Public accountability: Effectiveness, equity, ethics

This article tests a wide range of government activities against requirements for public accountability. The article explores the incentives for ethical behaviour by public officials; the need for more outcome focused performance indicators, tensions between parliamentary and managerial accountability; the standards of accountability applied to public providers of services can be applied to private providers; the utility of spelling out service requirements in advance; the impacts on accountability of the convergence of the public and private sectors; the need, where responsibility for programs is collaborative, for a clear governance framework, tensions between representative and participative democracy, and trends towards more participative and collaborative leadership.     

Economics and distributive ethics

This essay, adapted from his Inaugural Lecture as the Simon Professor at Lafayette, was dedicated to the memory of Aaron Wildavsky.     

Climate risks,climate economics,and the foundations of rights-based risk ethics

In this article, I argue that climate ethics must basically be risk ethics. But risk ethics is still an underdeveloped field of normative ethics. For example, rights-based ethical theories, the attractive features of which are outlined in this article, tend to prohibit all risk impositions. Such inability of rights-based theories to deal convincingly with risks could be a reason why the standard approach of climate economics, which as I try to show is based on questionable normative presuppositions, is still as influential as it is. I propose a solution to the problems rights-based moral theories have with risks and outline the basic criteria of permissible and impermissible risk impositions. Finally, I indicate that this will enable us to tackle climate risks in a promising way. The main aim of the article, however, is not to contribute to concrete questions of climate ethics but to the improvement of its normative foundations.     

Animal ethics and the political

Some of the most important contributions to animal ethics over the past decade or so have come from political, as opposed to moral, philosophers. As such, some have argued that there been a ‘political turn’ in the field. If there has been such a turn, it needs to be shown that there is something which unites these contributions, and which sets them apart from previous work. We find that some of the features which have been claimed to be shared commitments of the turn are contested by key theorists working in the field. We also find that the originality of the turn can be exaggerated, with many of their ideas found in more traditional animal ethics. Nonetheless, we identify one unifying and distinctive feature of these contributions: the focus on justice; and specifically, the exploration of how political institutions, structures and processes might be transformed so as to secure justice for both human and nonhuman animals.     

Men and manners: Kantian humanism,rhetoric and the history of ethics

Modern humanist ethics (more Kantian than is sometimes thought) is driven by a will-to-perfection in the form of ideals of self-transcendence. This perfectionism entails a (would-be) exclusion or marginalisation of certain elements of ‘pre-Enlightenment’ ethical cultures bearing on rhetoric, manners and self-empowerment. This essay provides a set of conceptual-historical arguments preliminary to reinserting these disparaged elements into the forefront of a progressive ethos which, it is claimed, cannot afford to be exclusively dependent on an amalgam of Enlightenment and Romantic ideals. Ethics is irreducible to the realm of ideal and values, and there are other sorts.