¿Por qué importa la desigualdad? Del economicismo a la integridad social (2015)

La falta de consenso existente en torno a la desigualdad contrasta con el aparente consenso construido alrededor de la necesidad de eliminar la pobreza. Se estudia la desigualdad por una diversidad de razones: para identiicar sus fuentes, sus consecuencias, el grado en el que la desigualdad es deseable, los vínculos dinámicos entre desigualdad y pobreza, o tratando de discernir las grandes fuerzas estructurales que la impulsan. Sin embargo, se presta poca atención a la objeción principal ante la desigualdad. Continue reading “¿Por qué importa la desigualdad? Del economicismo a la integridad social (2015)”

Why inequality matters: From economism to social integrity (2014)

Sociologists tend to assume inequality matters, while economists often assume it does not, saying inequality generates dynamic incentives in competitive markets. Alternatively, other economists say inequality does matter; this is but mainly because it affects economic growth, which they claim to be the foundation of social progress. Meanwhile, sociologists disagree over whether inequality matters due do its violation of social justice principles, of some notional social contract, or whether it is actually undermining the foundations of a coherent and functional human society. Continue reading “Why inequality matters: From economism to social integrity (2014)”

Public vs private: Developing accessible health systems (2009)

There are two types of health systems in the world, public and privatised, though in practice virtually all national systems are some form of hybrid. Nevertheless, these two opposing models drive much of the dynamics of health systems. The best health outcomes (i.e. low preventible disease and low critical mortality rates) come from those countries which have (i) publicly funded and well coordinated systems Continue reading “Public vs private: Developing accessible health systems (2009)”

Widening the ambit through a change to commons (2006)

As a latecomer to the IASC I have not had the benefit of the four years discussion over a name change, but perhaps I have some of the benefits of a fresh perspective. In political economy we constantly engage with the corrosive neoliberal notions of property and privatization, so a shift in emphasis to shared institutions, common property and the commons is very welcome. Now that the IASCP has decided to delete the ‘property’ from their name, comments have been invited. Continue reading “Widening the ambit through a change to commons (2006)”

Marx, method and western political economy (2004)

This paper will consider the place of Marx and method, in an attempt to identify the main avenues of enquiry in western political economy. There is controversy over the nature of political economy, and to what extent it constitutes a distinct analytical approach. Liberals, realists, institutionalists and Marxists all lay claim to various parts of this grand 19th Century tradition. I will argue that, in a practical sense, political economy has enduring relevance more by identifying broad avenues of enquiry, than through received canonical knowledge. Continue reading “Marx, method and western political economy (2004)”