The Domain of Distributive Justice: Personal Choices, Institutions, States of Affairs

This article examines G.A. Cohen’s celebrated critique of the Rawlsian doctrine of “the basic structure as subject.” Cohen describes the principal difference between his and Rawls’s view of “the site of distributive justice” – that is, of “the sorts of items to which principles of distributive justice apply” – by claiming that whereas in his view “both just rules and just personal choice within the framework set by just rules are necessary for distributive justice,” the Rawlsian view is that “distributive justice and injustice are features of the rules of the public order alone.” Despite the acuteness of Cohen’s criticisms of the Rawlsian positions he targets, there are important strands in Rawls’s view of the domain within which judgments of distributive justice can be made that are not adequately reflected in these positions. When these ambiguities in Rawls’s writings are given due weight, it emerges that the similarities between the views Rawls and Cohen take of the task of a theory of distributive justice are more striking than the differences. The only major difference, arguably, concerns the status of judgments about the “personal choices” the members of a society must make when their options are unconstrained by just institutional rules – that is, when the alternatives they can opt for are neither required nor prohibited by these rules. For Rawls these are choices they are at liberty to make in any way they please. According to Cohen, however, at least some of these choices must be made by direct appeal to the principles of distributive justice that underpin just institutional rules. Cet article analyse la critique justement célèbre par G.A. Cohen’s de la doctrine de Rawls concernant « la structure de base comme sujet ». Cohen décrit la différence principale entre son point de vue et celui de Rawls sur « le lieu de la justice distributive » -- c’est à dire les « types d’objets auxquels les principes de justice distributive s’appliquent » -- en soulignant que, tandis que pour lui, « les règles justes et les choix personnels justes dans le cadre de règles justes sont nécessaires pour la justice distributive », pour Rawls « la justice distributive et l’injustice sont des résultantes des seules règles d’ordre public ». Malgré la pertinence de la critique par Cohen de cette position de Rawls, certaines réflexions de Rawls quant au domaine de validité des jugements de justice distributive ne s’y conforment pas pleinement. Quand ces ambigüités des écrits de Rawls sont évaluées à leur juste mesure, il émerge que les similarités entre les visions que de Rawls et de Cohen sur les enjeux d’une théorie de la justice distributive sont plus frappantes que les différences. La seule différence majeure, peut-être, concerne le statut des jugements à propos des « choix personnels » que les membres d’une société doivent prendre quand ces options ne sont pas contraintes par des règles institutionnelles justes – c’est à dire, quand les alternatives parmi lesquelles ils peuvent choisir ne sont ni requises ni interdites par ces règles. Pour Rawls, ce sont des choix qu’ils sont libres de faire comme il leur plait. Chez Cohen, en revanche, certains de ces choix au moins nécessitent de se référer directement aux principes de justice distributive qui sous-tendent des règles institutionnelles justes

Recent developments in areas such as lobbying and voter registration vividly illustrate inequality’s threat to democracy

The impact of socio-economic inequality on democracy has long been debated, with most agreed that the democratic notion of equal representation is undermined by large gaps between the wealthiest and poorest citizens. Looking at examples from the United States, Alistair M. Macleod argues that the corporate lobbying is but one manifestation of the malign influence that this imbalance can have on democratic processes

Analysing GCN4 Translational Control in Yeast by Stochastic Chemical Kinetics Modelling and Simulation

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Marginal abatement cost curves for UK agriculture, forestry, land-use and land-use change sector out to 2022

Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, land use, land use change and forestry (ALULUCF) are a significant percentage of UK industrial emissions. The UK Government is committed to ambitious targets for reducing emissions and all significant industrial sources are coming under increasing scrutiny. The task of allocating shares of future reductions falls to the newly appointed Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which needs to consider efficient mitigation potential across a range of sectors. Marginal abatement cost curves are derived for a range of mitigation measures in the agriculture and forestry sectors over a range of adoption scenarios and for the years 2012, 2017 and 2022. The results indicate that in 2022 around 6.36 MtCO2e could be abated at negative or zero cost. Further, in same year over 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85MtCO2e) could be abated at a cost of less than the 2022 Shadow Price of Carbon (£34tCO2e).Environmental Economics and Policy,

MARGINAL ABATEMENT COST CURVES FOR UK AGRICULTURAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

This paper addresses the challenge of developing a ‘bottom-up’ marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) for greenhouse gas emissions from UK agriculture. A MACC illustrates the costs of specific crop, soil, and livestock abatement measures against a ‘‘business as usual’’ scenario. The results indicate that in 2022 under a specific policy scenario, around 5.38 MtCO2 equivalent (e) could be abated at negative or zero cost. A further 17% of agricultural GHG emissions (7.85 MtCO2e) could be abated at a lower unit cost than the UK Government’s 2022 shadow price of carbon (£34 (tCO2e)-1). The paper discusses a range of methodological hurdles that complicate cost-effectiveness appraisal of abatement in agriculture relative to other sectors.Climate change, Marginal abatement costs, Agriculture, Environmental Economics and Policy, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy, Q52, Q 54, Q58,

