Waldron e seu accountability "agressivo"

O filósofo Jeremy Waldron (NYU) disponibilizou na SSRN artigo no qual desenvolve uma proposta "agressiva" de accountability. Agentes políticos em posições de autoridade ou representação devem prestar contas integralmente de seus atos diante dos representados. Eles possuiriam o mesmo dever de expor a contabilidade de suas ações e relações políticas que um agente comercial teria ao ter que informar a natureza de suas transações econômicas. Essa noção seria uma alternativa ao modelo "forense" de responsabilização política no qual autoridades são levadas ao escrutínio legal apenas nos casos de comprovada má conduta pessoal. 

- Waldron: "Accountability: Fundamental to Democracy"

Abstract:      

This paper defends a new and aggressive version of the agency model of accountability. It argues that officials and representatives in a democracy have an obligation to make available to citizens full information about what they have been doing. It is not permissible for them to sit back and see if the citizens can find out for themselves what they have been doing, any more than such a posture would be admissible in a commercial agent such as a realtor or an accountant. The paper also does several other things: (1) it develops a contrast between agent-accountability and forensic-accountability; (2) it distinguishes between political uses of "agency" and political uses of "trust" in political theory; (3) it develops a layered account of the principals in the democratic relation of agent-accountability, rejecting the reidentification of "the people"; (4) it develops an account of the relation between accountability and elections, emphasizing that elections play an important role in the fair settlement among principals as to how they should deal with their agents; (5) it shows that Burkeian representation is not incompatible with agent-accountability; and (6) it uses the notion of agent-accountability to illuminate the distinction between non-democratic and democratic republics.

Seminário: Susan Stokes

Na próxima quinta-feira (29/05) Susan Stokes (Yale) estará na USP para apresentar seu trabalho Social Movements and the Paradox of Repression. A partir das últimas mobilizações populares no Brasil, na Turquia e na Ucrânica, Stokes pretende explicar a lógica da participação política frente à (provável) repressão dos regimes. 

Abstract: 

 Why do people participate in costly collective actions in which their individual participation is unlikely to change the outcome? We introduce the idea of “costly abstention” – that in certain situations abstaining from an action (e.g., joining protests) can be subjectively costly, even when one's taking part will not change the outcome. We argue that a drive to avoid unpleasant psychic tensions associated with abstention from participation lies behind many people’s decisions to join social movements. Our theory puts forward an explanation for the paradox of repression – the observation that many people become more likely to join protests when governments increase repressive measures, presumably to increase the costs of participation. When governments ratchet up repression, some people are more inclined to join protests because observing disproportionate repression generates discomfort in staying at home.  We provide observational and experimental evidence for our theory from recent protest movements in Turkey, Brazil, Ukraine, and Morocco.

Lançamento: Cortes Constitucionais e Democracia Deliberativa

No dia 4 de junho (quarta-feira) o professor Conrado Hübner Mendes (USP)  fará o lançamento do seu livro Constitutional Courts and Deliberative Democracy (Oxford Press) em São Paulo na Livraria Cultura (Conjunto Nacional). No livro, Mendes retoma o problema clássico que cortes supremas e constitucionais colocam para a legitimidade democrática: por que autoridades imunes às regras da maioria deveriam deter tanto poder constitucional? Diferentemente da visão da "imparcialidade" dos juízes, o autor procura ressaltar os ganhos normativos e espistêmicos advindos de processos deliberativos interinstitucionais. 

Livro: O poder da tolerância

Wendy Brown (Berkeley) e Rainer Forst (Goethe) publicaram pela Columbia Press o debate sobre tolerância que promoveram em 2008 na cidade de Berlim. Em The Power of Tolerance os autores discutem as diferentes concepções de tolerância e de que modo o conceito fez parte da história européia. 

O link para o debate pode ser encontrado aqui

Brown & Forst: "The Power of Tolerance: a Debate"

We invoke the ideal of tolerance in response to conflict, but what does it mean to answer conflict with a call for tolerance? Is tolerance a way of resolving conflicts or a means of sustaining them? Does it transform conflicts into productive tensions, or does it perpetuate underlying power relations? To what extent does tolerance hide its involvement with power and act as a form of depoliticization?

