Search results

AbstractThis article explores new horizons for social democracy, by initially identifying two sets of proposals currently being advanced in policy debates: the social investment welfare state and Thomas Piketty's 'transcending capitalism' blueprint. The article dismisses two possible interpretations of fundamental distinctions between them: (1) that they correspond, respectively, to redistributive and predistributive social policy styles; and (2) that they differ regarding their socially transformative daring. After establishing their common social democratic grounds, the article sets out the terms for a new conversation between them, with a view to assessing frontiers for social democratic ambition. The imagined conversation makes explicit their distinct emphases—one on labour strength (social investment); and the other on capital democratisation (transcending capitalism)—and reveals that these are because of contrasting assessments of problems and possibilities. It also makes clear that the integration of the two proposals is both possible and desirable, but suggests that an all‐encompassing social democratic agenda might offer possibilities beyond such an integration.

ABSTRACT In this essay, I propose an agenda for the welfare state of the 21st century that emphasizes its role as a mechanism of resource allocation. Since social and environmental problems are getting out of hand, the time for mere compensation is over: we need a mechanism for directly influencing systems of production and patterns of consumption in the direction of addressing those problems. This partially translates into a decisive sectoral shift towards public social services led by the welfare state. Among the advantages of this move, in addition to more socially balanced outcomes, are quality jobs and fulfillment of social needs in an environment-friendly way. The allocative task which gives the welfare state a constitutive role in shaping the socioeconomy complements its classic function as problem fixer. The allocative welfare state must be prepared to limit the domain of market allocation.

RESUMO O debate acerca de modelos alternativos de crescimento econômico para o Brasil tem revelado a quase unânime posição de que, como evidenciado pelas recentes baixas taxas de crescimento, o modelo de crescimento puxado pelo consumo doméstico teria se esgotado. Neste artigo, procuro examinar o significado mais amplo do experimento de crescimento liderado pelo consumo de massas e a validade empírica de alguns dos tradeoffs citados no debate, como entre consumo e investimento e investimento do governo e consumo do governo, e sugerir que se levem em consideração, como unidade de avaliação do experimento, as brechas de consumo necessário, discricionário e de bens públicos da população brasileira. As brechas sugerem um ainda importante espaço para redistribuição e avanço na provisão de bens públicos sociais. O potencial dos serviços públicos sociais de contribuir para o crescimento econômico com equilíbrio social e sustentabilidade ambiental emerge da análise como a aposta que ainda não foi feita.

Abstract:Does limited social knowledgeinhibitgovernment intervention or, conversely,demandit? This article confronts these two positions, as they are respectively advocated by Hayek and Popper, and sets out to substantiate the belief that Popper's view is the more coherent one.

Este paper tem como objetivo central identificar, no tratamento de Friedrich Hayek ao problema da ordem social, uma nova modalidade de individualismo metodológico, que denominarei de "individualismo interativo". Este se diferencia do individualismo metodológico convencional - que deduz a ordem de escolhas racionais de indivíduos - sob dois aspectos principais. O primeiro diz respeito à problematização das condições de conhecimento - ou seja o conhecimento dos indivíduos não é suposto como dado ou objetivamente disponível, mas como o primeiro problema a ser enfrentado pela abordagem. O segundo, decorrente do primeiro, diz respeito à própria unidade de análise que já não mais pode ser os indivíduos isolados, tomados como dados, mas "indivíduos interagentes".

Social policy: Targeting or Universalism? Public debate on social policies in Brazil has focused on the choice between targeted and universal programs. The article argues that the choice is unclear and misleading unless a previous decision is taken concerning principles of social justice. After distinguishing three different connotations of targeting - as residualism, conditionality or retification - and noting that universal programs may be compatible with minimalist social policy, the article goes on to make explicit a number of neglected options. (Rev Econ Polít/GIGA)