The Experts below are selected from a list of 7743 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Adam Perry - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
plan b a theory of judicial review
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Adam PerryAbstract:There is no general theory of the grounds of judicial review (e.g., the rule against bias, the doctrine of legitimate expectations, unreasonableness). Here I try to fill the gap. My theory draws on ideas from the philosophy of law and the philosophy of action, but it’s a simple theory. Officials make decisions for the community. Their decisions are subject to requirements of Instrumental Rationality. Ideally, officials would figure out for themselves how to live up to these requirements. Because officials aren’t perfect, the law also has “Plan B”, which is for judges to ensure that officials do what Rationality requires of them. The grounds of judicial review are simply the grounds on which it’s rational for officials to reconsider, retain, suspend, or apply their decisions. The “Plan B theory”, as I call it, doesn’t account for every detail of judicial review. Even so, the theory is powerful, parsimonious, fruitful, and sharply at odds with almost everything else written about judicial review.
Joan Martinezalier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the politics of landscape value a case study of wind farm conflict in rural catalonia
Environment and Planning A, 2009Co-Authors: Christos Zografos, Joan MartinezalierAbstract:Conflicts over the installation of wind farms constrain the potential to adopt an effective means for mitigating climate change. Although conventional wisdom attributes wind farm opposition to ‘not in my back yard’ attitudes, research shows that this explanation fails to incorporate the multiplicity of underlying motivations of opposition. Instead, distributional and institutional factors and procedural opportunities for public participation significantly influence support for wind farms. We consider the relevance of a political ecology explanation of wind farm conflicts by focusing on a case study in rural Catalonia, Spain. We argue that the conflict constitutes a recurrence of older and broader ‘centre’–‘periphery’ antagonisms and that two more explanatory elements are complementary to this political ecology explanation: the existence of alternative landscape valuations and the encouragement of Instrumental Rationality by the planning framework. We suggest that the absence of opportunities for meaningfu...
-
the politics of landscape value a case study of wind farm conflict in rural catalonia
Environment and Planning A, 2009Co-Authors: Christos Zografos, Joan MartinezalierAbstract:Conflicts over the installation of wind farms constrain the potential to adopt an effective means for mitigating climate change. Although conventional wisdom attributes wind farm opposition to ‘not in my back yard’ attitudes, research shows that this explanation fails to incorporate the multiplicity of underlying motivations of opposition. Instead, distributional and institutional factors and procedural opportunities for public participation significantly influence support for wind farms. We consider the relevance of a political ecology explanation of wind farm conflicts by focusing on a case study in rural Catalonia, Spain. We argue that the conflict constitutes a recurrence of older and broader ‘centre’ – ‘periphery’ antagonisms and that two more explanatory elements are complementary to this political ecology explanation: the existence of alternative landscape valuations and the encouragement of Instrumental Rationality by the planning framework. We suggest that the absence of opportunities for meaningful deliberation in decision making and the predominance of decisional bottom lines curtail claims to fairer distribution of costs and benefits from locally hosted energy developments, as well as alternative landscape value claims, and that this fuels conflict.
Robert Sugden - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
rational choice a survey of contributions from economics and philosophy
The Economic Journal, 1991Co-Authors: Robert SugdenAbstract:This paper looks at the philosophical foundations of rational-choice theory. It is argued that L. Savage's expected-utility axioms cannot be defended as requirements of Instrumental Rationality, in part because of their implications for the description of consequences. Then it is argued that common knowledge of Rationality does not imply that rational game-players must be in Nash equilibrium, and for some games is an incoherent concept. Finally, the suggestion that rational-choice theory is self-defeating is examined in relation to coordination games (where the theory cannot explain the role of salience) and the concept of "resolute" choice. Copyright 1991 by Royal Economic Society.
Edella Schlager - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
policy making and collective action defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework
Policy Sciences, 1995Co-Authors: Edella SchlagerAbstract:Research on policy communities, policy networks, and advocacy coalitions represents the most recent effort by policy scholars in North America and Europe to meaningfully describe and explain the complex, dynamic policy making processes of modern societies. While work in this tradition has been extraordinarily productive, issues of collective action have not been carefully addressed. Focusing on the advocacy coalitions (AC) framework developed by Sabatier (1988) and Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) as an example of a productive research program within the policy network tradition, this article (1) examines the potential of the AC framework, with its emphasis on beliefs, policy learning, and preference formation, to provide richer explanations of policy making processes than frameworks grounded exclusively in Instrumental Rationality; (2) suggests that paradoxically, however, the AC framework can more fully realize its potential by admitting the explanations of collective action from frameworks based on Instrumental Rationality; (3) incorporates within the AC framework accounts of how coalitions form and maintain themselves over time and of the types of strategies coalitions are likely to adopt to pursue their policy goals; and (4) derives falsifiable collective action hypotheses that can be empirically tested to determine whether incorporating theories of collective action within the AC framework represents a positive, rather than a degenerative, expansion of the AC framework.
Jurgen Haacke - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the frankfurt school and international relations on the centrality of recognition
Review of International Studies, 2005Co-Authors: Jurgen HaackeAbstract:The works of Jurgen Habermas have amounted to an inspiration to many within IR. His writings on communicative Rationality and communicative action are widely regarded as a useful counterpoint to the emphasis on Instrumental Rationality and strategic action. Also, Habermas has greatly influenced the development of Critical International Theory. However, as other contributions in this Forum demonstrate, IR scholars have at times found it difficult to apply Habermas to service their specific social scientific inquiries. In particular, it has been difficult to unequivocally locate communicative action in diplomatic exchanges or international negotiations. It is partly for this reason that the contributions of the so-called ‘Third Generation’ of Frankfurt School scholars have attracted increasing interest. Axel Honneth's attempts to reconstruct insights in relation to the struggle for recognition into a social theory (with critical intent) have to date been of particular importance in this context. Indeed, given the perceived difficulties in ‘applying’ Habermas, there appears to be an emerging trend to end the honeymoon with Habermas in favour of a reorientation toward Honneth.