The term ‘radicalisation’ (radikalisering) in the Swedish public debate as seen by an elderly retired professor of Islamology

This chapter advances three propositions. First, it specifies how the conventional framing and language of debates over market governance, such as the governments-versus-markets dichotomy, hamper public debate, policy prescription, and scholarly analysis, and offers suggestions for how to deploy more precise language, enhance conceptual clarity, and refine analysis. Second, it demonstrates how even the most sophisticated analysts of market institutions sometimes fail to appreciate the full ramifications of their own arguments. They fall into the same linguistic traps as their intellectual adversaries, for example, or they fail to capture the extent to which market behavior is learned, not natural, and market operations are constructed, not free. And third, the chapter concludes by demonstrating how conceptual misunderstandings can beget very real policy errors, and specifying policy lessons for both market liberals and progressives.

Download Full-text

Introduction

10.1093/oso/9780190909222.003.0001 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Sarah Song

Keyword(s):

Political Theory ◽

Public Debate ◽

Intermediate Position ◽

Open Borders ◽

Liberal Constitutionalism ◽

Associative Obligations

Chapter 1 begins with the role that political theory can play in public debate about immigration. Political theory can identify values and principles that can serve as guides to public judgment, clarify the sources of our disagreement, and perhaps even reduce the extent of disagreement about specific issues. The chapter then discusses four key dynamics in the politics of immigration: majoritarian politics, nationalism, capitalism, and liberal constitutionalism. It presents the idea of associative obligations and advances an intermediate position on immigration between closed borders and open borders rooted in an ethic of membership. It concludes with a roadmap of the book.

Download Full-text

Claude Saumaise and the ‘Hairy War’ (1640–1650)

10.1093/oso/9780198803935.003.0007 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Dirk van Miert

Keyword(s):

Public Debate ◽

Apostle Paul ◽

Biblical Scholarship

Chapter 6 shows that Claude Saumaise, who as a teenager was also coached by Scaliger by means of letters and who had taken his chair two decades after Scaliger’s death, was also his successor in terms of biblical scholarship. Moreover, Saumaise advertised biblical philology in the context of a violent public debate over public conduct: the question whether the apostle Paul thought that men could not wear long hair. In this highly advertised controversy, biblical scholarship spilled over into the vernacular, hit the pulpits, and impacted on street behaviour. The split ran right through the heart of Calvinist orthodoxy, with Jacob Revius siding with Saumaise against Gisbertus Voetius in defence of the Christian liberty of a man’s right to choose.

Download Full-text

Just & Unjust Targeted Killing & Drone Warfare

Daedalus ◽

10.1162/daed_a_00408 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 145 (4) ◽

pp. 12-24 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Michael Walzer

Keyword(s):

Decision Process ◽

War On Terror ◽

Public Debate ◽

Targeted Killing ◽

American Experience ◽

Political Costs ◽

Drone Warfare ◽

Opening Up

Targeted killing in the “war on terror” and in war generally is subject to familiar and severe moral constraints. The constraints hold across the board; they don't change when drones are the weapon of choice. But the ease with which drones can be used, the relative absence of military risks and political costs, makes it especially tempting not only to use drones more and more, but also to relax the constraining rules under which they are used. It seems clear that the rules have, in fact, been relaxed in the course of the American experience with drone warfare – by presidential decision and without public debate. This essay is an argument for the opening up of the decision process to democratic scrutiny and in defense of the familiar constraints.

Download Full-text

The SORS Decision-Making Support System: A statistical tool for better policy making in the Republic of Serbia

Statistical Journal of the IAOS ◽

10.3233/sji-200703 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-11

Author(s):

Miladin Kovačević ◽

Katarina Stančić

Keyword(s):

Policy Making ◽

Modern Society ◽

Monitoring And Evaluation ◽

Public Debate ◽

Statistical Tool ◽

The Public ◽

System A ◽

The Republic ◽

Trusted Data

Modern society is witnessing a data revolution which necessarily entails changes to the overall behavior of citizens, governments and companies. This is a big challenge and an opportunity for National Statistics Offices (NSOs). Especially after the outbreak of COVID-19, when the public debate about the number of mortalities and tested and infected persons escalated, trusted data is required more than ever. Which data can modern society trust? Are modern societies being subjected to opinion rather than fact? This paper introduces a new statistical tool to facilitate policy-making based on trusted statistics. Using economic indicators to illustrate implementation, the new statistical tool is shown to be a flexible instrument for analysis, monitoring and evaluation of the economic situation in the Republic of Serbia. By taking a role in public policy management, the tool can be used to transform the NSO’s role in the statistical system into an active participant in public debate in contrast to the previous traditional, usually passive role of collecting, processing and publishing data. The tool supports the integration of statistics into public policies and connects the knowledge and expertise of official statisticians on one side with political decision makers on the other.

Download Full-text