This paper provides a theoretical framework to explore how the support policies for renewable energies can promote rent-seeking incentives in private firms. We develop a political economy of rent-seeking that considers the link between the regulatory decisions of political agents and the potential scope of socially wasteful pursuits. We argue that systematic public support schemes bring rent-seeking as a perception shared by entrepreneurs that influencing political allocations of resources is an essential and potentially preferable source of private profit than other for-profit economic avenues. As evidence of our claims, the framework is applied to the case of Spain to illustrate the economic effects of support policies on the production and distribution of renewable energy. We find rent-seeking behavior in Spain’s renewable energy industry, and precisely that: (i) political regulations have induced market concentration and rent-seeking in renewable energy firms, (ii) these firms have required increasing regulations and premiums to survive, and (iii) energy consumers are forced to pay rent-seeking through increasingly expensive electricity bills. The analysis reveals some challenges and opportunities to drive efficient market-based policies to strengthen entrepreneurial competition and curb rent-seeking behavior. These insights have relevant proposals for the Spanish energy industry in complying with the EU Green Deal through a sustainable transition and comprehensive growth.

The analysis of sustainable economic growth and development often focuses on how to control the market process through coercive state intervention. While state interventionism may play a significant role in countries’ progress, entrepreneurship is the driving force behind sustainable growth and development. Entrepreneurship is the people’s judgment on ideas, plans, and projects, which promises profit in uncertain times. Its effects are the creation and transmission of information and social coordination as a dynamic process of identifying and solving human problems. Sustainable development is the widening range of entrepreneurial alternatives open to people, and sustainable growth is a phase of sustainable development that depends on genuine savings to finance increasingly capital-intensive production structures. The degree to which people are entrepreneurs and the direction genuine savings take depend on institutional arrangements. Some institutions are more conducive to sustainable growth and development than others. After reviewing principles of growth and development sustainability, how coercive state intervention influences economic performance is discussed, proposing novel policy conclusions and research avenues to cultivate entrepreneurship and genuine savings in a post-COVID-19 world.

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 “new development economics” (also called behavioral development economics) consists of microeconomic experimentation based on behavioral economics and randomized controlled trials. This approach would illuminate the close relationships between preferences, culture, and institutions and point to new political opportunities. This paper describes and analyzes the new development economics’s main components and argues that the new development economics is just like the old development economics in terms of its central assumptions, objectives, and recommendations. Despite the growing recognition that social, cultural, and institutional factors profoundly affect decision-making, old and new development economists generally lean toward the extreme reductionism of the neoclassical paradigm. It is observed that research on the essence of economic development has been neglected or treated inadequately in the school’s literature. It is suggested that the findings of the Austrian theory of dynamic efficiency, based on human action’s creative and entrepreneurial feature, may allow the development economics to overcome its analytical challenges.

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.