Governance, the World Bank and Liberal Theory

We examine the recent debates about governance, focusing particularly on the World Bank and identify certain factors which have in recent years moved the Bank's thinking beyond narrowly economic notions of development. Our account is tentative and we suggest further avenues of research. We try to connect the Bank's thinking systematically with key features of liberal discourse and suggest that thiscan do much to illuminate practice. We illustrate this with a discussion of the growing relationship between the Bank and NGOs, to contribute to forms of analysis which go beyond the ideas vs. interests polarities that still inform so much of contemporary social and political theory.     

对“文明冲突论”的另一种解读

文明冲突论是冷战后在西方影响比较大的国际关系理论之一,它最大的特点是改变了人们在冷战时期习惯以社会制度和意识形态来评判国际形势,试图以文明的冲突来取代社会制度的对抗,大大拓展了国际关系研究的领域和方向,成为世人关注的焦点。     

Laski on Rights and the Problem of Liberal Democratic Theory

From 1919 until the mid-1920s Laski developed a cogent egalitarian theory of democratic rights. In the 1930s he turned his attention to the conflict between such rights and the capitalist property rights of liberal theory. His defence of democratic rights is significant in the context of contemporary discussions of rights, autonomy and democracy.     

Another look at anti-scalping laws: Theory and evidence

This paper investigates the impact of anti-scalping laws on the face value of tickets in professional football and baseball. Previous theoretical models have suggested that scalpers might cause an increase in prices at the ticket window because they represent an increase in demand. This paper provides a model in which ticket scalping has an ambiguous impact on ticket window prices, making the actual impact an empirical question. Empirical analysis suggest that in cities with anti-scalping laws average per-game season ticket prices are approximately $2 greater in baseball and $10 greater in football. Anti-scalping laws actually increase team revenues, as the laws have no adverse effect on attendance. Thus, event promoters might have sufficient pecuniary incentive to tacitly or explicitly support anti-scalping legislation.     

行政公务员退出的正常化问题探析

公务员的入口、任用和出口,是公务员制度链条上紧密相连的环节。而目前,公务员退出口径狭窄、出口不畅现象已成为我国公务员制度发展和深化的瓶颈。建立公务员退出的正常化机制是市场经济发展的必然产物,是解决目前我国公务员出口不畅的长久之策。解决公务员退出的正常化问题,最关键的是将市场机制引进其中,对公务员实行全员聘任制,彻底打破终身制和铁饭碗。与此同时,还应完善相关配套制度,如公务员职位新的分类制度、科学的考核制度以及具有社会性质的公务员失业保障制度等,为公务员退出的正常化铺平道路。     

The Right to Secession: an Antisecessionist Defence

Liberal egalitarians should support a right to secession while seeking to discourage secessions. The coherence of these apparently opposed stances depends upon three important distinctions that are under-explored in existing secession literature: between the right to secede and the choice- worthiness of secessions; between moral considerations relevant in advising would-be secessionists and those relevant in advising leaders of existing states; and between the legitimacy of a secession and the means that might be legitimately employed in advancing or resisting it. There is a strong but conditional right to secession rooted in the principle of associational freedom, but there are good reasons usually not to exercise it. Would-be secessionists should normally be advised against secession, but leaders of existing states should be advised to grant secessions that satisfy certain conditions. Only certain means are legitimate in resisting even secessions that fail to satisfy these conditions. If necessary the conditions that secessionists are expected to satisfy should be relaxed, provided relaxation takes place in a morally appropriate sequence.     

On Sen's Liberal Paradox and its Reception within Political Theory and Welfare Economics

In this article, Amartya Sen's seminal proof of the impossibility of a Paretian liberal is briefly reviewed. I then discuss the reception of this alleged 'liberal paradox' within the fields of political theory and welfare economics. In particular, I examine the criticisms made by Brian Barry, and their wider implications for the field of social choice theory. It is argued that the various criticisms made on Sen's characterisation of liberty are fundamental, and that Sen's subsequent defence of his position is unconvincing. Moreover, there remain some wider doubts as to the usefulness of social choice theory's SWF approach to individual rights and freedoms.     

Liberal Republicanism

In this article I defend a broadly Rawlsian interpretation of citizenship which combines both liberal and republican themes to provide an account of citizenship which is more appropriate for modern democracies than alternative interpretations, such as that offered by communitarian critics of political liberalism. Liberal republicanism, I argue, gives a convincing interpretation of the nature and value of citizenship and provides the basis for a radical political agenda.     

Liberal Interventionism

David Lipsey analyses the arguments made by former Labour prime minister Tony Blair in his Chicago speeches for armed liberal intervention in states which are abusing the human rights of their citizens. He traces these arguments back to previous advocates of such intervention such as W. E. Gladstone and Woodrow Wilson. The arguments of Blair and advocates are often compelling in principle. However, in most cases—Iraq and Libya are examples—the practical consequences of military action turn out to be disastrous. Though opposing pacifism, and the ill‐thought‐out hostility to all things military of Labour's current leader Jeremy Corbyn, Lipsey's advice to those thinking of intervening is: don't.     

