Priority View Research Articles

Political Diversity at the Nineteenth Congress of the CPSU, October 1952

AbstractThis essay argues that the definition of the USSR's political system as a “party-state,” ignores the crucial difference between the majority of the members of the CPSU who hold positions in the Soviet state and the minority who are full time party officials with no such position and who regard themselves as the natural leaders of the party as a whole. To highlight this distinction, this essay defines the party officials as the “inner party” and the party members who man the state as the “outer party” and focuses on the ongoing dispute among party officials over the most effective way to provide leadership of the Soviet state. This conflict is expressed indirectly in the published discussion of the relative importance of officials' “internal work” (personnel management, verification of fulfillment and ideological education) and their “economic work” the close supervision of state agencies' administration of the five year plans. The essay briefly summarizes Stalin's own formulations on the subject, the conflict between Malenkov and Zhdanov over this issue from 1939 to 1948, and the ongoing debate among officials after the reform of the departments of the Secretariat in 1948. The bulk of the essay analyzes the widely divergent views of officials' priorities presented at the Nineteenth Congress of the CPSU in October 1952. It concludes that Western scholars have generally underestimated the role of the Congress in the creation of the political oligarchy that ruled the USSR after 1953.

Diplomacy, Ethics and the National Interest: What Are Diplomats For?

AbstractDrawing on the writer’s experience as a former British diplomat who served in Cold War Poland and elsewhere, this article explores rival concepts of the diplomat’s functions: the traditional UK Foreign Office emphasis on competitively and exclusively promoting the national interest; versus alternatively concentrating on the internationalist, ethical obligations that should govern diplomatic (and other) behaviour. Interference in the host country’s internal affairs is formally prohibited, but the question of whether diplomats’ contacts with, and implied moral support for, democratic dissident movements that are opposed to their undemocratic governments amount to unacceptable intervention raises difficult practical, political and ethical questions. An example of differing possible responses to a development aid proposal illustrates the dilemma. Differing views of diplomatic priorities and objectives, embedded in contrasting cultures at the UK Foreign Office and Department for International Development respectively, need to be sensitively resolved, mainly in the latter’s favour.

Private Life and the English Judges

Developments in both Convention jurisprudence and the English courts since the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 have significantly extended the reach of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and thus the powers of the judges who administer that broadly-defined provision. Those developments include confirmation that article 8 operates horizontally between private citizens as well as in public law; extension of article 8 to issues of personal autonomy as well as to more narrowly understood issues of privacy; increased emphasis on (judicially determined) proportionality and fair balance; and softening of the criteria for the engagement of article 8 in the first place. The English courts at the highest level have recognized that these developments require them to make decisions on issues of social or even moral priority, extending as far as critical scrutiny of criminal practice and sentencing. Recent cases in the House of Lords such as Countryside Alliance and R v G demonstrate a significant level of disagreement as to how those powers should be exercised, with the result that the outcome of future article 8 cases may depend on the judges’ personality and view of social priorities.

Reconsidering the Value of Equality

Some people believe that the equality of people's well-being makes an outcome better, other things being constant. Call this Telic Egalitarianism. In this paper I will propose a new interpretation of Telic Egalitarianism, and compare it with the interpretation that is proposed by Derek Parfit 1995 and widely accepted by many philosophers. I will argue that my proposed interpretation is more plausible than Parfit's. One of the virtues in my interpretation is that it shows his Levelling Down Objection does not undermine Telic Egalitarianism. I also believe that my interpretation better explains the important similarity and difference between Telic Egalitarianism and his proposed Priority View.

Why It Matters That Some Are Worse Off Than Others: An Argument against the Priority View

We are grateful to Arthur Applbaum, Alexander Barker, Ken Binmore, Johan Brannmark, Boudewijn de Bruin, Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, G. A. Cohen, Nir Eyal, Brian Feltham, Marc Fleurbaey, Alon Harel, Nils Holtug, Annabelle Lever, Kasper lippert-Rasmussen, Ve*ronique Munoz-Darde*, Erik Nord, Derek Parfit, Ingmar Persson, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Toni Ronnow-Rasmussen, Carlos Soto, Katie Steele, Peter Vallentyne, Ralph Wedgwood, Andrew Williams, Michael J. Zimmerman, and the Editors of Philosophy & Public Affairs for their comments. This article was presented to audiences at All Souls College, Erasmus University, the Free University of Amsterdam, Harvard University, LSE, Lund University, the University de Montreal, Rutgers University, UCL, and the Universities of Bristol, Edinburgh, Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Manchester, Pittsburgh, Warwick, and York. We are grateful to those present for their comments. Alex Voorhoeve's work was aided by a British Academy Small Research Grant for the project Rational Choice and Moral DecisionMaking, and Michael Otsuka's was supported by an AHRC Research Grant on the Ethics of Risk. 1. Unless we indicate otherwise, it should be assumed that the health states we refer to in this article will last from early adulthood until the end of the lives of individuals with equally long life spans, that people are equally well off in all respects other than those to which their differences in mobility give rise, that everyone who is in the same health state is at the same (interpersonally comparable) level of utility, and that it is through no choice or fault of any individual that she suffers from or is vulnerable to any impairment.

A TALE OF TWO EPISCOPAL SURVEYS: THE STRANGE FATES OF EDMUND GRINDAL AND CUTHBERT MAYNE REVISITED

ABSTRACTThis article seeks to relate the course of Edmund Grindal's disgrace to the formulation and enforcement of policy against catholics. It argues that the two were integrally related and that the nature of that interrelationship can be seen as a function of certain manoeuvres and debates about a range of issues involving the queen and her councillors and bishops and indeed members of the wider regime. The resulting exchanges were conducted in terms of the nature and relative significance of the popish and puritan threats. The aim here is to reveal the dynamics of the resulting mode of ideological politics and to show how very serious differences of approach, priority and world view could be both canvassed and contained within the consensual mechanisms and assumptions of the Elizabethan regime. Through a close analysis of one political moment the paper also hopes to demonstrate the extent to which a series of conventionally separately told stories – about ecclesiastical affairs, about foreign policy, about puritans and about catholics, about both court and local politics – need to be seen as parts of a unitary political narrative or process, the nature of which this paper is an attempt to reveal.

Practitioner Views of Priorities, Policies, and Practices in Juvenile Justice

Dramatic changes in juvenile justice have occurred in recent decades. One result has been the emergence of new policies and practices, many of which remain largely unexamined. One avenue for gaining insight into whether such policies and practices are needed or effective, as well as into how the juvenile justice system might be improved, is to tap into the perceptions of people who work within this system. Drawing on a national survey of juvenile court practitioners, the authors investigate key questions about the effectiveness of juvenile justice and discuss the implications of the study’s findings for research, policy, and practice.

Research Priorities in Suicide Prevention in Australia

This project sought to inform priority setting in Australian suicide prevention research, by empirically examining existing priorities and by seeking stakeholders' views on where future priorities might lie. Existing priorities were examined via reviews of Australian literature published and grants funded during the life of the National Suicide Prevention Strategy (1999-2006). Stakeholders' views of future priorities were elicited via a questionnaire administered to 11 groups comprising 231 individuals with an interest in suicide prevention. The study identified 263 journal articles and 36 grants. The journal articles most commonly reported on studies of descriptive epidemiology, while the grants tended to fund intervention studies. Both gave roughly equal weight to completed and attempted suicide, and gave little emphasis to studies of suicide methods. Young people were the most frequently-researched target group, with people with mental health problems and people who had attempted suicide or deliberately self-harmed also receiving attention. Stakeholders indicated that emphasis should be given to intervention studies, and that completed suicide and attempted suicide are both important. In terms of suicide method, they felt the focus should be on poisoning by drugs and hanging. They had mixed views about the target groups that should be afforded priority, although young people and people with mental health problems were frequently ranked highly. This paper presents a picture of the current focus with regard to suicide prevention research, identifying some areas where there are clear gaps and others where relatively greater efforts have been made. By combining this information with stakeholders' views of where future priorities should lie, the paper provides some guidance as to the shape a future suicide prevention research agenda for Australia should take. A strategic approach to suicide prevention research will help fill internationally-identified gaps in knowledge about what works and what doesn't work in suicide prevention.

UTILITARIANISM AND PRIORITARIANISM II

The priority view has become very popular in moral philosophy, but there is a serious question about how it should be formalized. The most natural formalization leads to ex post prioritarianism, which results from adding expected utility theory to the main ideas of the priority view. But ex post prioritarianism entails a claim which is too implausible for it to be a serious competitor to utilitarianism. In fact, ex post prioritarianism was probably never a genuine alternative to utilitarianism in the first place. By contrast, ex ante prioritarianism is defensible. But its motivation is very different from the usual rationales offered for the priority view. Given the untenability of ex post prioritarianism, it is more natural for most friends of the priority view to revert to utilitarianism.

Evaluating the Shareholder Primacy Theory: Evidence from a Survey of Australian Directors

An important debate in corporate governance concerns the validity of the shareholder primacy theory, a theory which depicts the role of company directors as primarily being to act in the interests of shareholders and maximize the wealth of shareholders. This paper reports the results of a survey of company directors that had, among its objectives, testing the validity of the shareholder primacy theory. The authors present the survey findings on four questions: 1. whether directors prioritize the interests of shareholders above the interests of employees and other stakeholders; 2. whether, if that is the case, the source of that prioritisation lies in legal obligation or duty; 3. whether directors in types of companies corresponding to the market/outsider model are more inclined to prioritize shareholder interests (the authors test two models derived from the work of others - the market/outsider model and the insider/relational model where the market/outsider model is based upon indicators such as the company being listed and higher levels of shareholdings by institutional investors); and 4. whether the prioritisation of shareholder interests tends to come at the expense of employees. The key conclusions of the authors include: 1. The shareholder primacy view of directors' priorities has considerable cogency but the results of the survey indicate that this cannot be reduced to a simple proposition that directors will necessarily pursue shareholders' interests at the expense of other stakeholders. There is very little evidence, for example, that directors see short term returns to shareholders through share price or other short term gains as a priority. Clearly, though, shareholders are seen as important and, probably, the most important, of stakeholders. 2. How this prioritisation plays out in directors' minds, however, is far from clear cut. It evidently does not follow that other stakeholders are not prioritised or that their interests are not attended to or seen as legitimate. Other evidence derived from the survey results indicates that employees, for example, are also ranked highly in these respects and sometimes ranked more highly than shareholders. 3. Whatever the normative strength of the shareholder primacy view, shareholder primacy is not derived from a legal obligation on the part of directors, nor is it derived from a view by directors that they are under an obligation to pursue such a policy. Directors indicate that they are legally free to pursue any strategy which they feel will benefit all stakeholders.

Service users' views of self-help strategies and research in the UK

Background: Self-help approaches for mental health problems are a research and service development priority within the UK.Aim: To engage service users in the research process through a consultation exercise, seek their views on the strategies they use to manage their lives and priorities for research into self-help.Method: Service users were involved in planning and conducting a consultation event and in analysing, interpreting and disseminating the findings. Forty nine service users attended the consultation event. Notes and key points from focus groups discussions were analysed to identify main themes.Results: Five themes for service user self-help strategies were identified; managing and structuring the day; empowerment; engaging others to help yourself; physical health and well being; and spirituality. Four research priority areas in self-help were identified: the importance of user-led research; research into self-help strategies to improve physical health and well being; mapping of available services and self-help approaches; and what works and why.Conclusions: Self-help research and developments should take account of these service users' views of research priorities and the strategies they use to manage their lives.Declaration of interest: The project was initiated by Psychological Therapies Network North (PsyReNN). Funding for the venue and service user expenses was provided by the NIMHE Regional Development Centre, North East, Yorkshire and Humberside and by the Tees and North East Yorkshire Mental Health and Learning Disabilities NHS Trust.

The Doctrine of Sufficiency: A Defence

This article proposes an analysis of the doctrine of sufficiency. According to my reading, the doctrine's basic positive claim is ‘prioritarian’: benefiting x is of special moral importance where (and only where) x is badly off. Its negative claim is anti-egalitarian: most comparative facts expressed by statements of the type ‘x is worse off than y’ have no moral significance at all. This contradicts the ‘classical’ priority view according to which, although equality per se does not matter, whenever x is worse off than y, at least some priority should be assigned to helping x. Section I elaborates and defends this reconstruction of the doctrine of sufficiency, and section II shows that the privileged utility level presumed within the sufficiency framework exists.

Older people’s views of prioritization in health care

The aim of this study was to investigate and compare older people's views of prioritization in health care with specific regard to age, gender and HRQoL. The sample was collected from a prospective longitudinal cohort study, the GAS project (Good Ageing in Skane) that is in progress in Sweden. For this study, 902 persons, 424 men and 478 women, aged between 60 and 93 years, were invited consecutively over a period of 17 months to participate in an additional structured interview based on an interview manual. Socio-demographic and HRQoL data were collected from the GAS project. For the analysis, the sample was divided into age groups: young-old, old-old, and oldest-old. Older people in general did not want age as a criterion for prioritization in health care. When pain was added as a criterion, age became even less important than when it was the sole criterion. The oldest-old, to a higher degree than the other age groups, prioritized younger patients, as did men, while women, more than men, preferred "old age" as an indicator for prioritization. The respondents' views on prioritization were also more associated with age and gender than HRQoL. Older people's views of priorities seem to differ from previous population-based studies, in that age per se as a criterion for selection between patients was not favored; health and wellbeing were more important. Differences were, however, found within the group of older people, as regards both age and gender.

Assessing executive leadership: an integral approach

PurposeThe paper offers an example of an approach to translating integral concepts into language that is accessible to executive leaders in business without resorting to introducing the complexity of integral theory and models.Design/methodology/approachThe phase of intervention is data gathering prior to feedback of data, action planning or change interventions. The model is presented along with examples of its implementation. The methodology and implementation follows principles derived from organization development and change methodologies.FindingsTime availability for “educational interventions”, particularly in the initial phases of an intervention with executives is usually very limited. Having an approach that is integrally informed supports the gathering and organization of quality data from interviews and lays the foundation for individual and team coaching interventions that may include introduction of integral models and concepts to support executive leadership. The approach clarifies for the individual and the executive team their views of the requisite priorities, skills and processes for effectiveness within the team and in relation to stakeholders.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper is suggestive of a more comprehensive approach to research on leadership and its development in organizations.Practical implicationsSince contracting for change is a critical element in successful interventions, an integral approach fosters more effective contracting due to the thoroughness of data identified.Originality/valuePresents an application of integral theory that is unique and that has been tested in organization change interventions at the executive level.

Policy Beliefs in Spatial Decisions: Contrasting Core Beliefs Concerning Space-making for Waste Infrastructure

In planning the existence of structural differences in policy, beliefs among stakeholders are crucial. This study concludes that the most salient contrasts in beliefs about spatial and environmental planning concern the way the process is managed. Some of those contrasts reflect fundamental assumptions about the possibilities for reaching consensus and the relevance of involvement of actors in the process. The beliefs of the key actors involved in six siting decisions about waste infrastructure were identified and analysed by using Q methodology and cultural theory. This revealed that core beliefs about choices in environmental policy and waste management are connected with beliefs about spatial planning. The contrasts mainly concern issues of scale linked to competences regarding decision-making. The belief system of dominating actors is mainly hierarchical, combined with a technocratic approach to waste management prioritising incineration. Two alternative belief systems emphasised prevention as priority and egalitarian views on spatial decisions. Although the hierarchical approach of dominant coalitions was far from effective, the tendency remains of increasing top-down planning. Facility siting is increasingly framed in terms of larger areas and the reliance on hierarchical planning fits the authoritarian bias that emerges in such rescaling processes.

