The debate about the proper mix of market and non-market resource allocation mechanisms, especially for the commodities whose public provision has come to represent the welfare state, is central to the continuing discussion about the kind of society we aspire to live in. This article reviews a number of theoretical arguments that have shaped thinking and justified various positions in this debate. For example, the right to one type of liberty, negative liberty, has frequently been used, along with some instrumental arguments, to justify exclusive reliance on market allocations. Positive freedom and welfarist approaches, on the other hand, may both support more government intervention. The practical implications of these two approaches may, however, still differ; in general, welfarism suggests that states should allocate positive-rights goods via transferable coupons, while positive freedom arguments advocate their allocation in kind.