Sanctioning Liberal Democracies

This article examines when economic sanctions should be imposed on liberal democracies that violate democratic norms. The argument is made from the social-liberal standpoint, which recognises the moral status of political communities. While social liberals rarely refer to the use of economic sanctions as a pressure tool, by examining why they restrict military intervention and economic aid to cases of massive human rights violations or acute humanitarian need, the article is able to show why they are likely to impose strong restrictions on the use of economic sanctions as well. After reconstructing the social-liberal case against economic sanctions, the article develops the argument that liberal democracies have reasons to support sanctions on other liberal democracies, even when they perpetrate injustices on a smaller scale. Liberal democracies share especially strong ideological, cultural and institutional bonds, and these peer group relations open them to mutual influence. When one liberal democracy commits serious injustices while still proclaiming allegiance to the democratic ethos, it can adversely affect the vitality of the democratic culture in those other liberal democracies with which it maintains close relations. Other liberal democracies therefore have the right and the obligation to condemn this behaviour, in order to preserve their allegiance to their values. The article defends the use of economic sanctions in light of some recent critiques, and concludes by providing an overall assessment of the factors which liberal democracies ought to take into account when they consider imposing economic sanctions on other liberal democracies.     

On Forcing Individuals to be Free: T.H. Green's Liberal Theory of Positive Freedom

Berlin argues that Green's positive freedom, at odds with his liberalism, justifies an oppressive society. Berlin's argument proceeds in three steps. The first embraces a shift from negative freedom to rational self-mastery, which is underpinned by a metaphysics of a split self. Then it is claimed that positive freedom is realizable only in a certain kind of society which, thirdly, it is argued, is oppressive. Green takes the first two steps but they do not commit him to the totalitarian conclusion, not least because he grounds positive freedom in a view of a unitary self and his society does not leave empty the institutional framework which makes possible the realization of freedom. Green's society is not oppressive in the name of freedom, but rather enabling in the name of freedom.     

Canada: The Supreme Court Sets Rules for the Secession of Quebec

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1998 that neither the Canadianconstitution nor international law allows Quebec to secede fromCanada unilaterally. Secession would require amending the constitution.However, if a clear majority of Quebecers unambiguously optsfor secession, the federal government and the other provinceswould have a constitutional duty to negotiate. This is an obligationthat the court declared to be implicit in four principles that"inform and sustain the constitutional text"—federalism,democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respectfor minorities. The same set of principles would govern thenegotiations themselves. Accordingly, Quebec could not dictatethe terms of secession, and one cannot assume that agreementwould be reached. If negotiations fail, and Quebec declaresindependence unilaterally, the international community wouldhave to decide whether Quebec's action was legitimate.     

Thomas Jefferson's Liberal Anticapitalism

This article reassesses Thomas Jefferson's political economy in light of debates about the influence of liberal and republican ideas on his thought. I argue that Jefferson embraced liberal premises, but used them to reach anticapitalist conclusions. He opposed neither commerce nor the prosperity it promised; he opposed working for a wage, and he did so on liberal grounds. The first section of this article shows that John Locke's theory of property turns on the justification of capitalist labor relations. The second section establishes, first, that Locke's argument played a decisive role in the development of Jefferson's own and, second, that Jefferson redefined its terms to fashion a forceful critique of wage labor. An examination of Jefferson's writings elucidates a neglected variant of the liberal tradition, prevalent in the United States until the Populist agitation. Its core is the stigma attached to working for hire as a diminished form of liberty, tantamount to wage slavery.     

Liberal government and authoritarianism

This paper examines the intelligibility of authoritarian measures within Foucauldian analyses of the liberal government of the state. Such measures are understood as following from a liberal understanding of the task of government itself. This understanding rests on a distinction between the legal and political order (of 'the state') and a 'liberal police' of what is exterior to it, classically conceived as 'civil society'. The relation between these two aspects is conceived as a series of 'foldings' between the two sides of a liberal governing, which turn the injunction to govern through freedom into a set of binding obligations potentially or actually enforceable by coercive or sovereign instruments. The paper places this perspective within aspects of the genealogies of economy, poverty, welfare and police and discusses the trajectories of such foldings in the present.     

Liberal Versus Conservative Stinks

In a recent Public Opinion Quarterly article “Is the Academy a Liberal Hegemony?,” John Zipp and Rudy Fenwick pit themselves against “right-wing activists and scholars,” citing our scholarship (Klein and Stern in Academic Questions 18(1): 40–52, 2005a; Klein and Western in Academic Questions 18(1): 53–65, 2005). Here, we analyze Zipp and Fenwick’s characterization of our research and find it faulty. We, then, turn to their self-identification “liberal vs. conservative” findings and show they concord with our analysis. If one feels that it is a problem that humanities and social science faculty at 4-year colleges and universities are vastly predominantly democratic voters, mostly with views that may called establishment-left, progressive, or status-quo oriented, then such concerns should not be allayed by Zipp and Fenwick’s article. We commence the article with a criticism of the “liberal versus conservative” framework because it is the source of much of the confusion surrounding controversies such as the one over the ideological profile of faculty.