Renewable energy (RE) is one of the most popular public policy orientations worldwide. Compared to some other countries and continents, Europe has gained an early awareness of energy and environmental problems in general. At the theoretical level, free-market environmentalism indicates that based on the principle of private property rights, with fewer state interventionist and regulation policies, entrepreneurs, as the driving force of the market economy, can provide better services to meet the necessity of offering RE to protect the environment more effectively. Previous studies have revealed that Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have made some progress in using the market to develop RE. However, this research did not analyze the three countries’ RE conditions from the perspective of free-market environmentalism. Based on our review of the principles of free-market environmentalism, this paper originally provides an empirical study of how Germany, Denmark, and the United Kingdom have partly conducted free-market-oriented policies to successfully achieve their policy goal of RE since the 1990s on a practical level. In particular, compared with Germany and Denmark, the UK has maintained a relatively low energy tax rate and opted for more pro-market measures since the Hayekian-Thatcherism free-market reform of 1979. The paper also discovers that Fredrich A. Hayek’s theories have strongly impacted its energy liberalization reform agenda since then. Low taxes on the energy industry and electricity have alleviated the burden on the electricity enterprises and consumers in the UK. Moreover, the empirical results above show that the energy enterprises play essential roles in providing better and more affordable RE for household and industrial users in the three sampled countries. Based on the above results, the paper also warns that state intervention policies such as taxation, state subsidies, and industrial access restrictions can impede these three countries’ RE targets. Additionally, our research provides reform agendas and policy suggestions to policymakers on the importance of implementing free-market environmentalism to provide more efficient RE in the post-COVID-19 era.

Behavioral development economics promotes the nudge theory as a mechanism to incorporate people’s cognitive biases, steering their behavior in the desired direction through coercive state intervention. Cognitive biases become a reason to doubt the efficiency of decision-making psychology in the free market process. A fundamental assumption of this approach is that political decision-makers know the people’s means and ends in ways that protect them from cognitive biases. This article reviews and discusses the nudge theory, based on the boost theory developed by the Austrian School of Economics. The boost theory consists of a comparative institutional perspective to provide the empowerment people need to realize their errors and correct them “on the fly” to cultivate economic development. It is argued that the nudge theory overlooks the cognitive biases of political decision-makers, neglects the comparative perspective of the institutional environment in the face of such biases, and does not consider how construction of on-the-fly judgments works. After reviewing the principles of the nudge theory, its main criticisms from the boost theory are discussed, forming novel conclusions about and research avenues on behavioral development economics, according to the steering or empowering quality of the institutional environment.

The Austrian school economics and neo-Marxist theories both have been reviving in recent years. However, the current academic discussion lacks a debate between two schools of economics with diametrically opposed views. This paper is the first and an initial Austrian challenge to Neo-Marxist scholars Nieto and Mateo’s argumentation that cyber-communism and the Austrian theory of dynamic efficiency are consistent to enhance economic development. Their argument focuses on two issues: (a) the existence of circular reasoning in the Austrian theory of dynamic efficiency, and (b) dynamic efficiency and full economic development could be strongly promoted in a socialist system through new information and communication technologies (ICT) and the democratization of all economic life. While cyber-communism refers to cyber-planning without private property rights through ICT, dynamic efficiency refers to the entrepreneurs’ creative and coordinative natures. In this paper, first, we argue that the hypothesis that dynamic efficiency and cyber-communism is not compatible. Contrary to the above cyber-communist criteria, the Austrian theory of dynamic efficiency argues that to impede private property rights is to remove the most powerful entrepreneurial incentive to create and coordinate profit opportunities. Second, we argue that the cyber-communism system is inconsistent with economic development. In this regard, we explain how the institutional environment can cultivate or stifle dynamic efficiency and economic development. Having briefly outlined the central argument of Nieto and Mateo, we examine the institutional arrangement supporting cyber-communism. After that, we evaluate the implications of cyber-communism in the dynamic efficiency process. It becomes manifest that Nieto and Mateo’s accounts are too general to recognize the complexity of how economic development works.

