Reviving political economy in pursuit of human emancipation: the case of Amartya Sen and Cambridge Social Ontology

This paper compares the approaches of Amartya Sen and Cambridge Social Ontology (CSO) as two perspectives that, while following different trajectories, seek to revive political economy in pursuit of human emancipation within a broader Cambridge tradition. It examines the consequences of their divergent ontological orientations for their understanding of human flourishing and the strategies to achieve it. Sen, noted for his contributions to Social Choice Theory and the Capability Approach, integrates ethical insights into economic theory but remains reluctant to engage explicitly with ontology. In contrast, CSO, led by Tony Lawson, seeks to revive political economy as a comprehensive social science by advocating an ontological turn in economics. CSO rejects the indiscriminate reliance on mathematical-deductivist methods and advances theories such as Social Positioning Theory and Critical Ethical Naturalism, which conceptualise the social realm as an open normative order. Sen’s work is shown to be shaped by analytical inconsistencies and embedded liberalism, which constrain its ability to address structural issues and drive transformative change. Meanwhile, CSO’s concepts—such as eudaimonic bubbles and communities of care—are explored as a potential alternative framework for analysing flourishing communities and enquiring into emancipatory strategies.