Wendy Brown and Rainer Forst debate the uses and misuses of tolerance, an exchange that highlights the fundamental differences in their critical practice despite a number of political similarities. Both scholars address the normative premises, limits, and political implications of various conceptions of tolerance. Brown offers a genealogical critique of contemporary discourses on tolerance in Western liberal societies, focusing on their inherent ties to colonialism and imperialism, and Forst reconstructs an intellectual history of tolerance that attempts to redeem its political virtue in democratic societies. Brown and Forst work from different perspectives and traditions, yet they each remain wary of the subjection and abnegation embodied in toleration discourses, among other issues. The result is a dialogue rich in critical and conceptual reflections on power, justice, discourse, rationality, and identity.

Vita: Teoria Crítica e Justiça Social

Na última edição da Brazilian Political Science Review Álvaro de Vita (USP) resenhou o livro Elements of a Critical Theory of Justice do filósofo uruguaio Gustavo Pereira. Vita avalia a distinção proposta por Pereira entre as teorias críticas da sociedade e o conjunto de teorias pós-rawlsianas da justiça social e a tentativa de sintetizá-las por meio de uma "concepção de justiça social crítica". Ao final, o artigo é uma reflexão rigorosa dos caminhos contemporâneos da teoria política. 

- Vita: "Critical Theory and Social Justice"

Abstract:

In Elements of a Critical Theory of Justice, the Uruguayan political philosopher Gustavo Pereira (2013a) does an admirable job of combining, in an original theoretical formulation, contributions for reflection on the nature of justice in a democratic society, deriving from two distinct traditions of contemporary political philosophy. One tradition is the “Critical Theory” of society, as expressed in writings by the contemporary heirs of the Frankfurt School, especially Jürgen Habermas, Karl-Otto Apel and Axel Honneth. Let me call the other tradition “post-Rawls theories of justice”. At least for the aims of the present article, this latter broad category can include the theoretical formulations of authors who have significant differences with Rawls, such as G. A. Cohen, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. The idea is to propose a “critical theory of justice” or, we might say, a conception of “critical social justice.” The basic elements of this conception are extracted from theoretical perspectives that belong to these two traditions and are then articulated “in a new and systematized fashion, in such a way that the new theory can overcome the shortcomings of the original theories and express a higher commitment to application” (PEREIRA, 2013a, p. 05). The intellectual ambition of this effort can hardly be underestimated. Regardless of how one appraises the success of this project by judging it according to its most ambitious aspirations, the discussion developed by Pereira to specify the “elements” of his conception of critical social justice makes this book highly relevant for students of normative political theory, especially those concerned with social justice issues.

Ateísmo "soft"

O filósofo Gary Gutting (Notre Dame) está conduzindo para o blog The Stone uma série de entrevistas com filósofos, teólogos e cientistas a respeito da natureza e dos rumos da religião no mundo contemporâneo. O entrevistado dessa semana é o filósofo da ciência Philip Kitcher conhecido por suas teses naturalistas e pela defesa de um ateísmo "soft", isto é, uma concepção atéia quanto a verdade das doutrinas religiosas mas tolerante em relação ao valor das tradições religiosas. Alvin Plantinga (Is atheism irrational?) e Jay Garfield (What does buddhism require?) foram outros dos entrevistados por Gutting. 

- The Case for "Soft Atheism" (The Stone)

[...]

G.G.: So you reject all religious doctrines, but you also say that you “resist the claim that religion is noxious rubbish to be buried as deeply, as thoroughly and as quickly as possible.” Why is that?

P.K.: The past decade has seen some trenchant attacks on religion, and I agree with many points made by people like Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins. (Dennett seems to me clearly the most sophisticated of the “new atheists”; much as I admire Dawkins’s work in evolutionary biology and in enhancing the public understanding of science, he is more often off-target in his diatribes against religion.) But these atheists have been rightly criticized for treating all religions as if they were collections of doctrines, to be understood in quite literal ways, and for not attending to episodes in which the world’s religions have sometimes sustained the unfortunate and campaigned for the downtrodden. The “soft atheism” I defend considers religion more extensively, sympathizes with the idea that secularists can learn from religious practices and recommends sometimes making common cause with religious movements for social justice.

G.G.: So on your view, Dawkins and company don’t refute all forms of religion, just unsophisticated literal assertions of religious claims.

