A ciência da desigualdade

A edição de maio da Science trouxe uma seção especial intitulada The Science of Inequality na qual compila artigos, entrevistas e editoriais referentes ao debate atual sobre o crescimento da desigualdade econômica (foi nela que Piketty e Saez publicaram seu artigo já mencionado no blog: Piketty & Saez: A Desigualdade no Longo Prazo).

Além de um interessante infográfico com os coeficientes GINI ao redor do mundo (ver abaixo), a seção conta também com os artigos de David Autor (MIT), no qual o economista procura oferecer uma explicação puramente econômica (e não política) para o acumulo de renda dos 1%, e de Martin Ravallion (Georgetown), com os dados da recente queda da desigualdade nos países emergentes.

- Autor: "Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the others 99%"

- Ravallion: "Income inequality in the developing world"

Por Emily Underwood (ScienceMag)

Bolsa Max Weber de Pós-doutorado

Estão abertas as inscrições para o Programa Max Weber do European University Institute (EUI) em Florença. O programa disponibiliza ao todo 55 bolsas de pós-doutorado nas áreas de ciência política, história, economia e direito, com extensão de 1 a 3 anos. Mais informações no link abaixo:

- Max Weber Programme (application)

Why Apply to the Max Weber Programme?

It is not difficult to explain why the Max Weber Post Doctoral Programme at the EUI is widely considered as the leader of its kind in Europe.

It is one of the most selective – attracting around 1400 applicants in the fields of political science, economics, law and history for around 55 available positions.

Its placement record is second to none: Practically all Max Weber Fellows secure academic positions in the finest institutions around the world upon completion of the programme.

Part of the explanation for these truly extraordinary indicators is its institutional environment: Situated at the European University Institute, Max Weber Fellows enjoy superb research facilities (including an outstanding library, a shared office space, a personal research fund of 1000 euros) and are part of an Institution dedicated entirely to post-graduate research: The EUI’s education mission is focused solely on doctoral and post doctoral studies.

But in addition there are specific features of the Max Weber programme which help define its unique identity and explain its popularity and success. 

Unlike many post-doctoral programmes which consist of little more than a stipend and a place to work, the Max Weber is actually a programme with a decided philosophy of post doctoral studies. Prominent aspects of this philosophy are the following:

• A belief that intellectual community, interlocutorship and scholarly synergetic exchanges are fundamental to the early phase of one’s academic career and significantly enhance the quality of the individual research undertaken during the postdoctoral fellowship.
• A belief that a successful academic career (and success in the so called academic ‘market place’) do not only depend on high quality research and publications but also on learning and understanding the world of ‘academic practice’: Teaching, examining, writing and speaking well, competitive bidding for research funds and the like.

 Several features of the programme give expression to this philosophy. 

1 - Intellectual Community: The Thematic Groups

Typically, Max Weber Fellows will find themselves belonging simultaneously to three interlocking intellectual communities:

The first is, of course, the Max Weber Programme itself – with several programme wide activities such as theMax Weber Lectures.

The second are the departments or the Research Centers of the EUI to which each fellow is affiliated.

The third is a “thematic research group” of Fellows working on related research interests in different disciplines which meets on a regular basis to discuss each others projects and work, give feedback from different disciplinary perspectives and engage in other activities (e.g. reading groups) of shared interests.

There are two types of thematic groups. In each year the programme announces a few broad preselected themes such as, for example Inequality and Efficiency in Education and Labour Markets precisely in the hope of attracting applicants interested in these broad areas and thus facilitating the creation of these synergetic groups.

In addition, in examining the corpus of admitted Fellows we are usually able to identify various potential synergetic research themes and put together such spontaneously formed thematic groups. Sometimes they will fall neatly into ongoing Seminars in the departments or research groups in one of the RSCAS programmes or Centers, such as the working group on legal and political theory.

In the application forms we ask applicants to indicate whether they are interested in one of the announced themes; It helps our planning to be able to estimate the potential size of these groups.

We wish to underscore that there is neither advantage nor disadvantage in terms of the prospects of admission to the programme of indicating an interest in one of the pre-announced themes. For example, shaping one’s research interest to coincide with one of the themes would be entirely counterproductive. Fellows will be chosen by the three selection criteria.

2 - Academic Practice

The Academic Practice activities form one of the most distinctive aspects of the Programme. These seek to foster the on-going professional development of Fellows by improving their communication skills (writing, presentation and teaching), helping them with the development of a publication strategy and applying for research grants, and, in collaboration with the Academic Careers Observatory, preparing them for the job market by helping Fellows to identify potential employment opportunities, supporting them with the preparation of their application, and arranging and giving feedback on mock job talks and interviews.

Fellows are also provided with a range of teaching-training opportunities (within the EUI, Florence and with a number of presitigious universities abroad) and the possibility of acquiring the MWP Teaching Certificate.

For the Academic practice activities Fellows are organised into disciplinary based Academic Practice Groups.

Who Can Apply, for How Long and How?

