Hayek on Nomocracy and Teleocracy: A Critical Assessment

Hayek describes a state teleocratic if the same hierarchy of ends is binding on all its members. A state is nomocratic, on the other hand, if its general welfare consists solely in the preservation of an abstract and end-independent order through members’ subscription to the general rules of just conduct. Although Hayek’s social philosophy argues persuasively that as a centrally designed order, teleocracy is inferior to the emergent order of nomocracy since the latter provides a far more rational and effective framework in coordinating the use of the circumstantial knowledge possessed by individual members to serve their several ends, it does not follow that design plays no significant role in Hayek’s idea of a liberal order. Hayek’s proposed “model constitution” for a democratic state demonstrates that the evolution of a political system under certain conditions may lead to a cul-de-sac by political short termism and partisan considerations, undermining both the market order and individual freedom in a liberal society. A more clear-headed understanding of this Hayekian “model constitution” not only allows us to apply his theoretical insights to improve public administration and public service ethics in a democracy, but also helps to establish the case that an appropriate mix of some organizational approach with spontaneous social and institutional development would be a better way forward for his ideal of nomocracy.