The Smithian ontology of ‘relative poverty’: revisiting the debate between Amartya Sen and Peter TownsendFootnote^*

* This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 13th INEM conference in San Sebastian on 29th August 2017. It elicited valuable comments by participants there, for which I am thankful. As I am also thankful to members of the Cambridge Social Ontology Group. Discussions there during 2013–2015 facilitated the development of parts of the argument in this paper. I also owe a debt of gratitude to Julian Reiss and two anonymous referees whose constructive comments have guided me in the revision process.

References

• Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedoms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brady, D. (2003). Rethinking the sociological measurement of poverty. Social Forces, 81(3), 715–751. doi: 10.1353/sof.2003.0025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corazzini, L., Esposito, L., & Majorano, F. (2012). Reign in hell or serve in heaven? A cross-country journey into the relative vs absolute perceptions of wellbeing. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 81(3), 715–730. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2010.12.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J. B. (1994). Introduction. In J. B. Davis, & E. J. O'Boyle (Eds.), The social economics of human material need. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Duesenberry, J. S. (1949). Income, saving, and the theory of consumer behavior. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goedemé, T., & Rottiers, S. (2011). Poverty in the Enlarged European Union. A discussion about definitions and reference groups. Sociology Compass, 5(1), 77–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00350.x
   Google Scholar
• Gordon, D. (2006). The concept and measurement of poverty. In C. Pantazis, D. Gordon & R. Levitas (Eds.), Poverty and social exclusion in Britain (pp. 29–69). Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsch, F. (1976). Social limits to growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hodgson, G. M. (2013). From pleasure machines to moral communities : An evolutionary economics without homo economicus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kangas, O. E., & Ritakallio, V. M. (2007). Relative to what?: Cross-national picture of European poverty measured by regional, national and European standards. European Societies, 9(2), 119–145. doi: 10.1080/14616690601002632
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapp, K. W. (1950). Political economy and psychology, reprinted in Kapp (1985) The Humanization of the social Sciences. Lanham: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• Kapp, K. W. (1954). Economics and the behavioral science, reprinted in Kapp (1985)The Humanization of the social Sciences. Lanham: University Press of America.
   Google Scholar
• Lansley, S., & Mack, J. (2015). Breadline Britain: The rise of mass poverty. London: Oneworld.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (1997). Economics and reality. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, T. (2015). A conception of social ontology. In S. Pratten (Ed.), Social ontology and Modern economics (pp. 19–52). Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. (1957). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Boyle, E. J. (1990). Poverty: A concept that Is both absolute and relative because human beings are at once individual and social. Review of Social Economy, 48(1), 2–17. doi: 10.1080/00346769000000001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Boyle, E. J. (1999). Toward an improved definition of poverty. Review of Social Economy, 57(3), 281–301. doi: 10.1080/00346769900000003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polayni, K. (c1958–60). Carl Menger’s two meanings of economic. Karl Polanyi Degital Acrhive, Con.42 Fol.09.
   Google Scholar
• Ravallion, M., & Lokshin, M. (2010). Who cares about relative deprivation? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73(2), 171–185. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2009.08.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runciman, W. G. (1961). Problems of research on relative deprivation. European Journal of Sociology, 2(2), 315–323. doi: 10.1017/S0003975600000461
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1982). Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1983). Poor, relatively speaking. Oxford Economic Papers, 35(2), 153–169. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041587
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1984). Resources, values and development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1985a). A Sociological approach to the measurement of poverty: A reply to professor Peter Townsend. Oxford Economic Papers, 37(4), 669–676. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1985b). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1990). Gender and cooperative conflicts. In I. Tinker (Ed.), Persistent inequalities: Women and world development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1997). On economic inequality: Expanded edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80. doi: 10.1080/1354570042000315163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2009a). The idea of justice. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2009b). Introduction. In A. Smith (Ed.), The theory of moral sentiments. London: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2010). Adam Smith and the contemporary world. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3(1), 50–67. doi: 10.23941/ejpe.v3i1.39
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2011). Uses and abuses of Adam Smith. History of Political Economy, 43(2), 257–271. doi: 10.1215/00182702-1257388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (1759/1982). In D. D. Raphael, & A. L. Macfie (Eds.), The theory of moral sentiments. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. (1776/1981). In R. H. Campbell, & A. S. Skinner (Eds.), An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
   Google Scholar
• Stouffer, S. A., et al. (1949). The American soldier: Combat and its aftermath. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, P. (1962). The meaning of poverty. The British Journal of Sociology, 13(3), 210–227. doi: 10.2307/587266
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. London: Allen Lane and Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, P. (1985). A sociological approach to the measurement of poverty: A rejoinder to professor Amartya Sen. Oxford Economic Papers, 37(4), 659–668. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.oep.a041715
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Townsend, P. (1987a). The international analysis of poverty. Hemel Hemstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, P. (1987b). Conceptualising poverty. In Z. Ferge, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Dynamics of deprivation (pp. 31–43). Aldershot: Gower.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, P., & Walker, A. (2010). The Peter Townsend reader. edited by the Policy Press; section editors, Alan Walker [et al.]. Bristol: Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Veblen, T. (1899/1918). The theory of The Leisure Class: An economic studies of institutions. New York: B. W. Huebsch.
   Google Scholar
• Yamamori, T. (2000). Poverty, social policy, and absoluteness (in Japanese). In T. Kawamoto, & K. Takahashi (Eds.), The shift in applied ethics (pp. 40–162). Kyoto: Nakanishiya.
   Google Scholar
• Yamamori, T. (2003). Constructive universalism : Sen and sensitivity to difference. Revue Éthique et Économique, 1, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Yamamori, T. (2017). The concept of need in Adam Smith. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 41(2), 327–347.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamori, T. (forthcoming). The concept of need in Amartya Sen: Commentary to the expanded edition of collective choice and social welfare. Ethics and Social Welfare.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar