What should a liberal economist (not) do? Sen–Sugden debate on welfare economics
梳理了阿马蒂亚·森与罗伯特·萨格登之间关于自由与机会关系的辩论，分析两人在规范经济学上的分歧根源，并探讨自由派经济学家应扮演的角色。
Abstract The discussion between Amartya Sen and Robert Sugden has produced valuable insights into liberal economic and philosophical theory, yet it remains relatively overlooked in scholarly literature. Our paper seeks to fill this gap. Both authors advocate for a normative theory emphasizing the freedom–opportunity relationship as an alternative to welfarism. Sugden contends that his criterion of opportunity is procedural and anti-paternalistic, whereas he seems to consider Sen’s capability concept to be substantive and inadvertently paternalistic. Sen argues that this perceived difference is exaggerated and stems from a misunderstanding of his ideas. The dialogues between Sen and Sugden, both implicit and explicit, highlight two key questions: What are the origins of their differing views? What should a liberal economist’s role be? Our paper will explore these questions through the lens of the Sen–Sugden debate in normative economics, reinterpreted within their respective moral and political philosophies.