The Programme is open to applicants who are within 5 years of the completion of their PhD from anywhere in the world, regardless of nationality, and is not restricted to citizens of the EU. The language of the programme is English and applicants must fulfil the English language requirements as outlined in the section on Eligibility.

The vast majority of Max Weber Fellowships are for one year. Most applicants in the field of Economics are selected for a 2 year fellowship, which involves additional activities, such as limited teaching in the department, in the second year. Applicants in other disciplines may apply for a limited number of second year Fellowships during the course of their first year. In exceptional cases, three year Fellowships may be offered. Candidates are asked to indicate the desired length of their Fellowship (1, 2 or 3 years) when applying. However, the decision to extend a Fellowship to 2 or 3 years will be made by the Department and the MW Steering Committee on the basis of their evaluation of the candidates and departmental needs.

To apply to the Max Weber Programme please see the following pages:

• Eligibility
• Conditions of Award
• Selection criteria

and then go to the How to Apply page.

Picketty&Saez: A Desigualdade no Longo Prazo

Os economistas franceses Thomas Picketty (Paris School of Economics) e Emmanuel Saez (Berkeley) publicaram na Science as principais conclusões de sua longa pesquisa em conjunto sobre padrões de acúmulo de renda e riqueza nos países mais industrializados ao longo do século XX. Trata-se de uma excelente introdução às descobertas de Picketty e Saez (especialmente suas séries históricas sobre os EUA e a França) que formam o conjunto de dados do livro O Capital no Século XXI (já bastante discutido aqui no blog). Para os autores, a fatia de riqueza controlada pelo 1% mais rico da sociedade (tanto nos EUA como na Europa) teria voltado às altíssimas taxas de concentração do liberalismo laissez-faire do final do século XIX. 

- Picketty & Saez: "Inequality in the long run" (Science) 

Dividindo a riqueza

Hobbes, Marx e Rawls decidem dividir um tesouro enterrado...

Por existentialcomics.com

A Política da Predistribuição

Jacob Hacker (Yale) autor do livro (com Paul Pierson) Winner Takes All Politics: How the Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class All  foi entrevistado por Martin O'Neill (York) e Ben Jackson (Oxford) para a revista Renewal. A partir de sua pesquisa sobre o crescimento da desigualdade nos EUA - e o surgimento do que denomina política do "vencedor-leva-tudo" - Hacker propõe políticas de predistributição e dispersão de riqueza como o caminho mais promissor para o pensamento igualitário hoje. No cerne da ideia está a premissa de que não existe algo como uma "economia natural" anterior ao Estado e às instituições sociais e que o papel dos governos é simplesmente corrigir suas falhas. 

- Hacker: "The Politics of Predistribution" (Renewal)

Veja abaixo a entrevista de Hacker e Pierson sobre o livro:

- Jacob Hacker & Paul Pierson on Winner Take All Politics (interview)

G. A. Cohen e a História da Filosofia Política

Allen Wood (Indiana) resenhou para a Ethics o livro póstumo de G. A. Cohen no qual foram coletadas suas famosas aulas de História da Filosofia Moral e Política. Wood destaca as virtudes "analíticas" da abordagem de Cohen  (em contraste com as também famosas lectures de John Rawls) e dedica uma seção a cada um dos filósofos analisados na obra: Platão, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche e (finalmente) Marx. 

- Wood: "Lectures on the History of Moral and Political Philosophy (review)"

Lectures on The History of Moral and Political Philosophy
G. A. Cohen
Edited by Jonathan Wolff

G. A. Cohen was one of the leading political philosophers of recent times. He first came to wide attention in 1978 with the prize-winning book Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence. In subsequent decades his published writings largely turned away from the history of philosophy, focusing instead on equality, freedom, and justice. However, throughout his career he regularly lectured on a wide range of moral and political philosophers of the past. This volume collects these previously unpublished lectures.

Starting with a chapter centered on Plato, but also discussing the pre-Socratics as well as Aristotle, the book moves to social contract theory as discussed by Hobbes, Locke, and Hume, and then continues with chapters on Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche. The book also contains some previously published but uncollected papers on Marx, Hobbes, and Kant, among other figures. The collection concludes with a memoir of Cohen written by the volume editor, Jonathan Wolff, who was a student of Cohen's.

A hallmark of the lectures is Cohen's engagement with the thinkers he discusses. Rather than simply trying to render their thought accessible to the modern reader, he tests whether their arguments and positions are clear, sound, and free from contradiction. Throughout, he homes in on central issues and provides fresh approaches to the philosophers he examines. Ultimately, these lectures teach us not only about some of the great thinkers in the history of moral and political philosophy, but also about one of the great thinkers of our time: Cohen himself.

G. A. Cohen (1941-2009) was the Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory at All Souls College, University of Oxford, from 1985 to 2008. At the time of his death, he held the Quain Chair in Jurisprudence at University College London. His books include Finding Oneself in the Other and On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy (both Princeton). 

Jonathan Wolff is professor of philosophy and dean of the Faculty of Arts and Humanities at University College London.