P.K.: Yes, I think there’s a version of religion, “refined religion,” that is untouched by the new atheists’ criticisms, and that even survives my argument that religious doctrines are incredible. Refined religion sees the fundamental religious attitude not as belief in a doctrine but as a commitment to promoting the most enduring values. That commitment is typically embedded in social movements — the faithful come together to engage in rites, to explore ideas and ideals with one another and to work cooperatively for ameliorating the conditions of human life. The doctrines they affirm and the rituals they practice are justified insofar as they support and deepen and extend the values to which they are committed. But the doctrines are interpreted nonliterally, seen as apt metaphors or parables for informing our understanding of ourselves and our world and for seeing how we might improve both. To say that God made a covenant with Abraham doesn’t mean that, long ago, some very impressive figure with a white beard negotiated a bargain with a Mesopotamian pastoralist. It is rather to commit yourself to advancing what is most deeply and ultimately valuable, as the story says Abraham did.

Entrevista: Elizabeth Anderson

A filósofa Elizabeth Anderson (Michigan) foi entrevista pelo blog Libertarianism ligado ao Instituto Cato (famoso think tank norte-americano dedicado à causa libertariana). Anderson é famosa por seus trabalhos dedicados à igualdade social e a integração racial nas democracias contemporâneas e também por se opor ao "igualitarismo de fortuna" - uma vertente atual do pensamento igualitário. A pergunta central colocada para Anderson foi: o que é mais importante para promovermos o valor da igualdade, uma igualdade de capacidades ou uma igualdade de resultados? 

- Anderson: "Equality of Capacity or Equality of Outcomes" (entrevista)

"Equality and Citizenship" (Summer School)

Entre os dias 30/06 e 05/07 o Centro de Estudos Avançados do Sudeste da Europa (CAS) sediará um curso de férias com o tema "Cidadania e Igualdade". Serão aceitas inscrições de doutores e pós-doutorandos mediante a análise de currículo e pagamento das taxas de inscrição até o dia 20 de junho. Entre os pesquisadores convidados a apresentarem suas pesquisas estão Thomas Cristiano (Arizona), David Miller (Oxford) e Andrew Williams (Pompeu-Fabra). 

Summer School: Equality and Citizenship

The Center for Advanced Studies of South East Europe, the University of Rijeka, the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences of Rijeka, the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, and theUniversity of Leeds are organizing a summer school on equality and citizenship.

The summer school does not reproduce, in a diluted form, the familiar teaching format of a university course. Instead, it is organized around “Author-Meets-Critics” symposia dedicated to some distinguished authors’ publications and work-in-progress. All of the leading participants will give a paper on a topic on which they are working at the moment, and will reply to the papers given by scholars who participate in the symposia dedicated to them, as well as participate in the workshops dedicated to their works and be available for informal discussion.

The summer school is primarily directed to post-doc and doctoral participants. Post-doc and doctoral participants can contribute to the discussion by commenting and asking questions, as well as with 5-10 minute discussions in the workshops. Post-doc and doctoral participants will receive a certificate of participation that describes the activities in which they have participated at the summer school.

The leading participants of the summer school are:

Prof. Thomas Christiano (University of Arizona) 

Prof. David Miller (University of Oxford) 

Prof. Andrew Williams (ICREA /Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona) 

In order to apply candidates have to send their CVs on e-mail:  politicalphilosophy@cas.uniri.hr

Organizers will reply within a week and inform the candidates whether they have been accepted as participants for Summer School “Equality and Citizenship”. Accepted candidates must pay 100 € / 750 HRK participation fee until June 20th, 2014 on the following account:

Account Holder: Filozofski fakultet u Rijeci, Sveučilišna avenija 4, 51000 Rijeka, Hrvatska / Croatia

Name of the Bank: Zagrebačka banka d.d. Zagreb, Paromlinska 2, 10000 Zagreb, Hrvatska / Croatia

Seminário sobre equidade fiscal (CEM/USP)

O Centro de Estudos da Metrópole (CEM) convida para o seminário "Equidade Fiscal: Impactos Distributivos da Tributação e do Gasto Social" com o professor Fernando Gaiger Silveira (UNB). O evento ocorrerá dia 28/05 (quarta-feira) as 14 no prédio de Ciências Sociais (FFLCH/USP). O seminário é aberto a todos os interessados. 

O texto de discussão pode ser encontrado no link abaixo:

- Silveria et al.: "Fiscal Equity: Distributional Impacts of Taxation and Social Spending in Brazil"

Piketty: pela esquerda e pela direita

O número de resenhas e artigos dedicados à tradução inglesa de Capital no Século XXI do economista francês Thomas Piketty crescem dia a dia. Em um ensaio para o periódico Boston Review, Mike Konczal compilou algumas dessas resenhas de acordo com o espectro ideológico de seu autor. Para os críticos à direita, a obra falharia ao não modelar (e consequentemente recomendar) um nível ótimo de desigualdade para o bom funcionamento da sociedade. Já para os críticos de esquerda, além de excessivamente formalizado, os argumentos de Piketty sobre o crescimento constante da desigualdade - caso verdadeiros - tornariam inúteis reformas pontuais nos mercados de trabalho e financeiro. Contra a tendência reformista dos debates recentes sobre igualdade, a única solução seria justamente a saída marxista: retomar o capital acumulado por agentes privados. O artigo vale a leitura pelo modo claro e direto que apresenta os argumentos de Piketty. 

Thomas Picketty (Foto: Emmanuelle Marchadour)

- Konczal: "Studying the Rich"

[...] 

And here I think this book signals a major change in the debate over inequality.

First, the rosy picture that economists have painted about the nature of inequality has been displaced. The idea that labor’s share of the economy is more or less fixed, an essential element of the mantra that a rising tide lifts all boats, has been dealt a serious, if not fatal, blow.

The idea that the inequality is necessary for a well-functioning society has also been thrown into question. In the wake of the financial crisis and Great Recession, more and more research institutions are finding that higher equality corresponds to better growth, or at least has no negative effect. The causation here might be difficult to prove, but the research suggests that we can no longer take for granted that that growing inequality is a necessary evil for a better economy.

Second, the debate over wealth and taxes is back. Many economists argue that capital income shouldn’t be taxed at all, since it is unfair to tax people because they happen to save, as if it is simply a choice in the marketplace. There are, however, significant advantages to owning wealth, including security, political power, the ability to direct private investment, and much more. These benefits need to be subject to democratic scrutiny.

Tax policy needs to go beyond raising revenues. Capital argues that high taxes can direct income towards more productive and less economically harmful uses, such as keeping incomes within in a firm rather than enriching super-managers; or inheritance taxes can help direct large fortunes toward use for the public good. In Piketty’s analysis, the decline of high marginal tax rates are the main culprit in the large growth of inequality internationally since the 1980s. Since this major transfer of resources didn’t cause an increase in economic productivity, the cost of undoing it will be minimal for the economy as a whole.

Debate Rawls x Habermas

Foi publicado na última edição da revista Teoria & Pesquisa  o artigo "Democracia, Justiça e o uso da Razão Pública: o debate entre Rawls e Habermas" do cientista político Renato Francisquini (USP). Além de mapear as diferenças entre os autores, o artigo conclui com uma proposta deliberacionista para a justificação de decisões democráticas potencialmente sustentada por ambos os modelos de razão pública. 

- Francisquini: "Democracia, Justiça e o uso da Razão Pública" 

RESUMO 

Este trabalho tem como tema central o debate entre Jürgen Habermas e John Rawls, e o seu foco recai principalmente sobre a discussão acerca do processo político democrático. Inicialmente se apresenta uma discussão sobre a teoria da justiça como equidade, buscando explorar os fundamentos para uma teoria da democracia deliberativa. Em seguida se expõem as críticas de Habermas a essa concepção, bem como as suas sugestões de aprimoramento. Na sequência discute-se a resposta de Rawls e a sua tentativa de estabelecer paralelos entre os dois projetos teóricos. Por fim, esboçamos tentativamente uma teoria da democracia deliberativa que seja tanto quanto possível coerente com o debate apresentado no início e que poderia ser subscrita por ambos os autores. 

Democracias levam ao crescimento econômico?

Em mais um round da antiga disputa acerca das relações entre regimes democráticos e desenvolvimento econômico, o economista Daron Acemoglu (MIT) e seus colaboradores publicaram na SSRN o trabalho "Democracy Does Cause Growth". O trabalho procura corroborar empiricamente a tese de que existe uma correlação positiva entre democratização, de um lado, e crescimento econômico no longo prazo, de outro. Caso Acemoglu e sua gangue estejam certos, a instauração de instituições democráticas não representariam um desafio ao crescimento econômico de países subdesenvolvidos. 

