Entitlements, missing markets, and environmental uncertainty: Reply

At one level Dore and Ward seem intent on immunizing received doctrine. They say that I did not prove that rights violated Nozick's principles of justice, and that I did not prove that missing markets were the problem. More telling, they allege I did not prove that my story was better than the particular story favored by Dore and Ward. That is, they argue that : “ … there is an alternative approach, based on the theory of public economics, which is indeed operational.”³ They then use the bulk of their comment to explain and defend this alternative model. They hope to convince the reader that the model of “public economics” survives intact in the face of my alternative model. To the extent that their model allows one to define the problem away, it is not difficult to see why they find it so compelling.More seriously, Dore and Ward fail to make a coherent argument about the concept of rights and duties and the logic of a particular rights structure that happens to prevail. They seem concerned that my article was tampering with some sacred social construct—the status quo rights structure—and that my article threatened the received wisdom of both “public economics” and Paretian-Walrasian bliss. Indeed, theirs seems to be a genuine fear that if economists release their grip on the certitude of received orthodoxy the floodgates will be open to all manner of bumbling regulators seeking to shift rights and wealth positions across generations. My article is apparently threatening because it seems to suggest that the received wisdom may, at times, be misleading.