The Smithian ontology of ‘relative poverty’: revisiting the debate between Amartya Sen and Peter Townsend
The Smithian ontology of ‘relative poverty’: revisiting the debate between Amartya Sen and Peter Townsend
复制标题
“相对贫困”的斯密本体论：重温阿马蒂亚·森和彼得·汤森德之间的争论
DOI：
10.1080/1350178x.2018.1561081
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Yamamori Toru
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kirsti Cole and Holly Hassel;eds.;分担執筆Diane Rodriguez-Kiino;Yuko Itatsu;and Yuko Takahashi;Yamamori Toru;Yamamori Toru
虽然“相对贫困”是一个立即得到承认的短语，在过去的半个世纪中广泛流传，并越来越多地被接受，但这个概念本身仍然令人惊讶地缺乏理论性。本文试图通过对我们的需要的本质进行本体论的阐释来弥补这一论述上的不足。作者重新审视了阿马蒂亚·森和彼得·汤森之间的争论--一场交叉线（如果不是军刀的话）的决斗，这可以被视为对相对贫困本质的各种理论观点的代表。虽然这场争论本身以两位学者之间不幸的误解而告终，他们不同的学科背景只会复制这种裂痕，但作者还是突出了两位思想家之间的共同点--他们各自对亚当·斯密的认同。通过探讨与亚当·斯密自己的需要本体论（作者在其他地方重建的）的差异和趋同点，本文希望提供对“相对贫困”本体论的见解，并建议认真对待这一本体论将不可避免地导致我们重新审视“经济方法论”。
Although ‘relative poverty’ is a phrase of immediate recognition, wide circulation and an ever increasing acceptance in the last half century, the concept itself remains surprisingly undertheorised. This paper wishes to try and remedy this discursive deficiency by proposing an ontological elucidation of the nature of our needs. The author re-visits the dispute between Amartya Sen and Peter Townsend — a duel of crossed wires (if not sabres), which can be seen as representative of the various theoretical takes on the nature of relative poverty. While the dispute itself ended with an unfortunate misunderstanding between the two scholars, whose different disciplinary affiliations have done nothing but replicate the rift, the author nonetheless foregrounds the commonality between the two thinkers – their respective identification with Adam Smith. By exploring points of differences and convergence with Adam Smith’s own ontology of needs, which the author reconstructed elsewhere, the paper hopes to offer insights into the ontology of ‘relative poverty’ as well as to suggest that taking this ontology seriously would lead us inevitably to a re-examination of ‘economic methodology’.