Quantifying distributive justice: An approach to environmental and risk-related public policy

The most fundamental philosophical objection to cost-benefit analysis is that it fails to account for the distinction between more-necessary and less-necessary benefits. For example, it provides no way to avoid trading off a few cancer deaths in exchange for a more cost-effective but also more hazardous technology which provides cheaper paper or plastic products for the many. Since unjust distribution of benefits and burdens results primarily from the failure to prefer more-necessary goods (such as health and safety) over less-necessary ones (such as cheaper plastic razors), we shall see that a correct calculation of the rate at which marginal utilities diminish in value (as they become less necessary to their users) can determine degrees of necessity and thus the most just possible distribution of benefits and burdens. One way to measure the rate of diminishing marginal utility is provided by the wealth effect in occupational risk studies. Wealthier workers will not assume the same risk in exchange for a given salary increment (which to them is not very necessary) as poorer workers would assume for that same salary increment (which to them is more necessary). It is therefore possible to construct a mathematical model for the effect of necessity/non-necessity on quantitative decision principles for environmental and risk-related public policy, thus making such decisions more distributively just than traditional cost-benefit analysis would allow.     

A practical approach to determining training-solvable problems

Training is a necessity to progressive companies, but how do you decide which problems would benefit from it? The authors' model, based on current literature and consulting experience with a large organization, stresses the importance of using existing data for a more exact and cost-effective diagnosis.     

Loosening the ties that bind: the hidden harms of civil gang injunctions in San Diego County

Civil gang injunctions (CGIs) are court-ordered restraining orders that are being utilized in the name of controlling the daily routine of alleged gang members, reducing crime, and eliminating ‘public nuisances’ in working-class neighborhoods of color. In this study, we draw upon interviews and court observations conducted between 2009 and 2014 in San Diego County to examine the perceptions of a subset of those who have been listed on CGIs or other gang suppression methods, and those who work closely with them, about their individual and collective impacts. We find that the men and women in our study experience several hidden harms of gang enforcement measures that damage their ability to connect with others in the community, including their own family members and friends; and reduce their ability to pursue opportunities related to education, housing, and employment. We demonstrate that the loss of these bonds to community and opportunities, leads to perceptions of injustice and, in some instances, a transformation in gang activity, rather than its elimination. Ultimately, these exploratory findings raise questions about the logic and justice of gang suppression.     

Screening offenders for risk of drop‐out and expulsion from correctional programmes

Purpose. The goal of the present research was to develop a screening measure to assist in identifying offenders at risk for drop‐out or expulsion from correctional programmes. Methods. Non‐Aboriginal male offenders (N = 5,247) were randomly divided into a development sample (N = 2,617) and a validation sample (N = 2,630). In the development sample, individual predictors were identified through univariate and multivariate analyses, weighted based on their relationship with drop‐out/expulsion, and combined into a composite measure we called the drop‐out risk screen (DRS). Results. The DRS consists of five items, including static and dynamic risk factors for recidivism as well as motivation for intervention. It significantly predicted drop‐out/expulsion in the development sample (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC]= .72) and performed similarly in the validation sample (AUC = .70). Conclusions. The results indicate that the DRS is a valid screening instrument for risk of drop‐out/expulsion. Prior to commencement of a treatment programme, offenders with high scores on the DRS could be more thoroughly assessed and, if necessary, targeted with pre‐treatment efforts to increase their motivation and general readiness for treatment.     

British labour movement solidarity in the 1913-14 Dublin Lockout

While most accounts of the Dublin Lockout of 1913–1914 consider it primarily as an event in Irish history, it was also one of the most important struggles in twentieth-century British history. It was influenced by, and was an integral part of the great ‘labour unrest’ that swept over Britain in the years 1911–1914 and had tremendous repercussions in Britain as well as Ireland. This article provides much neglected analysis of the nature, extent and dynamics of the solidarity campaign that was generated on the British mainland for the Lockout (probably the only other comparable event was the national miners’ strike of 1984–1985), the reasons why such widespread support was forthcoming and its broader implications for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of militant trade unionism in Britain during this period. It provides a comprehensive re-examination of the historical record and offers a critical analysis of existing predominant historiographical interpretations of the dispute. In the process, the article provides new insights into the potential and limits of Jim Larkin’s campaign to secure sympathetic industrial action inside the British labour movement, the refusal of the Trades Union Congress to support such an initiative and the inability of rank-and-file and socialist militants to overcome the entrenched resistance of the official union leadership.