into account to link these terms up. Finally, after a thorough analysis the final conclusion will be presented to sum up the whole theory. The concept of “Spontaneous order” is an order that emerges with the volunteer actions of the individuals and not the one that is artificially created by the government. It is the key concept in free market tradition and classical liberal explained differently by different people. However, Hayek has explained the term as more creatively designed efficient market economies than any societal design could achieve (Petsoulas, 2001 – pp.2). This view is pointing towards the fact that market economies are emerged naturally from the business services and the individuals involved in the buying and selling of these goods and services to form and distribute them accordingly depending upon the individual decisions. Such economies cannot be designed and created by any society manually. The idea of “Social justice” refers to the equal distribution of rights and duties among all individuals present within a given system. It is the key concept that is supportive of human rights and aims to achieve all aspects of a social system including the administrative law. A social system is said to be “just” only when all rules and regulations are abide equally by all the individuals present in it. Fair treatment should be attributed to all individuals and groups to promote the basic concept of merit. Distribution of costs and benefits should be equal among all without any favor. According to the Hayed, the social justice is nothing but a “Mirage” (Routledge and Paul, 1982). Hayek has referred to the social justice as the “worst use of word social” and it indicates a “semantic fraud”. Hayek has noticed that the term has "already distorted the thinking of a younger generation," citing David Millers recent Oxford doctoral thesis, titled as "Social Justice.” (Routledge, 1988, pp.114-118) All the above evidences show that Hayek was not supportive of the idea of social justice because he viewed that the economic reward system is the result of unplanned market economies that arises from the individual actions and decisions. Such system occurs naturally as a result of spontaneous order rather than being created manually then there is no need to think about social justice or injustice as every individual has been assigned a particular place and position within the society and is working under the command of some central authority that directs them. Hayek was of the view that the spontaneous order comprises of individuals and organizations than there is no need of social justice (Hayek, 1993, pp.46). Spontaneous order aims to correct the errors that are residing within a given social system and help the individuals to struggle and meet their desired expectations. It plays a key role in building social relationships. Hayek has put forth the idea that a centralized legal system would not be able to enhance the effectiveness of social justice or well being as “only human conduct can be called as jus or unjust” (Miller, 1976, pp.17) (Macleod, 1983, pp.557). The economic systems are too complex to be regulated in any centralized legal direction (Hayek, 1973, 1976, 1979). Hayek has simply rejected the idea of the prevalence of social or distributive justice within the spontaneous order an open society. For example, if the price systems of an open economy are assessed then it can be easily derived that it links the individual activities of all the actors within that given system. Spontaneous order does not only include markets but also the system of law, moral value systems and the language which emerge through the individual interactions. To achieve the desired outcomes of such interactions; the individuals should learn to conform to a shared system of norms and constraints. Like, the language did not emerge as a result of the thinking of a single individual. Instead, it has its own rules and continues to evolve as the human achieve progress (Rehr, 1992). Hayek holds the belief that the single merit system developed by any individual will fail to conform to the distributive and social justice. As an open society comes into being with the mutual concern of all the individuals then how come a single merit system developed by a single individual will meet the desired needs of all? It may leave some people with the feeling of being treated unjustly while making the rest happier depending upon whose needs were successfully met and whose not. The idea of spontaneous order is supported by the rule of law as it enables the individuals to use their knowledge, in addition to their personal needs and exchange relations of cooperation with others. While the existence of the government aims towards the enforcement of the law and prevent the breaches of he laws through punishment. This enforcement is essential for the respect of the individual rights of all the citizens living in a social system. So, the concept of rule of law defends the idea of spontaneous order to help individuals to make their living without any interference and result in unplanned evolutionary progress of the society as a whole (Macedo, 1999). It helps in assessing that a limited government intervention is admissible to the spontaneous order until it has some negative affects on the freedom of individual rights. According to Hayek, there should be the minimum government to spend on activities like providing protection to the individuals and their private property from any probable future damage. He was rather of the view that with the minimal governmental interference, the individuals would be able to enjoy the benefits of market outcomes of a free society. Accordingly, Hayek