The Smithian ontology of ‘relative poverty’: revisiting the debate between Amartya Sen and Peter Townsend

Although ‘relative poverty’ is a phrase of immediate recognition, wide circulation and an ever increasing acceptance in the last half century, the concept itself remains surprisingly undertheorised. This paper wishes to try and remedy this discursive deficiency by proposing an ontological elucidation of the nature of our needs. The author re-visits the dispute between Amartya Sen and Peter Townsend — a duel of crossed wires (if not sabres), which can be seen as representative of the various theoretical takes on the nature of relative poverty. While the dispute itself ended with an unfortunate misunderstanding between the two scholars, whose different disciplinary affiliations have done nothing but replicate the rift, the author nonetheless foregrounds the commonality between the two thinkers – their respective identification with Adam Smith. By exploring points of differences and convergence with Adam Smith’s own ontology of needs, which the author reconstructed elsewhere, the paper hopes to offer insights into the ontology of ‘relative poverty’ as well as to suggest that taking this ontology seriously would lead us inevitably to a re-examination of ‘economic methodology’.