Suchergebnisse

chapter Introduction -- chapter 1 Economics and human rights lost in translation -- chapter 2 Economics versus the right to work -- chapter 3 Economics versus the provision of goods and services as human rights -- chapter 4 Economics versus cultural freedom -- chapter 5 Economics versus democracy -- chapter 6 Globalization versus democracy.

In the middle of the twentieth century S.M. Lipset sustained that various indicators of economic development were higher in democratic countries than in authoritarian ones, suggesting that development was a condition to democracy. More recently, though, several authors have shown that there is no strong empirical evidence confirming development as a condition to democracy, suggesting in turn that the economic is not as important in democratization as it seemed in the 1950s. Despite this fact, there are some clues that indicate that economic factors do play an important role in democratization, but in a way different than that proposed by Lipset. In this article a revision of literature on some economic obstacles to democratization in Africa is carried out, its main conclusion being that underdevelopment decisively contributes to the difficulties many African countries experience in democratizing and consolidating democracy. One should not mistake underdevelopment with un-development though, the latter being the mere absence or delay in development and the former a specific supporting role given to developing countries within the global development process. The article's general conclusion, therefore, is that democratic development is not a question of getting richer, i.e. intensifying the development model, as much as of reforming this same model. Resumo Nos meados do século XX, S.M. Lipset afirma que vários indicadores de desenvolvimento económico são mais altos em países democráticos do que em países autoritários, sugerindo que o desenvolvimento é uma condição para a democracia. Mais recentemente, vários autores sustentam que não existem evidências empíricas que confirmem o desenvolvimento como condição para a democracia, sugerindo, por sua vez, que a economia não é tão importante na democratização como aparentava ser durante a década de 50. Apesar disso, existem algumas evidências que indicam que os fatores económicos desempenham um papel importante na democratização, mas de forma diferente da proposta por Lipset. Neste artigo é feita uma revisão da literatura sobre alguns obstáculos económicos à democratização na África, e a sua principal conclusão é que o subdesenvolvimento contribui decisivamente para as dificuldades que muitos países africanos enfrentam na democratização e consolidação da democracia. Não se deve confundir subdesenvolvimento com des-desenvolvimento, sendo este último a mera ausência ou atraso no desenvolvimento e o primeiro um papel de apoio específico dado aos países em vias desenvolvimento no processo de desenvolvimento global. A conclusão geral do artigo, portanto, é que o desenvolvimento democrático não é uma questão de enriquecimento, ou seja, de intensificar o modelo de desenvolvimento, mas de reformar esse mesmo modelo. ; In the middle of the twentieth century S.M. Lipset sustained that various indicators of economic development were higher in democratic countries than in authoritarian ones, suggesting that development was a condition to democracy. More recently, though, several authors have shown that there is no strong empirical evidence confirming development as a condition to democracy, suggesting in turn that the economic is not as important in democratization as it seemed in the 1950s. Despite this fact, there are some clues that indicate that economic factors do play an important role in democratization, but in a way different than that proposed by Lipset. In this article a revision of literature on some economic obstacles to democratization in Africa is carried out, its main conclusion being that underdevelopment decisively contributes to the difficulties many African countries experience in democratizing and consolidating democracy. One should not mistake underdevelopment with un-development though, the latter being the mere absence or delay in development and the former a specific supporting role given to developing countries within the global development process. The article's general conclusion, therefore, is that democratic development is not a question of getting richer, i.e. intensifying the development model, as much as of reforming this same model. Resumo Nos meados do século XX, S.M. Lipset afirma que vários indicadores de desenvolvimento económico são mais altos em países democráticos do que em países autoritários, sugerindo que o desenvolvimento é uma condição para a democracia. Mais recentemente, vários autores sustentam que não existem evidências empíricas que confirmem o desenvolvimento como condição para a democracia, sugerindo, por sua vez, que a economia não é tão importante na democratização como aparentava ser durante a década de 50. Apesar disso, existem algumas evidências que indicam que os fatores económicos desempenham um papel importante na democratização, mas de forma diferente da proposta por Lipset. Neste artigo é feita uma revisão da literatura sobre alguns obstáculos económicos à democratização na África, e a sua principal conclusão é que o subdesenvolvimento contribui decisivamente para as dificuldades que muitos países africanos enfrentam na democratização e consolidação da democracia. Não se deve confundir subdesenvolvimento com des-desenvolvimento, sendo este último a mera ausência ou atraso no desenvolvimento e o primeiro um papel de apoio específico dado aos países em vias desenvolvimento no processo de desenvolvimento global. A conclusão geral do artigo, portanto, é que o desenvolvimento democrático não é uma questão de enriquecimento, ou seja, de intensificar o modelo de desenvolvimento, mas de reformar esse mesmo modelo.

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. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

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

I believe that freedom of choice constitutes a pillar of rational choice in economic theory, regardless of the definition of rational choice one adopts. On the other hand, economics being socially embedded, free choice in economics seems senseless without political freedom of choice. Democracy, therefore, plays an important role in economic efficiency as much as in social fairness. Following this line of thought one should expect that economics, both in theory and in practice, should permanently strengthen the role of democracy in its institutional construction. Unfortunately it does not seem to be the case. Although historically many of the democratic achievements in the past two centuries have been intimately connected to the development of liberal economics, one can assert that mainstream liberal economics is intrinsically contradictory with the democratic ideal. The first stage of the demonstration of this thesis concerns the dismounting of the naturalization process that economics has undergone with the purpose of transforming economic decisions into plain technical issues supposedly free from democratic debate.The second stage concerns the ways in which the market has managed to legitimise its hegemony in society and the reasons why this contributes to the erosion of democracy. Within this hegemony five aspects will be dealt with; the imposition of a market jurisdiction; the deregulation of the economy; the process of political and economic unaccountability; the de-politicization of free choice and the conflict between the territorialization of democracy and the de-territorialization of economics.

