Manuel Couret Branco

Economics Against Democracy

The main purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that mainstream liberal economics is intrinsically contradictory to the democratic ideal. The first stage of this demonstration concerns the deconstruction of the naturalization process of economics, in other words the process through which putative economic laws became equivalent to natural laws, which transformed economic decisions into technical issues supposedly free from democratic debate. The second stage concerns the ways in which the market has managed to legitimize its hegemony in society and the reasons why this contributes to the erosion of democracy. JEL classification: A13, B00, P10

Family, religion and economic performance: A critique of cultural determinism

Abstract Arguing that some attitudes that may constitute an obstacle to the development process are culturally funded, cultural determinism pleads that underdevelopment is essentially generated endogenously, in other words, that people in developing countries, with their beliefs and their attitudes, are the more liable for the poverty in which they live. The simplicity of these arguments has seduced a large number of scholars but what seems to be a cultural brake on economic development could be explained otherwise. This critique of cultural determinisms arguments attempts to supply an alternative version of the interaction of culture and development, from which power, class, domination and the international division of labour will not be excised. In order to simplify this study only two of the cultural features most often referred to will be brought into focus: religion and family and patterns of kinship.

Economics for substantive democracy

Abstract In this paper, I sustain that the discourse of economics has become one of the most substantial contributors to the erosion of the democratic ideal. The first argument used in this case against economics concerns its attempt to be considered a neo-naturalistic science; the second, the fact that economics considers democracy contradictory to the expression of its scientific rationality and; the third, the fact that economics crowds out people from decision-making processes by pushing them into the hands of experts. Because partisan political programmes have essentially become economic programmes, economics should contribute to substantive democracy. In order to do so, an alternative discourse to mainstream economics must be proposed. An economics favourable to substantive democracy should, thereby, be political rather than naturalistic, pluralist rather than monist and, instead of crowding out people from decisions processes, should aim at the co-production of economic knowledge with those concerned by the outcome of economic decisions.What is the scope of economics as a science, what is economics for? Real freedom or what we call substantive democracy has never been an objective of economics. In this perspective freedom, or the lack of it, would not be a purpose of a particular economic system, but at best one of its side effects. In this paper I sustain that economics’ discourse has become one the most substantial contributors to what could be called the erosion of democracy. The first argument used in this case against economics refers to its attempt to be considered a neo-naturalistic science; the second concerns the fact that economics considers democracy contradictory to the expression of its scientific rationality and; the third, that economics crowds out people from decision-making processes by pushing them into the hands of experts. What part should economics be called to play in this search for substantive democracy? This issue is all the more critical that economics has reached the status of a major political fact. Partisan political programs have essentially become economic programs, and economic variables have thereby become major global political issues. One of the ways for economics to contribute to substantive democracy is to propose an alternative discourse to mainstream economics. An economics favorable to substantive democracy should, thereby, be political rather than naturalistic, pluralist rather than monist and, instead of crowding out people from decisions processes, should aim at the co-production of economic knowledge with those concerned by the outcome of economic decisions.

Can Markets Secure Economic and Social Human Rights

In recent years, state inefficiency in delivering some public goods to everyone has been the major argument set forth by those who argue that markets should play a more active role in providing those goods and services that are needed to secure human rights. Despite the relative consensus that markets cannot substitute the state, in many parts of the world pressures have been felt for privatising social security and water distribution, for example. This article argues that markets do not speak the same language as human rights and therefore reinforces that they are not fully prepared to play the role of a supplier of goods and services as human rights, and specifically of the rights to social security and to water. There are three essential reasons for that. First, markets do not state social preferences; second, they are not accountable; and finally, they are ineffective. In essence, markets commodify human rights and while filling them with exchange value they empty them of political significance.In recent years, state inefficiency in delivering some public goods to everyone has been the major argument set forth by those who argue that markets should play a more active role in providing those goods and services that are needed to secure human rights. Despite the relative consensus that markets cannot substitute the state, in many parts of the world pressures have been felt for privatising social security and water distribution, for example. This article argues that markets do not speak the same language as human rights and therefore reinforces that they are not fully prepared to play the role of a supplier of goods and services as human rights, and specifically of the rights to social security and to water. There are three essential reasons for that. First, markets do not state social preferences; second, they are not accountable; and finally, they are ineffective. In essence, markets commodify human rights and while filling them with exchange value they empty them of political significance.

Economics Against Human Rights: The Conflicting Languages of Economics and Human Rights

For many of the planet’s poor and oppressed, human rights appear as a panacea bringing justice and dignity to their earthly existence. There is a widespread assumption that economic ‘‘progress’’ is closely linked to this, as the means of overcoming scarcity and thus providing the basis for the development of human rights. There are many associations between these discourses inasmuch as asserting human rights demands economic means, while efficacy of economic decisions presupposes a certain degree of liberties. An economic dimension to human rights is assumed, therefore, as much as a human rights dimension to economics is.