Sustainable intensification and ecosystem services: new directions in agricultural governance

Reconciling environmental objectives for land use with the need to produce more food is a prominent concern of scientific and policy discourses on sustainable agriculture. The idea of sustainable intensification has emerged as one prominent framing of this challenge. In this paper we elaborate this idea from an ecosystem services perspective to natural resource management, with particular reference to developments in the UK. The paper considers the general origins and attributes of the perspective and how the challenge of sustainable intensification would be conceptualized and approached through it. While efforts to link analysis of ecosystem services to policy development and delivery in the UK are revealed as consistent with prevailing, and often long standing, approaches to sustainable agriculture, the marketization of environmental assets is highlighted as a distinguishing feature of current policy applications. The character and limitations of this facet of the ecosystem services agenda are discussed. The need to animate ecological issues of sustainable intensification through frames of reference other than those of economic valuation is emphasized.     

Responsibility, Luck, and the 'Equality of What?' Debate

Ronald Dworkin's recently published book, Sovereign Virtue (hereafter SV), appeals to arguments that are popular within, and ideas that are fundamental to, liberal egalitarianism. These arguments and ideas need to be distinguished and unpacked. The purpose of this paper is partly to do this and to cast doubt on the adequacy of various moves made by Dworkin. In addition, and more importantly I argue that the analysis of the 'equality of what?' debate reveals a tension at the heart of contemporary liberal egalitarianism between the Kantian aspiration to eliminate luck and the contemporary aspiration to do political philosophy without metaphysics.     

Validation of a short aggression inventory for law enforcement

This study cross-validates a short aggression inventory using a sample of 250 law enforcement professionals. The instrument under investigation is the 12-question modified version of the Buss-Perry Aggression Scale (Buss & Perry, 1992). Statistical and external validation methods were used to ascertain the appropriateness of this scale's use with law enforcement professionals. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that both the firstorder, four-factor model, {ie12-1}, GFI=.94, NFI=.84, NNFI=.88, and CFI=.91, and the second-order model with a single, global Aggression “super” factor, {ie12-2}, GFI=.94, NFI=.84, NNFI=.89, and CFI=.91, provided a reasonable goodness-of-fit to the data. Subscales of this instrument correlated meaningfully with departmental measures of citizen complaints for physical and verbal aggression by officers, as well as the number of shooting incidents in which the officers were involved. The need for a short measure of aggression is discussed and applications in law enforcement are offered.