Suchergebnisse

Risk analysts frequently view the regulation of risks as being largely a matter of decision theory. According to this view, risk analysis methods provide information on the likelihood and severity of various possible outcomes; this information should then be assessed using a decision‐theoretic approach (such as cost/benefit analysis) to determine whether the risks are acceptable, and whether additional regulation is warranted. However, this view ignores the fact that in many industries (particularly industries that are technologically sophisticated and employ specialized risk and safety experts), risk analyses may be done by regulated firms, not by the regulator. Moreover, those firms may have more knowledge about the levels of safety at their own facilities than the regulator does. This creates a situation in which the regulated firm has both the opportunity—and often also the motive—to provide inaccurate (in particular, favorably biased) risk information to the regulator, and hence the regulator has reason to doubt the accuracy of the risk information provided by regulated parties. Researchers have argued that decision theory is capable of dealing with many such strategic interactions as well as game theory can. This is especially true in two‐player, two‐stage games in which the follower has a unique best strategy in response to the leader's strategy, as appears to be the case in the situation analyzed in this article. However, even in such cases, we agree with Cox that game‐theoretic methods and concepts can still be useful. In particular, the tools of mechanism design, and especially the revelation principle, can simplify the analysis of such games because the revelation principle provides rigorous assurance that it is sufficient to analyze only games in which licensees truthfully report their risk levels, making the problem more manageable. Without that, it would generally be necessary to consider much more complicated forms of strategic behavior (including deception), to identify optimal regulatory strategies. Therefore, we believe that the types of regulatory interactions analyzed in this article are better modeled using game theory rather than decision theory. In particular, the goals of this article are to review the relevant literature in game theory and regulatory economics (to stimulate interest in this area among risk analysts), and to present illustrative results showing how the application of game theory can provide useful insights into the theory and practice of risk‐informed regulation.

Virtually our entire existence became medicalized in the spring of 2020. How we worked, shopped, washed, loved had suddenly been transformed into actions with a profound impact on our own health as well as the health of our nations, essentially into matters of life and death. Medicalization is obviously not a new phenomenon; many of the activities just mentioned have been subject to medical expertise and language. Yet the intensity and scope of the medicalization we are experiencing now is novel – at least in terms of recent history. Most of us had not experienced what it is like to have our public and private lives framed in terms of medicine. In some ways, now we share what was already the reality of many chronically ill people. This medicalized reality unavoidably has profound ramifications for our politics. This essay sketches out the political consequences of the medicalization that the coronavirus has unleashed, drawing on examples from the UK and the US. I do so by focusing on four themes: political discourse, political change, political emotions, and democratic citizenship.

The book you have in your hands is based on the four core axes that define, and will explain, the speech and the practice of the Basque politics onwards: the Spanish Constitutional Change, the Self-Government, the Right to Decide and the Independence. This project, which is intended to be a constructive and transformative contribution, builds bridges: on the one hand, between different political sensitivities, and on the other hand, in order to join policy-makers and the academics together. Building bridges is the DNA of the Basque Political Innovation paradigm. It is focused on building bridges, walking a mile in someone else's shoes, understanding each other, feeling each other. In a nutshell, working together for the Basque society. In the Basque Country, that means seeking the political empathy driven by transformational empowered citizenship. Indeed, the political future is built today, by all of us: having a look into each other's eyes, pushing forward.

Since its original publication, Expert Political Judgment by New York Times bestselling author Philip Tetlock has established itself as a contemporary classic in the literature on evaluating expert opinion. etlock first discusses arguments about whether the world is too complex for people to find the tools to understand political phenomena, let alone predict the future. He evaluates predictions from experts in different fields, comparing them to predictions by well-informed laity or those based on simple extrapolation from current trends. He goes on to analyze which styles of thinking are more successful in forecasting. Classifying thinking styles using Isaiah Berlin's prototypes of the fox and the hedgehog, Tetlock contends that the fox--the thinker who knows many little things, draws from an eclectic array of traditions, and is better able to improvise in response to changing events--is more successful in predicting the future than the hedgehog, who knows one big thing, toils devotedly within one tradition, and imposes formulaic solutions on ill-defined problems. He notes a perversely inverse relationship between the best scientific indicators of good judgement and the qualities that the media most prizes in pundits--the single-minded determination required to prevail in ideological combat. Clearly written and impeccably researched, the book fills a huge void in the literature on evaluating expert opinion. It will appeal across many academic disciplines as well as to corporations seeking to develop standards for judging expert decision-making. Now with a new preface in which Tetlock discusses the latest research in the field, the book explores what constitutes good judgment in predicting future events and looks at why experts are often wrong in their forecasts.