- Acemoglu et al.: "Democracy Causes Growth"

Abstract:      

We provide evidence that democracy has a significant and robust positive effect on GDP. Our empirical strategy relies on a dichotomous measure of democracy coded from several sources to reduce measurement error and controls for country fixed effects and the rich dynamics of GDP, which otherwise confound the effect of democracy on economic growth. Our baseline results use a linear model for GDP dynamics estimated using either a standard within estimator or various different Generalized Method of Moments estimators, and show that democratizations increase GDP per capita by about 20% in the long run. These results are confirmed when we use a semiparametric propensity score matching estimator to control for GDP dynamics. We also obtain similar results using regional waves of democratizations and reversals to instrument for country democracy. Our results suggest that democracy increases future GDP by encouraging investment, increasing schooling, inducing economic reforms, improving public good provision, and reducing social unrest. We find little support for the view that democracy is a constraint on economic growth for less developed economies.

Feminismo

Por Liniers

CEPAL: O espaço normativo da autonomia

Gustavo Pereira (Universidade da República) é o autor do último relatório da CEPAL intitulado "El espacio normativo de la autonomía como realizacíon de la igualdad". No relatório, Pereira coloca a seguinte pergunta: dentre as diferentes interpretações de igual dignidade humana oferecida pela filosofia política contemporânea (igualdade de bem-estar, capacidades, meios, etc.) qual é a aquela que melhor atende aos objetivos de desenvolvimento social buscado pela CEPAL? O autor procura mostrar como a o ideal de "igualdade de autonomia" é o único capaz de conciliar a ênfase na autonomia individual com a alta sensibilidade para as vulnerabilidade geradas em condições de desigualdade social. 

- Pereira: "El espacio normativo de la autonomía como realizacíon de la igualdad"

La idea de igualdad ha conformado la autocomprensión de las sociedades a lo largo de la historia. Lo que diferencia a los distintos momentos históricos es el alcance de esa idea de igualdad, ya que ha tenido una similar presencia cuando lo que hacía iguales a los miembros de una sociedad era el honor, o cuando lo que los hacía iguales era la pertenencia a cierto grupo o etnia, o cuando el linaje era lo determinante. 

En virtud de esto la forma en que se especifique la igualdad tendrá mayor o menor inclusión; si nuestra condición de iguales está basada en la pertenencia a un grupo o etnia, entonces la inclusión será considerablemente menor que si la igualdad es especificada por una característica que compartan todos los seres humanos. El mayor alcance que ha tenido históricamente la idea de igualdad se presenta en forma paradigmática a partir de la Modernidad, donde la igualdad pasa a estar asociada con la idea de dignidad. La igualdad ya no se justifica por el linaje, el honor o la etnia, sino por nuestra condición de ser fines en sí mismos y esto podría postularse sin mayor dificultad como un ideal normativo irrebasable de las sociedades contemporáneas. En virtud de esto el autocomprendernos como iguales se sustenta en una característica común que tenemos por nuestra condición de personas y nos atribuimos mutuamente, y la misma consiste en que no tenemos precio o valor de cambio, sino que somos en sí mismo valiosos, nunca somos medios para algo más sino fines en sí. Esto es lo que Kant denominaba dignidad 

[...] 

Tanto el criterio de la autonomía, manifiesto en nuestra capacidad de ser agentes, como el de vulnerabilidad, presente en nuestra condición de sujetos necesitados e interdependientes, serán utilizados para procesar la evaluación de algunas concepciones de igualdad que compiten por dar la mejor interpretación de la idea de igual dignidad.

Sostendré que la interpretación de Cepal de la igual dignidad se distingue tanto por su alta sensibilidad a la vulnerabilidad, como por un fuerte énfasis en el rol de agente que tienen los sujetos. A continuación se presentarán cuatro idealizaciones del sujeto que operan como supuesto y clave explicativa de las concepciones de igualdad, y también cinco concepciones de igualdad. Esto permitirá ordenar el mapa normativo en el que se inscriben las concepciones de igualdad, a la vez que establecerá el lugar donde se inscribiría la concepción de igualdad de Cepal.