Terrorist (E)motives: The Existential Attractions of Terrorism

This article describes a number of possible existential motivations for engaging in terrorism. Three in particular are identified: (1) the desire for excitement, (2) the desire for ultimate meaning, and (3) the desire for glory. Terrorism, according to the argument set out here, is as much a site of individual self-drama and self-reinvention as a tactical instrument for pursuing the political goals of small groups. The conclusion explores the concept of “existential frustration,” and suggests that terrorist activity may provide an outlet for basic existential desires that cannot find expression through legitimate channels.     

Everything for Sale? Neoliberalism and the Limits of Michael Sandel’s Philosophical Critique of Markets

Contesting the central tenets of mainstream economic theory, Michael Sandel’s work on markets argues that the marketization of certain goods risks corrupting the value of those goods, and that a reinvigorated public discourse is needed to establish the appropriate use of markets. This article assesses Sandel’s work on markets, arguing that although it provides a convincing critique of liberal defenses of the market, it does not do enough to challenge marketization itself. To illuminate the flaws of Sandel’s argument, the article contrasts it with Marxist critiques of neoliberalism, arguing that the latter oppose the expansion of markets and market thinking in more comprehensive and productive ways. Specifically, it is argued that Sandel ignores the one market that underpins all other markets, namely the labor market; erroneously suggests that marketization is caused by the dominance of market thinking; and fails to appreciate the class interests that are served by growing marketization.     

Institutions and Economic Performance: The Use and Abuse of Culture in New Institutional Economics

Important research programs within New Institutional Economics advance culturalist arguments to explain failures of economic development. Focusing on the work of Douglass C. North and Avner Greif, this article argues that such arguments rely on an essentialist conception of culture that is both historically inaccurate and analytically misleading. Greif’s work in particular rests on a selective use of empirical data that ultimately distorts the deductive models that are at the core of his work. As a result, both scholars use culture to account for outcomes that are more adequately explained as the product of social conflict and political struggles—struggles in which culture plays a far more contingent and destabilizing role than the one they attribute to it. What is needed, I argue, is to link arguments about the persistence of inefficient institutions with a sociologically informed conception of culture as an ensemble of resources that enhance rather than constrain the scope of individual agency. To come to terms with the effects of culture on institutional formation and change it is necessary to replace the essentialism articulated by North and Greif with a strategic-instrumentalist view in which culture is compatible with a wide spectrum of economic behaviors, individual actions, and thus institutional trajectories.