Abstract
This paper provides a historical review of the two main debates around Sen's liberalism between the Seventies and the Nineties since his "The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal2 (1970). The first debat was published in the Journal of Political Economy and included several contributions, such as those of Hillinger and Lapham (1971), Sen's reply to Hillinger and Lapham (1971) and Ng (1971). The second de- bate appeared in Analyse & Kritik and includes the contributions of Buchanan (1996), and Mueller (1996), along with Sen's reply (1996). This analysis is histori- cally relevant because it offers the opportunity to explore both the evolution of the main critiques on: Sen's liberalism and Sen's replies within these 25 years. The most important observation of this paper is that these different perspectives, elaborated in different historical moments, reached the same conclusion, namely that Sen's liber- alism is rather "illiberal".
Subject
Public Administration,Economics and Econometrics,History
Reference51 articles.
1. Aivazian V.A., Callen J.L. (1981). The Coase Theorem and the Empty Core, The Journal of Law and Economics, 24(1): 175-181.
2. Arrow J.K. (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values. New York, John Wiley & Sons.
3. A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare Economics
4. Bernholz P. (1974). Is a Paretian Liberal Really Impossible?, Public Choice, 20: 99- 107.
5. Bhukuth A., Mahieu F.R. (2009). Is a Liberal Justice, Totalitarian?, working paper FREE-Cahier FREE, n. 1-200: 1-13.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献