Two schools of thought have shared their opinions on the best way to enhance welfare for the population of a given country. The Utilitarian argument primarily focuses on maximizing welfare through efficient allocation (primarily of income), while the Rawlsian argument looks beyond income and incorporates relative deprivation (or satisfaction in case of redistribution) based on the requirements of the poorest individuals (thus equality for all). Which of these in your opinion has the potential to effectively enhance welfare in a given nation and help achieve vital developmental goals?
My approach was built around a non-standard modelling of developed economies. However, I guess it applies well to developing countries too. In my opinion, the answer to your question relies upon what do you consider as "welfare" or even "wealth". I attach a working paper I presented in 2012 to give to you more information on the "freedom" approach.
Referring more specifically to the alternative you suggest, I would argue : none. In Amartya Sen's works you will find sharp arguments in this direction.
Conference Paper Sustainability Rediscovered: Development, Freedom and Enviro...
Thanks a lot Claudio for the response. Your point is well noted and very much appreciated. I will try as well to go through the paper
These are different perspectives, but I'm not sure this is best framed as a dichotomy, since Rawls incorporates Utilitarian principles into his framework; his notion of a maximin is essentially Utilitarian in the sense it is minimising overall suffering for the worst off. One could add a Kantian/deontological perspective to these two, and this also misses out a fourth perspective based on the concept of the public good / public interest which is from virtue ethics as in the attached (hopefully the link works please let me know if you want the pdf).
http://kevinmorrell.org.uk/Governance%20and%20the%20public%20good%20Preprint.doc
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication