Armstrong's Resource-Egalitarianism Theory and Attachment

The paper analyses the interrelationship between Armstrong’s egalitarian theory and his treatment of the ‘attachment theory’ of resources, which is the dominant rival theory of resources that his theory is pitched against. On Armstrong’s theory, egalitarianism operates as a default position, from which special claims would need to be justified, but he also claims to be able to incorporate 'attachment' into his theory. The general question explored in the paper is the extent to which ‘attachment’ claims can be ‘married’ to an egalitarian theory. The more specific argument is that a properly constrained attachment theory is more plausible than Armstrong’s egalitarian theory. It also criticizes attachment and improvement accounts as justifying permanent sovereignty over resources. The paper argues that neither of those arguments aim to justify the international doctrine of permanent sovereignty.

Causal effects and counterfactual conditionals: contrasting Rubin, Lewis and Pearl

Rubin and Pearl offered approaches to causal effect estimation and Lewis and Pearl offered theories of counterfactual conditionals. Arguments offered by Pearl and his collaborators support a weak form of equivalence such that notation from the rival theory can be re-purposed to express Pearl’s theory in a way that is equivalent to Pearl’s theory expressed in its native notation. Nonetheless, the many fundamental differences between the theories rule out any stronger form of equivalence. A renewed emphasis on comparative research can help to guide applications, further develop each theory, and better understand their relative strengths and weaknesses.

A snap of your true self: How self-presentation and temporal affordance influence self-concept on social media

This study examined how self-presentation on social media influences the way people view themselves. It also examined whether that varies with sites using two temporal features: posts which have a short life (ephemeral) and those which live indefinitely (permanent). Drawing on both the notion of public commitment and self-symbolizing, our experiment provided a critical test of two rival theory-driven hypotheses—one suggesting a greater internalization of presented self on permanent rather than ephemeral social media and the other suggesting the opposite pattern. Supporting the self-symbolizing perspective, those who publicly presented themselves on ephemeral social media internalized their portrayed personality. Also, such a difference in internalization between the two conditions was triggered by an introverted self-presentation. Results suggest that ephemerality enhances self-symbolizing efforts and the subsequent internalization by affording nonstrategic self-presentation and reducing impression management concerns. Implications for understanding self-concept change in social media contexts are discussed.

1. Theories of European Integration

This chapter examines a number of theories of European integration. It first considers the intellectual predecessors of the first attempts to theorize European integration, focusing in particular on the functionalism of David Mitrany, the federalism of Altiero Spinelli, and the ‘federal-functionalism’ of Jean Monnet. It discusses neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism, along with liberal intergovernmentalism, and the fact that while theorizing European integration has moved on significantly from these early approaches, much of what followed was either framed by this debate or developed as a rejection of it. The chapter then introduces postfunctionalism as a more recent rival theory that helps explain the greater political controversy surrounding integration in the period following the Maastricht period, and particularly during the 2010s.

A Union of Peoples

This book offers a legal and political theory of the European Union. Many political and legal philosophers compare the EU to a federal union. They believe that its basic laws should be subject to the standards of constitutional law. They thus find it lacking or incomplete. This book offers a rival theory. If one looks more closely at the treaties and the precedents of the European courts, one sees that the substance of EU law is international, not constitutional. Just like international law, it applies primarily to the relations between states. It binds domestic institutions directly only when the local constitutions allow it. The member states have democratically chosen to adapt their constitutional arrangements in order to share legislative and executive powers with their partners. The legal architecture of the European Union is thus best understood under a theory of dualism and not pluralism. According to this internationalist view, EU law is part of the law of nations and its distinction from domestic law is a matter of substance, not form. This arrangement is supported by a cosmopolitan theory of international justice, which we may call progressive internationalism. The EU is a union of democratic peoples, that freely organize their interdependence on the basis of principles of equality and reciprocity. Its central principles are not the principles of a constitution, but cosmopolitan principles of accountability, liberty, and fairness,

Dualism

This chapter discusses the general relationship of EU law with domestic law. The positivist account of law produces two paradoxical accounts of EU law. The first account is the theory of European ‘monism’, supposing that the EU is the foundation of all law in the member states. The second is ‘radical pluralism’ which says that there are no legal rules applying to the relations between EU law and domestic law. They are both mistaken, because they are both based on a picture of law as a hierarchy or ‘system’ of rules created by a formal doctrine of legal validity. Under the positivist view, inspired by Kelsen and Hart, all legal ‘systems’ must compete for supremacy of their ‘basic norm’ or ‘rule of recognition’. In this sense EU law must compete with domestic law. Legal positivism is false and must be rejected. Dualism, by contrast, relies on the rival theory of law which says that law is a matter of substantive moral judgment. It has no need for a single ‘ultimate’ rule or fact at its foundation. In this analysis, domestic law and international law do not compete because they apply to distinct political questions. The first is an answer to the problems of jurisdiction and the second is the answer to the relations among states. Dualism is the best legal interpretation of the relations between EU law and domestic law.

Application of the Effective Innovation Leadership Model in a Digital Innovation Project

Germany has become sedate and partially missed digital opportunities generating value. Since 1995, the term innovation leadership is getting increasing attention. Still, there exists no clear definition. The effective innovation leadership (EIL) model resulted from a Ph.D. thesis and is grounded in the iteration of six data sets. It has been used in industry since 2014. This chapter examines the application of the EIL model in one German middle-class enterprise in 2018/2019. Core challenges in the systemic context, which hinder the effectiveness of innovation leadership in the organizational context, are the support of people across functions and hierarchies as well as inflexible structures and digital access. Especially negative pressure coming from an overvaluation of the shareholder, egos fighting for power, extensive drama triangular, fixed mindsets, and freeloaders hinder the effectiveness of innovation leadership. A comparison of the EIL model with rival theory shows that innovation leadership is close to entrepreneurial approaches and an integral part of innovation management.

The Natural Environment

Chapter 4 shows that late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century geography books frequently posit a causal relationship between environmental conditions and social development. Europe’s beneficial natural environment is often presumed to be at the heart of its advanced societal achievements, although a rival theory suggests that Europeans have thrived by overcoming specific environmental adversities. At the root of these debates are questions about determinism and human agency, and uncertainty about whether to define Europe in terms of natural conditions or social accomplishments.

THE SMALL IMPROVEMENT ARGUMENT, EPISTEMICISM AND INCOMPARABILITY

The Small Improvement Argument (SIA) is the leading argument for value incomparability. All vagueness-based accounts of the SIA have hitherto assumed the truth of supervaluationism, but supervaluationism has some well-known problems. This paper explores the implications of epistemicism, a leading rival theory. We argue that if epistemicism is true, then options are comparable in small improvement cases. Moreover, even if SIAs do not exploit vagueness, if epistemicism is true, then options cannot be on a par. The epistemicist account of the SIA has an advantage over leading existing rival accounts of the SIA because it accounts for higher-order hard cases.