Justiça Global (Mathias Risse)

O filósofo Christian Barry (Australian National University) resenhou o livro On Global Justice de Mathias Risse para a Notre Dame Philosophical Review. O livro de Risse ganhou destaque por sua proposta ousada de "propriedade comum" do planeta para efeitos de redistribuição e por um enfoque "pluralista" da justiça global. Na resenha, Barry contextualiza a posição de Risse no debate e  explora as possibilidades da tese da propriedade comum. 

Para quem tiver interesse no livro, o essencial pode ser consultado no ensaio de "On Global Justice"  (2010):

- Risse: "On Global Justice" (essay)

- Barry: "On Global Justice" (review) 

[...] 

Risse calls his approach to global justice "pluralist internationalism" (p. 2). A pluralist internationalist rejects the idea that principles of justice that are appropriate when evaluating social arrangements within a state -- for example, Rawls's justice as fairness, or some other egalitarian principle -- should be applied globally. Risse's view is at odds with positions such as those advocated by Charles Beitz and Thomas Pogge (in their early work), and more recently by Simon Caney, Pablo Gilabert, Darrel Moellendorf, Laura Valentini and Lea Ypi, which would place limits on permissible global inequalities at a fundamental level. However, Risse also rejects the notion that principles of justice should only be applied to states. He thus rejects views (suggested by Thomas Nagel and others) that maintain that we possess duties of justice to compatriots, but only duties of beneficence or humanitarian concern to non-compatriots. On Risse's view, "the state has a special place in accounts of justice. Domestic justice -- justice within the state -- and global justice have different standards, and the former are more egalitarian" (p. 2). Pluralist internationalism is thus "a view of global justice 'between' two standard views, the principles of justice either apply only within states or else apply to all human beings" (p. 17). For the pluralist internationalist, states are normatively peculiar when it comes to justice, but are not the only entities to which justice applies (p. 52).

Against the Machine?

Qual a relação entre tecnologia e desigualdade? Para alguns economistas, a possibilidade de máquinas/softwares exercerem tarefas cognitivas no processo de produção - até então exclusivas do trabalho humano - está por trás do fim da estabilidade entre capital e trabalho nas economias industrializadas. Ao lado da introdução de dezenas de milhares de trabalhadores não-especializados oriundos das economias emergentes, a polarização do trabalho estaria aumentando gradativamente a desigualdade entre rendimentos de trabalho e rendimentos de capital. O historiador Colin Gordon publicou uma interessante revisão bibliográfica da discussão na Dissent ("Computer did it? Technology and Inequality") trazendo novos dados e apontando as principais explicações para o fenômeno. Gordon rejeita a tese de que o aumento da desigualdade de renda seja fruto da polarização técnica da mão-de-obra nos EUA, atribuindo o fenômeno à desregulamentação do mercado de trabalho.

Vale a pena complementar a leitura com o texto de Noah Smith para o The Atlantic ("The End of Labor: How to protect workers from the rise of the robots") no qual o autor defende uma solução radical para o problema da automação da economia, a saber, a criação de um um dividendo social para todos os cidadãos com mais de 18 anos:

[...]  

The big question is: What do we do if and when our old mechanisms for coping with inequality break down? If the "endowment of human capital" with which people are born gets less and less valuable, we'll get closer and closer to that Econ 101 example of a world in which the capital owners get everything. A society with cheap robot labor would be an incredibly prosperous one, but we will need to find some way for the vast majority of human beings to share in that prosperity, or we risk the kinds of dystopian outcomes that now exist only in science fiction. 

- Smith: "The End of Labor" (The Atlantic)

- Gordon: "Computer did it? Technology and Inequality" (Dissent) 

Livro: Majority Decisions (Novak & Elster)

Editado por Stephanie Novak (Hertie School of Government) e Jon Elster (Columbia) o livro Majority Decisions: Principles and Practices  é uma tentativa de reunir em um único companion enfoques analíticos, normativos e históricos acerca da regra da maioria. Qual o papel de procedimentos majoritários em uma democracia constitucional? Quais os riscos? Por que ele continua tão importante para a legitimidade das decisões políticas democráticas? Veja abaixo dois dos artigos contidos no livro: 

- Elster: "Nested Majorities"

- Mackie: "The reception of social choice theory by democratic theory"

- Novak & Elster (ed.): Majority Decisions: Principles and Practices

This book presents the most complete set of analytical, normative, and historical discussions of majority decision making to date. One chapter critically addresses the social-choice approach to majority decisions, whereas another presents an alternative to that approach. Extensive case studies discuss majority voting in the choice of religion in early modern Switzerland, majority voting in nested assemblies such as the French Estates-General and the Federal Convention, majority voting in federally organized countries, qualified majority voting in the European Union Council of Ministers, and majority voting on juries. Other chapters address the relation between majority decisions and cognitive diversity, the causal origin of majority decisions, and the pathologies of majority decision making. Two chapters, finally, discuss the counter-majoritarian role of courts that exercise judicial review. The editorial Introduction surveys conceptual, causal, and normative issues that arise in the theory and practice of majority decisions.