https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9565-424X
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Phil Mullins, Ádám Tamás Tuboly and Gábor Áron Zemplén for their useful advice about how to improve the paper.
Notes
1 Fèvre, Marking Time, 18.
2 Zemplén 2017.
3 Jan Schnellenbach (Brandenburgische Technische Universität Cottbus-Senftenberg), Oliver Budzinski (Technische Universität Ilmenau), Nils Goldschmidt (Universität Siegen), Stefan Kolev (Westsächsisch Hochschule Zwickau), Martin Leschke (Universität Bayreuth), Christian Müller (Universität Münster), Rupprecht Podszun (Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf), Ute Schmiel (Universität Duisburg-Essen), Gunther Schnabl (Universität Leipzig), Christian Schubert (German University of Kairo), Heike Schweitzer (Freie Universität Berlin), Dirk Wentzel (Hochschule Pforzheim). Further Editors who are not members of the Editorial Board also work at German universities with one exception: Thomas Apolte (Universität Münster), Norbert Berthold (Universität Wuerzburg), Wolfgang Kerbert (Philipps-Universität Marburg), Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker (Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main), Josef Molsberger (Eberhart Karls Universität Tübingen), Wernhard Möschel (Universität Münster), Ingo Pies (Martin-Luther- Universität Halle-Wittenberg), Alfred Schüller (Philipps-Universität Marburg), Viktor Vanberg (Universität Freiburg). The one exception is Razeen Sally (National University of Singapore). Accessed August 19, 2022, https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/ordo/html#editorial
4 Gieryn, ‘Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science’.
5 It must be added here that while Fèvre only used ‘spontaneous order’ once (p. 200), he briefly mentioned ‘spontaneous structures,’ (p. 28) ‘spontaneously generate’ (p. 38) and ‘spontaneous realization’ (p. 148) and interpreted the ordoliberal position as suggesting that ‘a deliberately constructed order, and not a spontaneous one’ is needed (p. 59). The book implies, at least in my reading, that spontaneous order theories all belong to what ordoliberals call ‘historical liberalism’ and some others call laissez-faire liberalism and ordoliberal theories belong to their own school of thought, ordoliberalism. However, even after reading the volume, I am not yet convinced that such a strict line of demarcation can be drawn between spontaneous order theories and ordoliberal theories in the 1930–1940s.