Nuno Miguel Ornelas Martins

Ethics, Ontology and Capabilities

Abstract Amartya Sens capability approach is concerned with the evaluation of inequality, and in particular with the description of the space in which equality should be assessed (the space of capabilities, or potential functionings). I will argue that Sens approach is a philosophical exercise aimed at providing the ground for substantive theorising to proceed, that it does not itself engage in substantive theorising, and that it is mainly concerned with ontological description. Sen uses the categories of capabilities and respectively functionings to describe advantage and well-being. This ontological description can then be used for ethical theorising. But, as will be argued, the main emphasis of Sens approach has been on the former, not on the latter. I will also argue that ontological realism is essential to Sens approach, and that much of the persuasiveness of Sens arguments spring from this (not explicitly acknowledged) ontological dimension. Furthermore, I will argue that an explicit recognition of this dimension is crucial for the development of Sens perspective.

The Revival of Classical Political Economy and the Cambridge Tradition: From Scarcity Theory to Surplus Theory

Hilary Putnam and Vivian Walsh argue that Amartya Sens contribution can, like the writings of Piero Sraffa, be best interpreted as a revival of classical political economy, in which Sen brings back into economics a richer conception of the human agent, and a moral dimension. Sen criticises the conception of rationality that underpins mainstream microeconomic theory, and suggests an alternative framework that can accommodate a variety of motivations, including moral motivations, as will be argued here. Furthermore, the work of Sen, and other authors of the Cambridge tradition who also devoted much time to the revival of classical political economy, are complementary in many respects, and provide the basic tools for an alternative economic theory, which is centred on the economic, social and ethical analysis of the production and distribution of the economic surplus, and not on the modelling of the activity of optimising agents in a context of scarcity. While the notion of scarcity is very important for the analysis of poverty and deprivation that Sen undertakes, the central issue to address, in order to explain the causal mechanisms behind scarcity, poverty and deprivation, concerns the study of the production and distribution of the economic surplus.

Globalisation, Inequality and the Economic Crisis

This article addresses the effects of inequality on the globalisation process. It is argued that the recent financial and economic crisis is a manifestation of a tendency of the aggregate demand to fall relatively to aggregate supply, generated by an asymmetric income distribution, which in turn both increases, and is reinforced by, the mobility of goods, capital and labour, in a process of cumulative causation. This process has not become manifest earlier due to counteracting tendencies generated by the financial system, that were disrupted during the crisis. It is also argued that mainstream economics does not have the adequate framework for explaining the crisis, and actually contributed to the crisis through its theories and policies. Hence an alternative economic framework is suggested for addressing the crisis, drawing upon the contributions of several heterodox economic traditions, especially post-Keynesianism.

Realism, universalism and capabilities

Abstract Amartya Sens capability approach is a perspective that (unlike approaches that focus only on resources or goods) takes into account the heterogeneities between human individuals in the assessment of well-being and advantage. Nevertheless, the recognition of diversity between individuals also poses difficulties to the application of the capability approach in welfare analysis. Tony Lawsons structured ontology will be suggested here in order to render (empirical) diversity compatible with the need to make more general (possibly universal) welfare analysis (and policy prescriptions). This is so because Lawsons structured ontology distinguishes between an empirical level, where diversity exists, and an ontologically distinct level of the causal factors underlying the former: universalizing and generalizing can be made at this latter level.

Sen, Sraffa and the revival of classical political economy

In his new book The Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen argues that political theory should not consist only in the characterisation of ideal situations of perfect justice. In so doing, Sen is making, within the context of political theory, a similar argument to another he also made in economic theory, when crtiticising what he called the ‘rational fool’ of mainstream economics. Sen criticised the ideal and fictitious agent of mainstream economics, while advocating for a return to an integrated view of ethics and economics, which characterised many classical political economists who inspired Sens theory of justice, from Adam Smith to Karl Marx. I will examine Sens revival of classical political economy, and argue that a revival of classical political economy, which was undertaken earlier by Piero Sraffa, has much potential for bringing a more plural and realist perspective to economics.

