What role for public goods in the future of CAP?

The European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy continues to evolve. The public debate about its future post 2013 was launched in April 2010 and a formal Commission Communication on the future of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) was published in November 2010 (European Commission, 2010). The Commission’s detailed legislative proposals are now expected in October 2011. We focus here on one of the most important parts of the debate – public goods and the ‘greening of the CAP’. A major rationale for the large sums spent under the CAP each year appears now to be centred on the provision of public goods. We review the Commission’s proposals for the provision of public goods and raise questions about the apparent justification for the general approach. We question whether this logic properly appreciates the nature of public good problems and whether the apparently obvious solution – provision of compensatory payments from the public purse – actually solves any of the underlying public good problemsPublic Economics,

Content and Meaning Constitutive Inferences

A priori theories of justification of logic based on meaning often lead to trouble, in particular to issues concerning circularity. First, I present Boghossian’s a prioriview. Boghossian maintains the rule-circular justifications from a conceptual role semantics. However, rule-circular justifications are problematic. Recently, Boghossian (Boghossian, 2015) has claimed that rules should be thought of as contents and contents as abstract objects. In this paper, I discuss Boghossian’s view. My argumentation consists of three main parts. First, I analyse several arguments to show that in fact, Boghossian’s inferentialist solution is not fully satisfying. Second, I discuss the matter further, if one accepts that basic logical rules are constitutive of meaning, that is, they constitute the logical concepts and the content of a rule is an abstract object, then abstract objects — like, for example, rules — could be constitutive of meaning. The question is whether conceptual priority is in the judgment or in the object and what theory of content is pursued. Grasping content as a matter of knowing how a word or concept behaves in inferences is not completely explicative. Finally, I contend that rules come to exist as a result of certain kinds of mental action. These actions function as constitutive norms. Logical rules are not abstract objects but ideal. What one construes as norms or rules of content may involve idealization, but this is because we share a language

'Improper distance': towards a critical account of solidarity as irony

Silverstone's 'proper distance' is one of the most original and productive conceptualizations of a fundamental problem in the ethics of mediation: the humanization of vulnerable others. This is because 'proper distance' is not only a normative but also, importantly, an analytical concept. Whereas in its normative dimension, proper distance refers to the degree of proximity required for mediated relationships of care and responsibility to develop, in its analytical dimension, the metaphorical vocabulary of space becomes an important resource in evaluating how mediation produces 'humanity' through the positioning of mediated others along the axis of proximity-distance. My application of this analytical vocabulary to the mediation of humanitarianism enables me to create a typology of paradigms of solidarity, namely 'pity', 'irony' and 'agonism', highlighting the different ways in which their particular articulations of proximity-distance produce distinct conceptions of 'humanity' and, therefore, distinct proposals for solidarity towards vulnerable others. Focusing, specifically, on the critique of an emerging paradigm of solidarity as irony, I argue that, even though it appears as a promising response to pity and its misleading spatiality of universal proximity, irony celebrates consumerism as a reflexive distance-from-the self and is, therefore, unable to put forward a morally acceptable proposal of solidarity

Scaring the public: fear appeal arguments in public health reasoning

The study of threat and fear appeal arguments has given rise to a sizeable literature. Even within a public health context, much is now known about how these arguments work to gain the public's compliance with health recommendations. Notwithstanding this level of interest in, and examination of, these arguments, there is one aspect of these arguments that still remains unexplored. That aspect concerns the heuristic function of these arguments within our thinking about public health problems. Specifically, it is argued that threat and fear appeal arguments serve as valuable shortcuts in our reasoning, particularly when that reasoning is subject to biases that are likely to diminish the effectiveness of public health messages. To this extent, they are rationally warranted argument forms rather than fallacies, as has been their dominant characterization in logic

The Tyranny of a Metaphor

Debates on the practical relevance of ideal theory revolve around Sen's metaphor of navigating a mountainous landscape. In *The Tyranny of the Ideal*, Gerald Gaus presents the most thorough articulation of this metaphor to date. His detailed exploration yields new insight on central issues in existing debates, as well as a fruitful medium for exploring important limitations on our ability to map the space of social possibilities. Yet Gaus's heavy reliance on the navigation metaphor obscures questions about the reasoning by which ideal theories are justified. As a result, Gaus fails to notice the ways in which his theory of the Open Society resembles the ideal theories he aims to dismiss. Ironically, Gaus winds up neglecting the ways in which the Open Society might tyrannize our efforts to realize greater justice. (This article is part of a symposium on Gaus's *The Tyranny of the Ideal*.

