Against Restitution

Recently, states and other institutions have undertaken to make restitution for past abuses. Distinctions need to be made between various kinds of restitutive practices that rest on quite different normative grounds. Moreover, the core idea of restitution, in attaching obligation to particular historically grounded relationships, is questionable, and what is being attempted is better explained and justified in terms of a number of standard principles of justice of a non-restitutive kind; for although there is, in principle, a clear case of restitutive justice, its elements rarely, if ever, exist in the real world in an unmixed state. Although there are significant objections to deriving local obligations from principles of universal justice, they have no force in this case. Policies termed 'restitutive' may well be justifiable, but they are misdescribed.     

Against Legitimacy

Beetham has recently made an impressive contribution to the understanding of Legitimacy which he holds to be central to both political and social theory. As a social science concept, capable of playing a significant part in the explanation of the workings and breakdowns of political systems, however, legitimacy so defined proves difficult, sometimes impossible, to apply and runs the serious danger of misleading explanation. The case against legitimacy is argued through a combination of theoretical and empirical considerations and in place of legitimacy a case is made for the experience of government behaviour and the capacity for collective action as the more fruitful foci of social theory.     

Meritocracy,Elitism and Inequality

The appeal of meritocracy is plain to see, because it appears to promote equality of opportunity. However, in this paper we argue that meritocracy is also a deeply elitist project. Firstly, we place Michael Young in context to show how his critique of meritocracy should be understood as a socialist vision to ameliorate class divides. Secondly, we show how economic inequality in the UK has not generated systematic resistance: in fact, inequality and belief in meritocracy have gone hand in hand. Thirdly, we argue that people see their own lives as meritocratic rather than ascribed, and that such values are deeply embedded in popular life. We offer two explanations for how such views have come about, and show how they have helped construct a more unequal society.     

Election-Day Registration and Turnout Inequality

Many researchers blame voter registration requirements for inequalities in turnout rates across various groups in U.S. society. The number of states with election-day registration (EDR) of voters doubled between the 1990 and 1994 elections, providing a unique opportunity to examine its impact on turnout inequality across demographic groups. The adoption of EDR is found to be associated with large and significant improvements in the turnout rates of young persons relative to older persons, and of recent movers relative to nonmovers. Turnout inequality by income class also declines with EDR adoption, but not by a significant amount in multivariate tests. The adoption of EDR does not improve equality of representation across educational levels.     

Reform or Radicalism: Left Social Movements from the Battle of Seattle to Occupy Wall Street

We examine two recent cases of relative Left success—the Battle of Seattle and Occupy Wall Street—and argue that in each case an effective dynamism between radical and reform wings drove gains. This analysis is not meant to deny political difference and hawk false unity. Instead we want to challenge the luxury of mutual dismissal with the actually existing benefits of movement dynamism. By dynamism we mean contributions arising from different activist wings and productively interacting to increase overall movement power. Our ultimate claim is that the North American Left will yield greater success by becoming more self-conscious about the concrete benefits of movement dynamism.     

Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods

Many U.S. cities function without regular problems. They have well‐kept roads, sewers that never overflow, and public parks with swing sets and restrooms. Others struggle to maintain balanced budgets, fail to adequately equip or staff their police forces, and offer little assistance to residents of limited means. What explains these differences? I argue that segregation along racial lines contributes to public goods inequalities. Racially segregated cities are also politically polarized cities, making collective investment more challenging and public goods expenditures lower. I provide evidence for this argument using election data from 25 large cities and demographic data matched to city finances in more than 2,600 places. To handle the problem of endogeneity, I instrument for segregation using the number of waterways in a city. I find that segregated municipalities are more politically polarized and spend less on a wide range of public goods.