Pre-hospital notification is associated with improved stroke thrombolysis timing

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis of closely related wild and captive tsetse fly (Glossina morsitans morsitans) populations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Tsetse flies (Diptera: Glossinidae) are vectors of trypanosomes that cause sleeping sickness in humans and nagana in livestock across sub-Saharan Africa. Tsetse control strategies rely on a detailed understanding of the epidemiology and ecology of tsetse together with genetic variation within and among populations. High-resolution nuclear genetic markers are useful tools for elucidation of the genetic basis of phenotypic traits. In this study amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers were developed to analyze genetic variation in <it>Glossina morsitans morsitans </it>from laboratory and field-collected populations from Zimbabwe.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of seven hundred and fifty one loci from laboratory and field populations of <it>G. m. morsitans </it>from Zimbabwe were genotyped using AFLP with seven primer combinations. Analysis identified 335 polymorphic loci. The two populations could be distinguished by cluster and principal components analysis (PCA) analysis, indicating that AFLP markers can be used to separate genetically similar populations; at the same time differences observed between laboratory and field populations were not very great. Among the techniques investigated, the use of acetone was the most reliable method of preservation of tsetse for subsequent extraction of high molecular weight DNA. An interesting finding was that AFLP also enabled robust within-population discrimination of male and female tsetse flies due to their different X chromosome DNA complements.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>AFLP represents a useful additional tool to add to the suite of techniques currently available for the genetic analysis of tsetse populations and represents a useful resource for identification of the genetic basis of important phenotypic traits.</p

Breast cancer risk reduction:is it feasible to initiate a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention programme (ActWell) within a national breast screening programme?

BackgroundBreast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer and the second cause of cancer deaths amongst women in the UK. The incidence of the disease is increasing and is highest in women from least deprived areas. It is estimated that around 42% of the disease in post-menopausal women could be prevented by increased physical activity and reductions in alcohol intake and body fatness. Breast cancer control endeavours focus on national screening programmes but these do not include communications or interventions for risk reductionThis study aimed to assess the feasibility of delivery, indicative effects and acceptability of a lifestyle intervention programme initiated within the NHS Scottish Breast Screening Programme (NHSSBSP).MethodsA 1:1 randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the 3 month ActWell programme (focussing on body weight, physical activity and alcohol) versus usual care conducted in two NHSSBSP sites between June 2013 and January 2014. Feasibility assessments included recruitment, retention, and fidelity to protocol. Indicative outcomes were measured at baseline and 3 month follow-up (body weight, waist circumference, eating and alcohol habits and physical activity. At study end, a questionnaire assessed participant satisfaction and qualitative interviews elicited women¿s, coaches and radiographers¿ experiences. Statistical analysis used Chi squared tests for comparisons in proportions and paired t tests for comparisons of means. Linear regression analyses were performed, adjusted for baseline values, with group allocation as a fixed effectResultsA pre-set recruitment target of 80 women was achieved within 12 weeks and 65 (81%) participants (29 intervention, 36 control) completed 3 month assessments. Mean age was 58¿±¿5.6 years, mean BMI was 29.2¿±¿7.0 kg/m2 and many (44%) reported a family history of breast cancer.The primary analysis (baseline body weight adjusted) showed a significant between group difference favouring the intervention group of 2.04 kg (95%CI ¿3.24 kg to ¿0.85 kg). Significant, favourable between group differences were also detected for BMI, waist circumference, physical activity and sitting time. Women rated the programme highly and 70% said they would recommend it to others.ConclusionsRecruitment, retention, indicative results and participant acceptability support the development of a definitive RCT to measure long term effects.Trial registrationThe trial was registered with Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN56223933)

Securing a sustainable and fit-for-purpose UK health and care workforce

Approximately 13% of the total UK workforce is employed in the health and care sector. Despite substantial workforce planning efforts, the effectiveness of this planning has been criticised. Education, training, and workforce plans have typically considered each health-care profession in isolation and have not adequately responded to changing health and care needs. The results are persistent vacancies, poor morale, and low retention. Areas of particular concern highlighted in this Health Policy paper include primary care, mental health, nursing, clinical and non-clinical support, and social care. Responses to workforce shortfalls have included a high reliance on foreign and temporary staff, small-scale changes in skill mix, and enhanced recruitment drives. Impending challenges for the UK health and care workforce include growing multimorbidity, an increasing shortfall in the supply of unpaid carers, and the relative decline of the attractiveness of the National Health Service (NHS) as an employer internationally. We argue that to secure a sustainable and fit-for-purpose health and care workforce, integrated workforce approaches need to be developed alongside reforms to education and training that reflect changes in roles and skill mix, as well as the trend towards multidisciplinary working. Enhancing career development opportunities, promoting staff wellbeing, and tackling discrimination in the NHS are all needed to improve recruitment, retention, and morale of staff. An urgent priority is to offer sufficient aftercare and support to staff who have been exposed to high-risk situations and traumatic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing calls to recognise and reward health and care staff, growth in pay must at least keep pace with projected rises in average earnings, which in turn will require linking future NHS funding allocations to rises in pay. Through illustrative projections, we show that, to sustain annual growth in the workforce at approximately 2·4%, increases in NHS expenditure of 4% annually in real terms will be required. Above all, a radical long-term strategic vision is needed to ensure that the future NHS workforce is fit for purpose