Conclusion

Abstract

If we add up all that has gone before in this volume, what do we conclude? We conclude, I suggest, that even assuming an emerging society that is consciously devoted to the public interest as a whole (i.e. is beyond the welfare state, pace Miss Taviss) based on some development of the organizational ethic with some of the qualities of trust (whose loss by implication is regretted by Burns), some sweeping institutional changes will inevitably be required if the hopefully emerging social solidarity is to have practical effect. The papers of Mesthene, Bower, Arrow and Olson each provide indications of various specific changes. In what follows I try to weld these into a comprehensive if idealistic blueprint. The reader will find, I think, that the suggestions I shall make respond directly to Mesthene’s requirement for better information, and to Arrow’s requirement for recognition of certain intrinsic problems in the information-process. It responds indirectly to Bower’s ideas concerning limited liability, because the scheme proposed would undoubtedly eventually lead to the end of limited liability as we know it. I am perhaps less well tuned to the approach of Mishan, as he (I think) intends to rely mainly on the law and compensation processes, but what I propose is, however, directly intended to meet my own criticism of Mishan, namely that monetary compensation procedures are difficult to operate until we have a better accepted set of criteria for the measurement of social damage.