The background thesis is that an implicit ontology of the people and the relation between the people and the state often shapes how we think in normative terms about politics. This article attempts to defend that thesis in relation to Rawls. The argument is that the rejection of an image of the people as a group agent connects with his objection to utilitarianism and the rejection of an image of the people as a mere aggregate connects with his objection to libertarianism. Rawls, it is argued, holds by an in-between picture and it is this that explains many of his most distinctive commitments.

Everyday Masculinities in 21st-Century China: The Making of Able-Responsible Men argues that a moral dimension in Chinese masculinity is of growing significance in fast-changing China. 'Able-responsible men'--those who can create wealth and shoulder responsibilities--have replaced the 'moneyed elite' of the earlier reform-and-opening-up era as the dominant male ideal. With vivid and highly readable case studies, Wong presents a compelling account of the forces that coerce men to live up to the able-responsible standard. She demonstrates the impact this pressure has on the lives of not only boys and men, but also on women, and shows how it invites both complicit and resistant reactions. The book lays bare the socio-political context that nurtures the cultural expressions of hegemonic masculinity under the rule of Xi Jinping. The president himself has emerged in public consciousness as the embodiment of the ideal able-responsible man. Based on anthropological fieldwork in Nanchong, Sichuan, the book provides new perspectives on many topical issues that China faces. These include urbanization, labour migration, the one-child policy, love and marriage, gender and intergenerational dynamics, hierarchical male relationships, and the rise of mass displays of nationalism.

AbstractAn experiment in multicriteria decision support was conducted that examined two types of information displays, two different multiattribute models and two levels of task complexity in a laboratory setting with students as subjects. The findings focused on the 'process' behaviour and the 'design' elements of the human‐machine interface. Findings concerning the process behaviour suggested that the subjects' actions on data acquisition were guided by their cognitive preference for the attributes, but that the subjects had no discernible search pattern for evaluation. Findings for design included a significant interaction between display and model in weight estimation and assessment. The practical implications for software design are also discussed.

This article advocates the development of a moderate pluralist theory of political philosophy that recognizes that utility, liberty and equality are legitimate, independent social values and that none should have absolute priority over the others. Inter alia, such a theory would provide a principled means for striking a balance, or making trade-offs, between these values in cases of conflict. Recent developments in public health ethics have made progress in thinking about how to make trade-offs between liberty and utility in particular. While public health ethicists often claim that the least restrictive alternative should be used to achieve the public health goal in question, I argue that a plausible but under-recognized idea is that the least restrictive alternative might sometimes involve improvement of global health via redistributive taxation - i.e., rather than coercive social distancing measures. I conclude by demonstrating that the proportionality principle leaves open the question of when exactly utility outweighs liberty or vice versa - and I argue that, rather than speaking about the morality of liberty-infringing public health interventions in categorical/binary terms, it would be more fruitful and realistic to think and speak about the degree to which a liberty-infringing public health intervention is morally appropriate.

This article advocates the development of a moderate pluralist theory of political philosophy that recognizes that utility, liberty and equality are legitimate, independent social values and that none should have absolute priority over the others. Inter alia, such a theory would provide a principled means for striking a balance, or making trade-offs, between these values in cases of conflict. Recent developments in public health ethics have made progress in thinking about how to make trade-offs between liberty and utility in particular. While public health ethicists often claim that the least restrictive alternative should be used to achieve the public health goal in question, I argue that a plausible but under-recognized idea is that the least restrictive alternative might sometimes involve improvement of global health via redistributive taxation - i.e., rather than coercive social distancing measures. I conclude by demonstrating that the proportionality principle leaves open the question of when exactly utility outweighs liberty or vice versa - and I argue that, rather than speaking about the morality of liberty-infringing public health interventions in categorical/binary terms, it would be more fruitful and realistic to think and speak about the degree to which a liberty-infringing public health intervention is morally appropriate.