Audit-based Compliance Control (AC2) for EHR Systems

Traditionally, medical data is stored and processed using paper-based files. Recently, medical facilities have started to store, access and exchange medical data in digital form. The drivers for this change are mainly demands for cost reduction, and higher quality of health care. The main concerns when dealing with medical data are availability and confidentiality. Unavailability (even temporary) of medical data is expensive. Physicians may not be able to diagnose patients correctly, or they may have to repeat exams, adding to the overall costs of health care. In extreme cases availability of medical data can even be a matter of life or death. On the other hand, confidentiality of medical data is also important. Legislation requires medical facilities to observe the privacy of the patients, and states that patients have a final say on whether or not their medical data can be processed or not. Moreover, if physicians, or their EHR systems, are not trusted by the patients, for instance because of frequent privacy breaches, then patients may refuse to submit (correct) information, complicating the work of the physicians greatly. \ud \ud In traditional data protection systems, confidentiality and availability are conflicting requirements. The more data protection methods are applied to shield data from outsiders the more likely it becomes that authorized persons will not get access to the data in time. Consider for example, a password verification service that is temporarily not available, an access pass that someone forgot to bring, and so on. In this report we discuss a novel approach to data protection, Audit-based Compliance Control (AC2), and we argue that it is particularly suited for application in EHR systems. In AC2, a-priori access control is minimized to the mere authentication of users and objects, and their basic authorizations. More complex security procedures, such as checking user compliance to policies, are performed a-posteriori by using a formal and automated auditing mechanism. To support our claim we discuss legislation concerning the processing of health records, and we formalize a scenario involving medical personnel and a basic EHR system to show how AC2 can be used in practice. \ud \ud This report is based on previous work (Dekker & Etalle 2006) where we assessed the applicability of a-posteriori access control in a health care scenario. A more technically detailed article about AC2 recently appeared in the IJIS journal, where we focussed however on collaborative work environments (Cederquist, Corin, Dekker, Etalle, & Hartog, 2007). In this report we first provide background and related work before explaining the principal components of the AC2 framework. Moreover we model a detailed EHR case study to show its operation in practice. We conclude by discussing how this framework meets current trends in healthcare and by highlighting the main advantages and drawbacks of using an a-posteriori access control mechanism as opposed to more traditional access control mechanisms

The false promise of the better argument

Effective argumentation in international politics is widely conceived as a matter of persuasion. In particular, the ‘logic of arguing’ ascribes explanatory power to the ‘better argument’ and promises to illuminate the conditions of legitimate normative change. This article exposes the self-defeating implications of the Habermasian symbiosis between the normative and the empirical force of arguments. Since genuine persuasion is neither observable nor knowable, its analysis critically depends on what scholars consider to be the better argument. Seemingly, objective criteria such as universality only camouflage such moral reification. The paradoxical consequence of an explanatory concept of arguing is that moral discourse is no longer conceptualized as an open-ended process of contestation and normative change, but has recently been recast as a governance mechanism ensuring the compliance of international actors with pre-defined norms. This dilemma can be avoided through a positivist reification of valid norms, as in socialization research, or by adopting a critical and emancipatory focus on the obstacles to true persuasion. Still, both solutions remain dependent on the ‘persuasion vs. coercion’ problem that forestalls an insight into successful justificatory practices other than rational communication. The conclusion therefore pleas for a pragmatic abstention from better arguments and points to the insights to be gained from pragmatist norms research in sociology