A new article published in International Journal of Social Economics explores the possibility of a procedural deliberative alternative to an atomistic conception of individuals and an economic logic of markets or a priori universal lists, as ethical foundation for evaluating socio-economic change.

The paper aims at mapping continuity and change in key themes in development ethics with a case-study of the people-forestry interface in Nepal.

To develop this argument, the paper combines a modified Kantian categorical imperative with deliberative ethics drawing on the writings of Habermas and Dewey. The paper shows how Kantian non-deception links to Habermas' notion of communicative action and Dewey's notion of cooperative inquiry, and how Kantian non-coercion links to the inclusion of subaltern voices. While the paper proposes that more open deliberative processes can potentially produce ethical gains, it also identifies an idealistic risk in this position. Bourdieu's thinking is utilised to reveal limitations on improving deliberative processes where there are powerful mechanisms reproducing inequalities.

The paper makes the case for greater attention being given to exploring deliberative processes as a prerequisite for ethical developmental actions. The paper brings together authors who rarely feature in the development studies discourse and applies their ideas to a practical case study.

John Cameron, Hemant Ojha. 2007 A deliberative ethic for development: A Nepalese journey from Bourdieu through Kant to Dewey and Habermas. International Journal of Social Economics. 34:1/2