Sen's capability approach and Post Keynesianism: similarities, distinctions, and the Cambridge tradition

The capability approach to human development, proposed by Amartya Sen and others, is now a prominent perspective within welfare economics and development economics. I argue that the capability approach, like Post Keynesianism, can be situated within the Cambridge economic tradition, a tradition grounded on classical economics, and characterized by an ontological focus on themes such as openness and uncertainty, and by a common social philosophy. Furthermore, I argue that the capability approach and Post Keynesianism can be seen as complementary and mutually enriching approaches.

An Evolutionary Approach to Emergence and Social Causation

Abstract Rom Harré criticizes critical realism for ascribing causal powers to social structures, arguing that it is human individuals, and not social structures, that possess causal powers, and that a false conception of structural causation undermines the emancipatory potential of critical realism. I argue that an interpretation of the category of process as the spatio-temporalization of the category of structure, which underpins much evolutionary theory, provides the conceptual tools to explain how the critical realist transformational model of social activity can escape from Harrés criticism, leading to a general conception of social development within which various types of evolutionary processes can be identified as particular cases. I then argue that Tony Lawsons PVRS model provides an evolutionary perspective that enables the conceptualization of coercive power as selective pressure.

Political aspects of the capital controversies and capitalist crises

ABSTRACT The Cambridge controversies about the theory of capital were ultimately underpinned by a clash between two different visions of capitalism, the neoclassical view, according to which distribution depends on the supply and demand curves of capital and labor, and the post Keynesian view, according to which distribution depends on political and institutional factors instead. I shall argue that the distinction between “meritocratic capitalism” and “patrimonial capitalism,” which underpins the discussions surrounding Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, is also connected to those two different visions of capitalism, which were behind the Cambridge controversies. These two visions of capitalism have important implications for our understanding of political power over workers, and also to our understanding of political power over land and its natural resources. The role of land and natural resources was not discussed in the Cambridge controversies, but is addressed in Piero Sraffa’s Production of Commodities, and is implied in Piketty’s inclusion of land in his definition of capital, which brings in a geographical dimension to our understanding of capitalism and capitalist crises, as I shall argue.

Veblen, Sen, and the Formalization of Evolutionary Theory

Abstract It has been suggested that economics could benefit greatly from recent developments in evolutionary game theory. In fact, key authors in the study of the role of ethical norms in economic behavior like Amartya Sen argue that evolutionary game theory could contribute much to the study of social norms and behavior. Others have suggested that evolutionary game theory could be most helpful for formalizing the work of classic authors in evolutionary and institutional economics like Thorstein Veblen. Here I discuss the behavioral assumptions of evolutionary game theory models, and Jörgen Weibull’s approach in particular. I will argue that Weibull’s models, and evolutionary game theory in general, pose overly strong restrictions on the explanation of human behavior, which limit the potential of evolutionary explanation. I also suggest Tony Lawson’s population-variety-reproduction-selection (PVRS) model as an alternative evolutionary framework that can successfully accommodate developments in behavioral economics, while also providing a solution to important critiques of Darwinian evolutionary analysis made by Richard Nelson, among others.

Sraffa on Fixed Capital, Money and the Phases of Capitalism

Abstract In this paper I address some elements in Piero Sraffas thinking that are connected to his conceptualization of the phases of capitalism. Sraffa describes various stages of capitalism using similar categories to the ones employed in the model of the economy provided in Production of Commodities. This is done by distinguishing the role of population, land and (circulating, intermediate and fixed) capital in each stage. Sraffa changed his conceptualization of fixed capital over the years, until he reached its final formulation. The conceptualizations of fixed capital that Sraffa discusses, together with his remarks on money which are made through an analogy with circulating and fixed capital, provide some elements that shed light on Sraffas view of the dynamics of capitalism.