Israel Kirzner lays the foundations of entrepreneurship as the driving force of the market process by referring to alertness, uncertainty, and plan coordination. His approach, following the footsteps of Mises and Hayek, legitimizes entrepreneurial creativity and profit-making as the heart of the dynamic market process. He argues that an accurate insight into the economic system requires exploring how entrepreneurial dynamics work in society. This statement contrasts with the theories and models that govern modern development economics, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which the zero-intelligence agents replace the flesh-and-blood entrepreneur. Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in modern development economics to assess treatment intervention efficacy in underdeveloped countries (Rodrik 2009). As a causal inference method, RCTs seek to determine whether a program had the outcome for which it was designed. Experts often utilize purely quantitative and experimental strategies for their guiding insights through trial and error of different interventions. In the ethics domain, experts seek to maximize the cost-benefit of specific interventions subject to a given set of data to rectify the inequalities generated by the market economy in underdeveloped economies. The economist becomes a kind of plumber who designs the creation and distribution of the “social pie,” assigning the respective slices to the specific individuals who participate in the experiments. Consequently, RCTs have justified active government intervention in the market process on behalf of policy advisers.However, Kirzner’s theory of entrepreneurship indicates that modern development economics’s core problem is epistemological and related to using the criterion of static efficiency in applied economics. Although RCTs are considered one of the most rigorous methods to inquire into the effectiveness of development policies, their design lacks interpretative capacity on the essence of economic phenomena. Experts on RCTs do not recognize that economic development is the byproduct of achieving social cooperation and coordination driven by purposeful human action under the division of labor. If the essence of economic phenomena is disregarded, it is impossible to address poverty causes adequately. Accordingly, RCTs are limited to testing cosmetic problems of economic underdevelopment.This article does not seek to offer specific proposals to remedy RCTs’ shortcomings, but it provides a theoretical foundation to guide further theoretical and empirical work. It argues that development economists have overlooked Kirzner’s theory of efficiency, which cannot be omitted without impairing the premise that development theory involves studying the dynamic process of plan coordination. Its relevance lies in the fact that Kirzner’s research can reshape modern development economics, which implies a theoretical advancement in several areas:• Kirzner’s analysis of static efficiency reveals the epistemological and ethical problems of modern development economics.• The framework of Kirzner’s dynamic efficiency clarifies the role of entrepreneurship in understanding how the market works.• Dynamic efficiency recognizes the creative and coordinating potential of entrepreneurship and capital accumulation in economic development.• Kirzner’s economic development theory responds to ethical dilemmas about (in)equality and pure profit within a market economy.• Contemporary research on dynamic efficiency explores new branches, such as the role of psychology, culture, and morality in economic development.Most research on efficiency and underdevelopment is still packaged in mathematical models that reduce the market’s complexity to comparative statics. Fortunately, a growing number of theories have begun to challenge this state of affairs by examining the following: First, psychology’s impact on productivity or the unproductiveness of entrepreneurial profit opportunities. Second, the role of culture in the dynamic process of institutional change and the adaptation of the entrepreneurial performance that ensures or deter economic development. Third, the relationship between personal morality and dynamic efficiency concerns private property and contractual ties. Hence, there are several strands of new literature on dynamic efficiency and development economics. This article focuses on one aspect that concerns both economists and governments in terms of modern thinking and practice: the role of efficiency (static and dynamic) in economic development. Israel Kirzner lays the foundations of entrepreneurship as the driving force of the market process by referring to alertness, uncertainty, and plan coordination. His approach, following the footsteps of Mises and Hayek, legitimizes entrepreneurial creativity and profit-making as the heart of the dynamic market process. He argues that an accurate insight into the economic system requires exploring how entrepreneurial dynamics work in society. This statement contrasts with the theories and models that govern modern development economics, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in which the zero-intelligence agents replace the flesh-and-blood entrepreneur. Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in modern development economics to assess treatment intervention efficacy in underdeveloped countries (Rodrik 2009). As a causal inference method, RCTs seek to determine whether a program had the outcome for which it was designed. Experts often utilize purely quantitative and experimental strategies for their guiding insights through trial and error of different interventions. In the ethics domain, experts seek to maximize the cost-benefit of specific interventions subject to a given set of data to rectify the inequalities generated by the market economy in...

Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto is one of the leading Austrian School economists in the contemporary era. This paper reviews his biography as a great Austrian School economist, a successful entrepreneur and a tireless fighter for freedom. This paper also reviews his original and important aca-demic contributions on the theory of socialism and entrepreneurship, the theory of bank credit and economic cycles, and the theory of dynamic efficiency.

This article covers the current research vacuum on how Guatemala partially conducts forest preservation through community concessions. Our paper starts its analysis by synthesizing the private property-rights approach environmentalist theory and the community concession theory. It is argued that the shared common private property as a community arrangement can turn conflicts into potential opportunities for the involved parties to solve the existing environmental problems by win-win games. Based on the above theoretical views, our study extends the scope to the modern and democratic municipals’ forest preservation in Guatemala, as previous research mainly focused on how the Guatemalan traditional indigenous communities have conducted forest preservation. Our empirical results show that the in-force forest concessions in the Maya Biosphere Reserve have achieved the Guatemalan government’s forest conservation target in recent years. However, as the Guatemalan forest concession arrangements are just usufructs and the state still owns forest titles, the current Guatemalan forest concession could reverse the result of the limited, decentralized forest reform. In this regard, we suggest that Guatemala state should privatize all these forests to the concessions’ communities and firms. If the results are positive, we propose the Guatemalan government further apply the decentralization forest policy to the whole country.