Article

Moral philosophy and economics: the formation of Francois Huet's doctrine of property rights

Authors:
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

Abstract

Francois Huet (1814-1869), Professor of Philosophy at the University of Ghent, is known for his attempt to reconcile Christianity with socialism in Le Regne Social du Christianisme (1853). The book clearly belongs to a distinctively Belgian tradition of 'liberal socialism'. Drawing upon archival material, we try to clarify the origins of Huet's theory of property rights. We focus on two intimately related questions: (1) Have the core ideas formulated by Huet in Le Regne been expressed and discussed before the publication of the book? (2) In what sense have reflections upon the science of economics contributed to Huet's views?

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.

... What is important, rather, are the "advantages derived from the relationship between persons and goods" (Sen [1979] 1980: 216). Hence Sen 11 Sen's focus on advantages also constitutes a view on the informational basis of justice which is alternative to the Rawlsian focus on primary goods (Sen 1980: 217). This informational issue was crucial in the emergence of the capability approach (Baujard and Gilardone 2017). ...
Article
Full-text available
“To each according to his ability, to each ability according to his works” constitutes the founding slogan of the Saint-Simonian doctrine (1825–1832). A century and a half would pass before Sen and Nussbaum developed their capability approaches, designed to consider issues of human development and quality of life. Given the prominence of capability approaches in the context of modern theories of justice, and perhaps also due to the natural analogy between the words ‘capacité’, ‘ability’, and ‘capability’, there is a clear tendency in the literature to analyse the Saint-Simonians’ contributions to justice based on the assumption that there is a conceptual link between the terms capability and ability. This paper claims, however, that the elision of these terms is unjustified, and is a source more of confusion than of enlightenment. Conversely, by disentangling these two concepts we can shed light on the contextual reasons for the divergence between these approaches to justice, and provide new insights into both. A capability is an evaluative space for justice, while an ability is a property of individuals. The former is defined essentially in the domain of consumption and individual accomplishment, while the latter is clearly seen as a contribution to the theory of efficient production. Finally, these differences reveal a contrast in the focus values: the ability approach insists on efficiency, while the capability approach focuses on agency. If an analogy with modern theories of justice could be established, the Saint-Simonians would appear closer to modern theories of equity, with their focus on merit.
Article
Full-text available
The article discusses normative approaches to the commons and argues that similar perspectives emerged in the late nineteenth century, closely linked to claims of social and ecological justice. It posits its subject in the framework of nineteenth-century territorialization, more precisely the exercise of state power as a convergence of normative representations of the space and legislative and administrative practices. Analyzing the theoretical and political dimensions of a representative scholarly work, titled De la propriété et de ses forms primitives by the Belgian professor Émile de Laveleye (1822–1892), it formulates the thesis that Laveleye’s book is indicative of the renegotiation of the status of collective property in land as state territory. The article shows first how the book was shaping a universalist model of common land ownership by waving together European and colonial debates on the topic. Second, by following the English and German translations of the book, it shows how this model was linked to transnational agendas of social politics and land reform. These two aspects draw attention to the crucial role of the state as a historical and present stakeholder in shaping the status of commons as territories.
Chapter
Ce livre part du constat qu’il n’y a pas de réflexion sur le libéralisme sans pensée de la liberté mais que toute pensée de la liberté ne saurait être incluse dans les différentes formes de libéralismes. Les deux mots qui se trouvent au départ de cette interrogation renvoient à des réalités empiriques ou conceptuelles et à des chronologies a priori différentes. Liberté renvoie à une problématique millénaire, existant depuis que les hommes réfléchissent sur les formes possibles du vivre ensemble. Libéralisme se réfère davantage à un corps de doctrine qui trouve son origine dans une interprétation du rôle moteur de la liberté pour les échanges et les formes d’organisation de la société. Le pari de ce recueil d’études, transdisciplinaire par choix et par nécessité, est de confronter les deux notions dans leurs usages et leur histoire. Ce livre propose ainsi une cartographie plus fine de ces concepts que celles qui sont proposées par la littérature analytique (que ce soit la catégorisation duale d’Isaiah Berlin opposant liberté positive et liberté négative ou l’opposition désormais figée entre libéralisme et républicanisme). L’un des résultats de l’entreprise est ainsi de fournir un principe d’explication de la diversité des libéralismes, que la littérature contemporaine s’emploie trop souvent à décrire, indépendamment des moments historiques de leur institutionnalisation.
Article
What is the purpose of economic science? Is it about discovering general laws of economic behaviour? Is it about policy-making? And how do those objectives tie in with political views and normative preferences? In 1882–1883 a debate about the existence of economic laws arose between the French Liberal School and Émile de Laveleye, who had just published his Éléments d’économie politique. The debate concerned the form and meaning of economic science and it was bound up with the political views of both sides. A third party to this debate, Léon Walras, was having great difficulty in finding institutional and political support. Although he was closer to the French Liberals in terms of method, he was more inclined to Laveleye’s views concerning the purpose of political economy and in his political outlook. Based on unpublished letters, we will trace the imbroglio between method and purpose of political economy in the triangle formed by Émile de Laveleye, Léon Walras and the “orthodox” French Liberal School.
Article
Full-text available
The political economist Emile de Laveleye was actively involved in a carefully orchestrated European media campaign in support of the colonial policy of King Leopold II in Congo. This paper discusses de Laveleye's ideas about expansionism and colonisation, and shows how his contacts in the world of law contributed to discussions about Congo's juridical status.
Article
Full-text available
In the inheritance tax debates of the 1920s the proposals formulated by the Italian philosopher Eugenio Rignano occupied a prominent position. Since then, his contribution has been largely, although not completely, forgotten. This paper reviews the Rignano’s ideas by focusing upon its origins and upon the reactions to Rignano’s proposal in the 1920s, both in Italy and elsewhere.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.