The Two Republicae of the Roman Stoics: Can a Cosmopolite be a Patriot?

This paper is a response to recent attempts by liberal theorists to reconcile universalist sentiments with forms of particularism. It seeks to explore a number of ethical issues related to nationalism, patriotism and loyalty. As the first systematic expositors of cosmopolitanism, the Stoics are called on to address the question: can patriotism be defended ethically by moral universalists? The Roman Stoic attitude to war and imperial conquest is examined because war and its attendant conflicts of interest expose the tension between particular and universal loyalties and pose the greatest challenge to cosmopolitan principles. It is concluded that the task which 'liberal nationalists' have set themselves is a daunting one because, unlike the Stoics, they cannot rely legitimately upon imperialism and the belief in a universal God in order to smooth over differences and conflicting loyalties. In effect, then, this illumination of the origins of Enlightenment universalism problematises further, rather than resolves, issues of conflicting loyalties.     

The Future of Incidental Findings: Should They be Viewed as Benefits?

This paper argues against considering incidental fndings (IFs) as potential benefts of research when assessing the social value of proposed research, determining the appropriateness of a study's risk/beneft ratio, and identifying and disclosing the risks and benefts of participation during informed consent. The possibility of generating IFs should be disclosed during informed consent as neither a risk nor beneft, but as a possible outcome collateral to participation. Whether specifc IFs will be disclosed when identifed is a separate question whose answer is material to determining whether IFs constitute a risk or a potential indirect beneft of participation. Finally, three types of IF should be distinguished and treated diferently during informed consent: those that will be routinely generated (e.g., results of testing to determine study eligibility), those that can reasonably be characterized in terms of their nature and frequency of generation (e.g., misattributed parentage), and those of unpredictable nature and frequency that can be characterized only in general terms. Research protocols should provide a rationale for sharing or not sharing IFs of these three types with participants. Regulatory review of such plans should not, however, be confused with regarding IFs as potential benefts when assessing the study's risk/beneft ratio or merit.     

Lawyers for Conservative Causes: Clients, Ideology, and Social Distance

Scholars have devoted attention to "cause lawyers" on the political left, but lawyers who work on the conservative side of the American political spectrum have received relatively little academic consideration. This article presents systematic data on the characteristics of and relationships among lawyers affiliated with organizations active on a selected set of 17 conservative issues. We find that the lawyers serve several separate and distinct constituencies—business conservatives, Christian conservatives, libertarians, abortion opponents—and that the credentials of the lawyers serving these varying constituencies differ significantly. The greatest degree of social separation occurs between the business constituency and the abortion opponents, with another clear separation between libertarians and the interest groups devoted to traditional family values and order maintenance. The divisions among these constituencies appear to reflect the difference between "insider politics" and "populism," which is manifested in part in actual geographic separation between lawyers located in the District of Columbia and those in the South, West, and Midwest. In the center of the network, however, we find some potential "mediators"—prominent lawyers who may facilitate communication and coordination among the several constituencies. These lawyers and the organizations they serve attempt to merge morality, market freedom, and individual liberty concerns, and they convene meetings of diverse sets of lawyers and organizational leaders to seek consensus on policy goals. Nonetheless, the findings indicate that most organizations are seldom active on issues that lie beyond the relatively narrow boundaries of their own interests.     

Benefits and burdens: Does it really matterWhat we allocate?

There is growing, evidence that allocation decisions concerning burdens and benefits are not processed equivalently. This paper suggests three dimensions on which information processing for resource allocations differs: status quo effects (individuals react more strongly to losses in status quo than to gains), resource valence effects (individuals react more strongly to resource allocations involving burdens than those involving benefits), and blame effects (individuals react more strongly to resource allocation decisions in which they exercise choice). Results of an empirical study confirm significant differences in the information processing of burdens and benefits, and also confirm the importance of psychological distance in the reactions of individuals to burdens and benefits allocations.For there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.-Hamlet (William Shakespeare)     

Factors which deter public officials from reporting corruption

A survey of over 800 public sector employees was conducted to explore the factors which would be most likely to deter public sector employees from reporting workplace corruption. Respondents were asked to consider whether they would make a report in the absence of certain factors which have been found in past research to impact on the decision to make reports. The aim was to determine which workplace strategies managers should make a priority when encouraging employees to report workplace corruption. Concern about not having enough proof was the most commonly reported deterrent, followed by the absence of legal protection from negative consequences. The factors which were reported as deterring the least number of respondents were the absence of role responsibility for reporting corruption and not being directly affected by the corruption. Respondents from lower income groups were more likely to be deterred from reporting corruption in the absence of encouraging factors. In addition, a relationship was found between a lack of information about mechanisms for reporting corruption and a negative attitude toward reporting corruption. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

TURNING OFFENDERS INTO RESPONSIBLE PARENTS AND CHILD SUPPORT PAYERS*

This article describes four demonstration projects that strive to promote responsible behavior with respect to parenting, child support payment, and employment among incarcerated and paroled parents with child support obligations. These projects, conducted in Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Texas, with support from the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement and evaluated by the Center for Policy Research, led to a number of common outcomes and lessons. The projects revealed that inmates want help with child support, parenting, and employment and that prisons can be effective settings in which to conduct such interventions. Family reintegration programs were popular with inmates and may have helped to avoid the rupture of parent–child relationships commonly associated with incarceration. Although employment is the key to child support payment following release, rates of postrelease employment and earnings at all project sites were low and the employment programs were of limited utility in helping released offenders find jobs. Agencies dealing with child support, employment, and criminal justice need to adopt more effective policies with incarcerated parents including transitional job programs that guarantee immediate, subsidized employment upon release, child support guidelines that adjust for low earnings, and better training and education opportunities during incarceration.     

The value of reducing risks of death: A note on new evidence

Government agencies face difficult resource-allocation decisions when confronted with projects that will reduce risks of fatality. Evidence from individual behavior helps determine society's values for reducing risks. The most credible evidence is based on individuals' willingness to pay (or willingness to accept compensation) for small changes in risks. Studies of consumer behavior are limited, but more evidence is available relating wages to job risks. Contingent valuation studies reinforce the wage-risk implications, leading to a range of values that can be compared with the costs of proposals to reduce fatal risks.