Social Inequalities in the Face of Scientific And

DOI: 10.1590/1413-81232017227.04062017 2109 Social inequalities in the face of scientific and technological ARTICLE development: an antinomy or an historic problem? Guilherme Costa Delgado 1 Abstract This paper aims to conduct a concep- tual analysis of the relationship between scientific and technical progress and social equality, or the reduction of inequalities. We examine this relationship by drawing on three theoretical perspec- tives: 1) ethical economics, championed by classical economic thinkers and centered on utilitarian self-interest, 2) Mainstream theories of economic development espousing the endogenous link between labor productivity growth and technical progress, 3) the critique of theories of economic development that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century, including Celso Furtado’s critique of the theory of underdevelopment, em- phasizing the prevalence of egalitarian tendencies, and ecological economics, which suggest alterna- tive paths to those set by “classical” theories of development. The fundamental antinomy posed by the title of this article, characterized by an in- trinsic contradiction between technical progress and social equality, strictly presupposes the ethical economics perspective, dominated by the social re- lations that constitute the “social order”. Key words Social/Economic inequality, Social/ Economic conditions, Science, technology and society, Scientific and technological/Ethical activ- 1 Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA). ities Ed. BNDES Quadra 1/Bloco J/601, Setor Bancário Sul. 70.096 Brasília DF Brasil. guilhermecostadelgado@ gmail.com 2110 Delgado GC Introduction particularly useful for this purpose: a) the first seeks to conceptually unravel this relationship, The explicit question posed by the title of this paying special attention to the antinomic aspects article indicates that there is a potential contra- of the dynamics of technical progress and social diction in the relationship between social equal- equality in contemporaneous capitalism; b) the ity and technical and scientific progress. That second discusses the conditions of possibility for said, the purpose of this paper is to clarify and the reconceptualization of this relationship from respond this fundamental question, for which we the perspective of social justice and liberty. For propose a critical path. both approaches, the ethics of human actions With this in mind, we draw on three theo- geared towards ends is explored: in the first case retical approaches to unravel the contradiction as a problem, given the approach’s complete sub- implied in the title: the antinomic relationship mission to the utilitarian norms as the only ad- between technical and scientific progress and missible guidance for the behavior of the rational social equality. The first is the ethical approach, “homo economicus”; while in the second case, which is historically contextualized within the human needs and theories of human develop- ethical foundations of modern economics. The ment are examined, clearly implying a paradigm second is the economic development approach, shift in scientific thinking that pursues an amica- a polysemic concept wherein the relationship be- ble relationship between technical progress and tween technical progress and equality is a haven social equality. of sorts for different theoretical concepts. How- The transition from approach ‘a’ to approach ever, it is important to note that any discussion ‘b’ and the possible conciliation (or lack of) are of ethics, which also underlies development the- open questions. These questions will be discussed ory, involves making political choices regarding on focus of development and social equality ap- the “fair” distribution of the fruits of technical proaches, that are matter in sequence progress. This is because endogenous economic growth does not in itself ensure fairness, but The Ethical Foundations of Technical rather leads to skewed distribution. Progress and Social Inequality Fittingly, the third approach focuses on social equality, which, to a certain extent, is implicit in Utilitarian and individual ethics relative to the other two approaches, but requires conceptu- modern production methods (the division of la- al explicitation, for which we draw on historically bor, manufacturing, machinery, and large-scale contextualized theories of justice. We explore, al- industry) espoused by the founders of modern ternatively, criteria relative to equality, or the cor- economics may be considered the driving force rection of inequalities or distributive justice that behind the progress brought about by the in- most adequately conform to a social paradigm of dustrial revolution at the end of the eighteenth solidarity. On basis of this ethical approach, we century in England. The economic success of the consider the human development theory, which marriage between individualistic (utilitarian) is capable of elucidating the fundamental antin- ethics and technical and scientific progress, the omy raised by this article: social inequality and driver of the “wealth of (capitalist) nations” in the technical progress. nineteenth and twentieth centuries, is also the ef- By comparing these different theoretical ap- fective cause of the endogenous social inequality proaches, the article goes on to develop a herme- inherent in this system. The social forces operat- neutic framework that is capable of responding ing in the political spaces that seek to redress or the question implied in the title in a non binary neutralize this contradiction confirm this. manner. The ethical foundations of contemporary economics embraced by the various strands or Conceptualizing and problematizing schools of thinking that pass the baton of so- tensions: the ethical approach called “normal science” are underpinned by the conduct of “homo economicus”, who is motivat- The inverse relationship between social ed by self-interest or utilitarian selfish behavior, equality and scientific and technical progress im- the driving force behind material progress. plied by the title of this article begs us from the The central tenet of the various schools of very outset to conceptualize the historical and economic thought, from the classical school and ethico-philosophical setting within which this re- Marxism, to the neo-classical (neo-liberalism), lationship poses a problem. Two approaches are Schumpeterian, and Keynesian schools, and ev- 2111 Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 22(7):2109-2118, 2017 22(7):2109-2118, Coletiva, & Saúde Ciência ery generation of “neo” thereafter, is that the eco- respective markets, entrepreneurs, consumers nomic agent is made in the image and likeness of and workers pursue their own self-interests and an accumulating animal motivated primarily by seek to maximize their own respective gains, the utilitarian drive1. thus producing general prosperity. In a market Thinkers of classical ethical economics who without government intervention, provided the influenced or founded modern economics, such state ensures the enforcement of contracts and as Mandeville, David Hume, Adam Smith, and protects private property in order to achieve full David Ricardo, held that the pursuit of one’s own employment and maximum economic efficiency, interests, passions, preferences and/or individ- individuals are guided by an endogenous mecha- ual desires for income and wealth and techni- nism (the invisible hand of the market). cal progress were the perfect marriage in a new The ethics of utilitarianism that underpin the world of prosperity and wealth. economic theories purported by the classical and Another bedrock of classical economics, neo-classical fields include the principles of val- which is autonomous relative to the ethics of ue and utility, whereby consumers and entrepre- self-interest but that would come to give new neurs, respectively, are impelled to satisfy their meaning to the capitalist economy, is the pursuit desire for consumption and maximize profits. of technical progress. In addressing this question, This is viewed as the only admissible model Adam Smith2 departs from the principles of di- in the economic system because it is conducive vision of labor and the organization of the pro- to private efficiency in the utilitarian sense (more duction process to obtain a substantial increase pleasure and less pain or greater gain at less cost). in labor productivity. Marx developed his own Private efficiency is a sort of cornerstone of mi- theory on technical progress centered on the croeconomics. The hedonic calculus excludes development of the productive forces of capital, social efficiency and social well-being criteria, dealing extensively with this theme in Part IV of which are regarded by conventional economic his first book, especially in the chapters entitled theory as “externalities”. the “Division of Labor and Manufacture” and Explaining human economic behavior is a “Machinery and Modern Industry3. Later, in the common thread running through other theoret- twentieth century, Joseph Schumpeter4 identified ical systems that use the concepts of regularities technical innovation as the main driving force or the “law of capitalist accumulation”, such as behind competition and progress in capitalist Marxian or Keynesian economics or Schumpet- economies. er’s theories, and the thinking of practically every An historic-theoretical overview of the ma- economist that has pondered about economic terial growth of wealth and economic power development in the last 100 years.

Load more