Institute for Futures Studies

Recent debates and research on economic inequality give conflicting results and views on the developments (even when using similar data). This project argues that much of the disagreement reflects differences in the underlying concepts of income and wealth rather than purely empirical disputes. Building on the Haig–Simons definition of income as changes in consumption possibilities, the paper proposes a framework that traces how macroeconomic resources recorded in national accounts reach households through institutions such as firms, pension systems, and government programs. Different inequality measures capture different points along this transmission chain, which helps explain why studies often reach different conclusions about inequality trends and gives some examples based on Swedish developments.Research seminar with Jesper Roine, Adjunct Professor of Economics at the Department of Economics and deputy director at Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics (SITE). He holds a Ph. D. from Stockholm University (2002).

Genocide is one of the most charged concepts of our time. It is a legal term, but it also carries moral imperatives and can be a political weapon. In the book Genocide: Sweden and the Fight Over a Concept, international law professor Mark Klamberg describes, among other things, how the foundation for genocide as a concept and thus for the UN Genocide Convention was laid in Stockholm in 1940, and how Sweden, during the negotiations for the convention, wanted to implement restrictions so that it would not include the treatment of the Sami. This book highlights stories, perspectives and legal battles that are in various ways connected to Sweden – but which have not yet been fully reflected in historical writing. The presentation will also highlight present-day conflicts which involve allegations of genocide and will be in English.
Research seminar with Mark Klamberg, professor of international law at Stockholm University. He did his post-doc at University of Oxford and was a member of the senior common room of Christ Church, has been a guest lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, Georgetown University and American University Washington College of Law (DC). He often appears in the media to comment on current events and has recently been part of an OSCE mission where he and the other experts of the mission presented a report on how Russia treats Ukrainian Prisoners of War.

Philosophy of Madness is a rising philosophical subfield. There are diverging opinions and many unclarities surrounding its relationship to other subfields, most notably Philosophy of Psychiatry. In a chapter for a forthcoming Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Zsuzsanna Chappell and I tentatively define Philosophy of Madness thus: In a narrow sense, it is philosophy about madness, done by openly mad philosophers, which centres madpeople’s experiences. In a wider sense, one or both of the first two conditions could be absent. The author might identify as sane, neurodivergent-but-not-mad, or neither. The text might use mad insights, mad intuitions, etc., applied to a topic other than madness itself. In any case, wider or narrower, the centring of madpeople’s experiences is crucial, if Philosophy of Madness is going to be anything other than a new, edgy name for the same old Philosophy of Psychiatry.
When discussing Philosophy of Madness in a narrow sense, the topic naturally connects to the lively debate about involving people with lived experience in research projects and academic writing. What role can and should they play? Psychologist Jasper Feayerts (Ghent University) and I are starting up a research group about this matter. There may be little that you necessarily need LE people for, little that is impossible to achieve for a thoroughly sane research group. Nevertheless, involving LE people could remain important if doing so makes certain pitfalls much more likely to be avoided.
One necessary difference between the madperson and the sane academic studying them, which the madperson is more likely to take into account, is this: the madperson can’t declare themself a hopeless case and proceed to walk away from themself to other topics. They must continue to live with themself, and find some way to do so. This is something that I and Elliot Porter have written about in different papers on agency and moral responsibility, but the difference is relevant for many other topics as well.

This presentation asks whether halving premature death by 2050 is feasible – and explores ethical issues in defining and attempting to reach such a target. Premature death is defined here as death before age 70 years. In an earlier study we examined the large variation in premature death rates before age 70 and trends over the past 50 years, covering ten world regions and the 30 most-populous nations, and we concluded that nations that choose to do so can achieve this goal. We did not, however, justify the age cut-off, examine the implications for mortality in old age, or discuss the mortality impact of climate change and global warming. This presentation will explore these ethical issues in more detail.
If you wish to receive our newsletters, and invitations to our seminars, subscribe here.Research seminar with Ole F. Norheim, Mary B. Saltonstall Professor of Ethics and Population Health at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, as well as Adjunct Professor of Medical Ethics at University of Bergen.

What could be more futuristic on Earth than to discuss about mankind’s possibility to become a multiplanetary species in the universe? Tech visionaries like Elon Musk claim that it would become possible to send 1 million people to planet Mars within the next 2 decades. In response to this, 59 researchers, representing multidisciplinary fields from astronomy, biology, engineering, medicine, law, economy, AI, politics to humanities, have recently published a book that critically and constructively reviews the current visions on colonization of Mars. Dr. Natuschka Lee, one of the contributing researchers, will present a summary of this book and initiate discussions from various perspectives.
Research seminar with Natuschka Lee, microbiologist and an astrobiologist, with a PhD degree in Biotechnology from Lund University, with many years of research experience in Germany and in Sweden. She is a former fellow of Swedish Collegium of Advanced Science and the Alexander von der Humboldt Foundation. Today, she is a researcher at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences in Uppsala.
If you wish to receive our newsletters, and invitations to our seminars, subscribe here.