The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility of a procedural deliberative alternative to an atomistic conception of individuals and an economic logic of markets or a…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility of a procedural deliberative alternative to an atomistic conception of individuals and an economic logic of markets or a priori universal lists, as ethical foundation for evaluating socio‐economic change.
Design/methodology/approach
To develop this argument, the paper combines a modified Kantian categorical imperative with deliberative ethics drawing on the writings of Habermas and Dewey. The journey through the European Enlightenment thought of Kant to the contemporary thought of Habermas and Bourdieu aims at mapping continuity and change in key themes in development ethics. These ideas are then given practical application in a case‐study of the people‐forestry interface in Nepal.
Findings
The paper shows how Kantian non‐deception links to Habermas' notion of communicative action and Dewey's notion of cooperative inquiry, and how Kantian non‐coercion links to the inclusion of subaltern voices. While the paper proposes that more open deliberative processes can potentially produce ethical gains, it also identifies an idealistic risk in this position. Bourdieu's thinking is utilised to reveal limitations on improving deliberative processes where there are powerful mechanisms reproducing inequalities.
Practical implications
The paper makes the case for greater attention being given to exploring deliberative processes as a prerequisite for ethical developmental actions.
Originality/value
The paper brings together authors who rarely feature in the development studies discourse and applies their ideas to a practical case study.
Details
Keywords
The purpose of this paper is to present exploration of themes that interconnect six studies in environmentally and socially sustainable human development.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present exploration of themes that interconnect six studies in environmentally and socially sustainable human development.
Design/methodology/approach
The article presents an overview of the papers included in this special issue.
Findings
As humanity threatens to undermine its habitat, a social economics returns to core concepts and themes that became expunged from neoclassical economics: serious examination of persons, seen as more than given points of desire; a broadened perspective on types of good, including a non‐neoclassical conception of public goods as publicly deliberated priority goods that are not well managed through free markets and “common goods” as shared bases vital for everyone; study of what commodities and goods do to and for people; a central role for public reasoning about which are public priority goods, rather than using only a technical definition of a public good; an acceptance of notions of ethical responsibility and responsibilities concerning the provision and maintenance of public priority goods determined through public reasoning; and attention to institutional formats for such deliberation. Amongst the greatest of public priority “goods” are the concepts of common good and responsibility.
Research limitations/Implications
The findings reinforce the agenda of socio‐economics for central attention to the mutual conditioning of economy, society, polity, and environment, including analysis of the sociocultural formation of economic actors and of ideas of “common good”.
Originality/value
Cross‐fertilization of theorization with cases from Costa Rica, Kenya, Nepal, Thailand, Rwanda, sub‐Saharan Africa and global arenas.