Valuing and using web supported teaching: A staff development role in closing the gaps

<span>This paper describes findings from a 2002-03 research project which sought to establish what the barriers were to the adoption or extended use of the centrally supported online learning management and content creation system by academic staff at the University of Adelaide. The research was conducted using semi-structured interviews and a survey administered to all teaching staff at the University. The survey canvassed respondents' use of and the value they placed on web supported teaching (particularly the centrally supported learning management system MyUni) and barriers to its adoption and further use. Respondents reported a higher valuing of and future intention to use than their current use of the Internet to support teaching. Factors that constrained their adoption or expanded use of web supported teaching included time and workload pressures, concerns about knowledge and skills, conceptions of teaching and the value of web supported learning for improving student outcomes, and the perceived stability and integration of the University infrastructure and learning management system. Respondents' views of priorities in addressing these concerns related to improved support from the University for web supported teaching, including staff development and training, IT and administrative support, and management support. This paper discusses some staff development implications of the findings.</span>

The nouns that define us

I am humbled by this Presidency. I love this organization. It has been good to me. More importantly, it has been good for patients with breast disease and breast cancer. The primary goal of my address today is twofold. I aim to encourage you, the members, in the pursuit of our missions. Secondly, I will offer some comments which may be perhaps taken by some of you in a more personal light. I am about to give you one person's view of societal and personal priorities for the future. I do not claim to be Solomon; I am even sure that some of these things I espouse are not completely true, but some of them are.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN (MODERATE) EGALITARIANISM AND PRIORITARIANISM?

It is common to define egalitarianism in terms of an inequality ordering, which is supposed to have some weight in overall evaluations of outcomes. Egalitarianism, thus defined, implies that levelling down makes the outcome better in respect of reducing inequality; however, the levelling down objection claims there can be nothing good about levelling down. The priority view, on the other hand, does not have this implication. This paper challenges the common view. The standard definition of egalitarianism implicitly assumes a context. Once this context is made clear, it is easily seen that egalitarianism could be defined alternatively in terms of valuing a benefit to a person inversely to how well off he is relative to others. The levelling down objection does not follow from this definition. Moreover, the common definition does not separate egalitarian orderings from prioritarian ones. It is useful to do this by requiring that on egalitarianism, additively separable orderings should be excluded. But this requirement is stated as a condition on the alternative definition of egalitarianism, from which the levelling down objection does not follow.

Risk, equality, and the priority view

This paper (i) reveals a conflict between equality and efficiency in society's risk management, and (ii) proposes a strategy for addressing it. According to the proposed strategy, the difference in risk levels faced by individuals is normatively irrelevant, even though the absolute level faced by an individual can sometimes motivate extra concern. It is shown that this position can be conceived of as a slight extension of Derek Parfit's (1991 and 1997) much discussed priority view, from deterministic decisions to indeterministic ones.

The claim from adoption.

In this article several justifications of what I call 'the claim from adoption' are examined. The claim from adoption is that, instead of expending resources on bringing new children into the world using reproductive technology and then caring for these children, we ought to devote these resources to the adoption and care of existing destitute children. Arguments trading on the idea that resources should be directed to adoption instead of assisted reproduction because already existing people can benefit from such a use of resources whereas we cannot benefit individuals by bringing them into existence are rejected. It is then argued that a utilitarian argument proposed by Christian Munthe that supports the claim from adoption in some situations should be rejected because the support it offers does not extend to certain situations in which it seems morally obvious that resources should be expended on adoption rather than assisted reproduction. A version of the Priority View improves upon Munthe's utilitarianism by supporting the claim from adoption in the cases in which Munthe's argument failed. Some allegedly counterintuitive implications of the Priority View are then discussed, and it is concluded that the Priority View is more plausible than utilitarianism. In a concluding section on policy issues it is argued that, even though the claim from adoption can be justified in a variety of situations, it does not follow that, in these situations, governments should direct resources away from assisted reproduction and towards adoption.