Despite some notable achievements in many parts of the planet the gap between the rich and the poor has become wider rather than tighter. On the political sphere success seems much more unequivocal, though. Indeed, beyond a handful of anachronistic exceptions, the world seems to have surrendered to the delights of democracy. From there to the conclusion that globalization favours democracy there was a small step that many political scientists all over the world have not hesitated to make. Refusing to share this optimism, many other scientists have, on the contrary, severely questioned the democratic character of the global economy, almost since the term globalization itself has been invented. In this work I will show how the logic of globalisation, in other words the logic of internationalised market capitalism conflicts with a substantive definition of democracy in developed countries as much as in developing countries.

Pure mainstream economics, based on methodological and sociological individualism usually ignores politics; development economics, on the contrary frequently integrates social and political factors in order to explain economic progress. Within this branch of economics, politics can mainly be dealt in two different approaches. The classical and neoclassical approach takes politics essentially as an obstacle to the expression of agents' rationality, and, therefore considers it a disturbance. A more heterodox approach of development, on the contrary, puts politics at the heart of the process, development being an economic as much as a political process. Those, like A. Sen, that take human rights, both as a means and an end to development do not separate the two processes as well. Be that as it may, and despite the opposed ways in which these approaches take politics, all consider governance, and its democratic or authoritarian character, a key factor in the development process. The main purpose of this paper is to discuss the importance of the issue of democratic governance within the development process. In the first part of the paper I will make a review of the main literature concerning the impacts of democracy on economic development and the importance of promoting democracy. In the second part of the paper the analysis will focus on the political economy of democratization, namely on the obstacles standing before democracy, and on the economic policies and reforms needed to facilitate democratization. The diagnosis states that democratization needs to deal with inequality of income distribution, with institutional design in order to overcome cultural divisions within the nations, with diversification of the sources of income and with a new economic order characterized by an erased debt burden and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of international trade.

The general purpose of this paper is to promote a political economy whose objective is to promote the deepening of human rights. In particular my attention will be focused on the political economy of the right to work.The first part of the paper concerns the description of the historical process that led to the proclamation of a right to work in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and later on in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In this part we will also define in which consists the right to work. The second part of the paper is dedicated to the presentation of arguments that attempt to legitimize the right to work. For those members of the international community that have signed and ratified the proclamations described above the process through which they were approved confers the right to work plenty enough legitimacy. But given the highly political nature of the process that led to their adoption it should not come as a surprise that, especially among economists, economic rights are considered just a legal ornament. Therefore, it may be useful to search for different sources of legitimacy for human rights, and economic rights in particular, other than political and philosophical if one intends to make economics take economic rights seriously. The first argument is based on the inequality established in the capitalist system between the two contractors in the labour market, in this case freedom to work, in other words freedom to engage in contract, becomes meaningless without a right to work. The second argument arises from a basic ethical principle of economics. In order to live, that is in economic terms to consume, in other words, to satisfy needs or to acquire utility, one has to consent in sacrifice of an equivalent amount of utility of a different kind. In our society the sacrifice demanded from individuals for the satisfaction of one's needs is the supply of a certain amount of work, or of a socially useful activity, except in cases of incapability resulting from misfortune. There is, therefore, an obligation to work. Now by definition, if work is an obligation in order to live, no one should be deprived of the access to it. The third argument in favour of the right to work concerns the social utility of the existence of such a right. The third part of the paper concerns the possibility of the existence of a competition between the right to work and the right to property. After concluding that this is not a problem I will focus on the conflict that seems more obvious, which is the conflict between the interests of capital and labour. There are two aspects of this conflict. The microeconomic aspect of this conflict concerns the fact that for firms unemployment is useful to attain certain objectives. For a long time unemployment, and the spectrum of hunger, has been seen as some sort of menace to workers in order to make them work harder and stay in line. At the macro economic level, unemployment appears to be an instrument in controlling inflation and full employment no longer a goal, regardless of the theory one professes, Philips curve or Natural Rate of Unemployment in any of its versions. The fourth part of the paper concerns the responsibility for ensuring the right to work. Is it a state or a corporate responsibility? Generally it is admitted that in terms of human rights the responsibility is the State's. But this would also means that firms would then externalise the social costs of their activity which is not coherent with the new wave of Corporate Social Responsibility. Finally the last part of the paper will concern the policy implications of the right to work. Sustaining that ensuring the right to work means to promote full employment with decent jobs I will analyse the traditional instruments used to create jobs in the advanced countries and conclude that not all public action aiming to just creating jobs qualifies to right to work securing policy if it contributes to an erosion of the rights at work. In the end I will suggest that the only policy that seems to qualify in present economic circumstances is to share the asset work by substantially reduce the working hours.

The decision-making process concerning the co-incineration of industrial dangerous waste in Portugal has most certainly been transformed into a conflict centered on the unequal distribution of risks to the environment and to public health, opposing local population to the government. It is also a good example of the conflict between scientific and democratic rationalities as the government's decision is supposed to receive its legitimacy by science whereas those most affected by government decisions, local people, are impelled by democratic rationality. Based on a case study, the paper concludes that, despite a long period of public involvement there was no real public participation in the decision making process.