has argued that the social and distributive justice is hollow and meaningless in the sense that nobody holds the status to assign and decide the relative income for different individuals (Moreira & Tanon, 2007, pp.147). It refers to the point that the social justice become meaningless when applied to the market economy where the distribution of income is dependent upon the economic and market patters rather than self-created. Hayek has also used the word “catallaxy” as an alternative for “market economy”. The catallaxy is defined as, “Fundamentally, in a system in which the knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people, prices can act to co-ordinate the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to co-ordinate the parts of his plan.” (Hayek, 1945) Hayek has argued that no moral basis is supportive of the idea that more equitable distribution of resources and wealth would lead to social justice. As in a free market economy, there is no measure to judge whether a situation s just or unjust. In such circumstances, the inequality of distribution of polices and wealth can be reduced by redistributing them and thus minimizing the effects of callaxy (Gray, 1998). However, the outcomes obtained from spontaneous order or catallaxy can not also be regarded as just or unjust as they are not based on any prescribed followed rules and laws. They are rather a part of the social system that is self emergent and does not support any merit regarding the distribution of income and resources rather it monitors the general rules that comes into being as a result of social and economic interactions of the individuals, part of it. Hayek has subsequently rejected the concept of just distribution of income and other related resources as according to him; there is no single scale to calculate the multiple factors that justify the relative distribution of wealth among all (Pennington, 2007). Hayek has deliberately supported the idea of equal opportunity to promote the inner urge for competition in all to result in progress. However, by devising a merit system will only lead to disappointment of some individuals. Within the free market economies, the free competition is an efficient way to coordinate prices and production as the markets use the dispersed knowledge to run their system. Hayek’s theory follows the same point that in an uncertain world, the decentralized information is coordinated through the discovery procedure of the competition (Barry, 1982). Any competition leads to the unequal outcomes and serves as a learning experience for the less successful and follows the more successful individuals. This inequality is the evidence of enhancement in knowledge and learning through equal opportunity to compete with each other. Even within the games, the final scores and the actions of the players can not be regarded as subjected to rule of fairness. If all the players are provided with the freedom to play within the given rules of fairness, then the results can not be declared logically as unfair by any means. In the same way, if some individuals in a free market accumulate more wealth even after following the right way of conduct and laws then there is no way that unequal distribution of wealth would be questioned (Boudreaux, 2009). All the above theory is leading to the Hayek’s being strongly opposing the idea of social justice. According to him, it is incompatible with the evolution of market and is empty in nature. The free market economies are self-emergent and hence do not need any manually created rules and laws to interfere its freedom. Markets are comprised of individuals and their interactions with each other to meet individual objectives. Spontaneous order does not only provide an opportunity for free competitions but also boost up the production level to accumulate the reward for hard work without the need of any centralized commanding authority. References: 1. Barry N. 1982. The Tradition of Spontaneous Order. Vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 7-58. 2. Boudreaux D. 2009. Social Justice and Income Distribution. http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/social-justice-and-income-distribution.html. 3. Deakin S. & Wilkinson F. 2000. Capabilities, Spontaneous Order, and Social Rights. ESRC Centre of Business Research, University of Cambridge, Working Paper No. 174. 4. Lister A. 2011. The ‘Mirage’ of Social Justice: Hayek Against (and For) Rawls. CSSJ Working Papers Series, SJ017. 5. Miller D. 1976. Social Justice (Oxford University Press), pp.17. 6. Hayek F. 1945. The Use of Knowledge in Society. 7. Hayek F. 1982. Law, Legislation, and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy, New pbk. ed. ed. (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul). 8. Hayek F. 1988. The Fatal Conceit: Errors of Socialism (Routledge), pp.114-118. 9. Hayek F. 1993. Law, Legislation and Liberty, A New Statement of the Liberal Principles of Justice and Political Economy. London. Routledge. 10. Hayek F. 2001. Petsoulas, Christian. Hayeks Liberalism and Its Origins: His Idea of Spontaneous Order and the Scottish Enlightenment. Routledge. pp.2. 11. Macedo S. 1999. Hayek’s Liberal Legacy. Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 289-300. 12. Macleod A. 1983. Justice and the Market, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 13, no. 4, pp.557. 13. Moreira J. & Tanon A. 2007. Markets & Morality. Can Social Justice Be Achieved? Vol. 10, pp.143-155. 14. Rehr D. 1992. Hayeks Legacy of the Spontaneous Order. http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3747. 15. Pennington M. 2007. Hayek on Socialism. London. University of London. Read More