An Empirical Investigation into Measurement and Determinants of Food Security

We examine the association between calorie-based indicators and experiential indicators of food security using data from slum households of Kolkata surveyed in 2010–2011. Experiential indicator is constructed following the United States Household Food Security Survey Module. Calorie based indicator is constructed using household-specific calorie norms. Modelling techniques take account of potential endogeneity in the relationship. The two indicators are aligned in the same direction implying more accurate targeting. However, there is a lack of one-to-one correspondence between the two measures and the drivers of calorie deprivation and food insecurity also differ, suggesting a one-size-fits-all policy cannot address both concerns simultaneously.     

The Closeness Problem and the Doctrine of Double Effect: A Way Forward

A major challenge to the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is the concern that an agent’s intention can be identified in such a fine-grained way as to eliminate an intention to harm from a putative example of an intended harm, and yet, the resulting case appears to be a case of impermissibility. This is the so-called “closeness problem.” Many people believe that one can address the closeness problem by adopting Warren Quinn’s version of the DDE, call it DDE*, which distinguishes between harmful direct agency and harmful indirect agency. In this paper, I first argue that Quinn’s DDE* is just as vulnerable to the closeness problem as the DDE is. Second, some might think that what we should therefore do is give up on intentions altogether and move towards some kind of non-state-of-mind, victim-based deontology. I shall argue against this move and explain why intentions are indispensable to an adequate nonconsequentialist theory. Finally, I shall propose a new way of answering the closeness problem.     

‘Hurry no man's cattle’: British rule and suicide in China

The British authorities in the leased territory of Weihaiwei were concerned that too many Chinese, particularly women, resorted to suicide. In response, they made it obligatory to report suicides, educated the public and the police on how to effect rescues, and appointed a medical assistant with special responsibility for suicide rescue work. In spite of being remarkably well informed of the social significance of suicide in China, government efforts to deal with the causes of suicide were limited. In particular, the government did little to alter the circumstances of women in the territory. They provided few opportunities for education and were reluctant to prohibit foot-binding or to discourage families from putting pressure on widows to remarry. The limited response of the government to the problem of suicide was consistent with its general administrative policy of effecting little change to the fabric of life in the Chinese villages. The fact that the magistrates, in their treatment of suicide, expressed a deference to Chinese law, was part and parcel of the same general policy of the British administration of Weihaiwei.