Search results

The connections between Adam Smith and Catholic Social Teaching (CST) raise several questions. The principle of subsidiarity adopted in CST, according to which higher associations should not replace subordinate organizations on what the latter can do, seems to be in line with the idea that governmental intervention in the market sphere should be restricted to the minimum required, in line with what is typically seen as Smith's view. But the principle of the common good would also recommend intervention from political authorities in order to ensure that the common good is achieved. Here I shall argue that this question must be addressed taking into account another principle of CST, the principle of solidarity, and also the basic principle of CST, regarding human dignity. To do so, it is necessary to understand how the various principles of CST spring from the notion of imago Dei in CST, which is behind the notion of human dignity. This leads to a relational conception of human beings which can be fruitfully articulated with Smith's moral philosophy and political economy. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion

AbstractIn this article I explore the spatial dimension of Antonio Gramsci's thinking, which possesses an innovative methodological approach to spatial analysis, within what can be termed an ethnographical or anthropological approach. Such an approach engages in an analysis of an overall form of life in each spatial context, in order to overcome the absence of statistical data that can adequately describe the socio‐economic processes Gramsci is attempting to characterize. Furthermore, Gramsci's category of organic intellectual also helps bridging the gap between hegemonic forces and spatio‐ethnographic context, thus helping to understand the permanent reproduction and reconfiguration of the economy and society.

AbstractIt has recently been suggested that heterodox economics can benefit from an engagement with classical surplus theory. However, caution is often recommended due to the ideological concepts that are embedded in classical political economy. This article argues that many of the ideological concepts that are often attributed to classical political economy are actually not part of classical political economy, but rather of a "vulgar" form of political economy, a project that emerged after Ricardo. This vulgar project, often termed as "Ricardian economics," is often mistakenly taken to be a development of classical political economy, but it is actually a rupture with the classical political economy of Petty, Smith, and Ricardo, as Marx, and later Sraffa, argued. Once this is acknowledged, the relationship between classical political economy and heterodox economics becomes clearer.