Editing Joseph Stiglitz (section)

===Practical implications of Stiglitz's theories===
The practical implications of Stiglitz's work in [[political economy]] and their [[economic policy]] implications have been subject to debate.<ref name=DISENSUS>{{cite web|url=http://www.developmentinpractice.org/apc_ap-v14n3x525073q.html |title=Consensus, dissensus, confusion: the 'Stiglitz Debate' in perspective |access-date=2007-08-03 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070422032304/http://www.developmentinpractice.org/apc_ap-v14n3x525073q.html |archive-date=2007-04-22 }}</ref> Stiglitz himself has evolved his political-economic discourse over time.<ref name=DEBATE2>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15630 |author=Friedman, Benjamin M. |title= Globalization: Stiglitz's Case. |publisher=The New York Review of Books, Volume 49, Number 13 |website=Nybooks.com |date=August 15, 2002 |access-date=October 29, 2013}}</ref>

{{blockquote|Once incomplete and imperfect information is introduced, Chicago-school defenders of the market system cannot sustain descriptive claims of the Pareto efficiency of the real world. Thus, Stiglitz's use of rational-expectations equilibrium assumptions to achieve a more realistic understanding of capitalism than is usual among rational-expectations theorists leads, paradoxically, to the conclusion that capitalism deviates from the model in a way that justifies state action{{snd}} socialism{{snd}} as a remedy.<ref name = BOETTKE/>}}

{{blockquote|The effect of Stiglitz's influence is to make economics even more presumptively interventionist than Samuelson preferred. Samuelson treated market failure as an exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"<ref name=SAPPINGTON>{{cite web|url=http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~yqian/econ260b/Sappington%20Privatization.pdf |title=Privatization, Information and Incentives |access-date=2007-05-15 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060518062152/http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~yqian/econ260b/Sappington%20Privatization.pdf |archive-date=2006-05-18 }}</ref>| Stiglitz 1994, p. 179.<ref name=BOETTKE>{{cite web|url=http://www.the-dissident.com/Boettke_CR.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070130083514/http://the-dissident.com/Boettke_CR.pdf |url-status=usurped |archive-date=January 30, 2007 |author=Boettke, Peter J. |title=What Went Wrong with Economics?, Critical Review Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 35, 58 |access-date=October 29, 2013}}</ref>}}

As David L. Prychitko discusses in his critique to ''Whither Socialism?'', he thought that Stiglitz seems generally correct,{{Citation needed|date=April 2019}} though it still leaves how the coercive institutions of the government{{POV statement|date=October 2021}} should be constrained and what the relation is between the government and civil society.<ref name=CRITIQUE1>{{cite web|url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2-10.html |title=Whither Socialism? |access-date=2007-09-26 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19970607112959/http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2-10.html |archive-date=1997-06-07 }}</ref>