Suchergebnisse

Basic concepts -- Overall estimation of health disparities -- Domain-specific estimates -- Causality, moderation and mediation -- Machine learning based approaches to disparity estimation -- Health disparity estimation under a precision medicine paradigm -- Extended topics.

Is free labour under capitalism a contradiction in terms? Two aspects of this long-debated question are considered. One is the divide between the libertarian insistence on individual freedom and the socialist contention of proletarian class unfreedom. Is there a viewpoint free of judgments or valuations as to what is or is not interesting or valuable about any given view of freedom? We argue that the Rawlsian original position defines a value-free benchmark of maximal freedom from which the degree of unfreedom under any set of social rules can be assessed. While negative individual freedom and class unfreedom are not incompatible, 'free labour under capitalism' has got to be a contradiction in terms. But capitalism classically defined is production by doubly 'free' labour which sharply distinguishes it from forms of 'unfree' labour that constitute its pre-history. This raises both conceptual and substantive empirical questions defining the second divide we consider, between Marx's view linking capitalism and free labour and its detractors. Our contention is that keeping capitalism and unfree labour properly apart is a practical imperative of the continued use of these historically fruitful categories even if, as a corollary, 'unfree labour under capitalism' must seem a contradiction in terms.

Argues that equity must be at the core of a framework for international cooperation. Suggests that the potential value of equity may be considered at 3 different levels: equity and justice promote cooperative behaviour, itself needed for the provision of public goods; when the system is perceived to be fair and equitable, nations will participate in it willingly; globally equity is itself a public good that, without cooperation or coercion, may be under-supplied. (Original abstract - amended)

The liberal tradition assumes that some combination of international cooperation & coercion to produce global public goods is possible, even on the basis of self-interest alone. Here, it is argued that equity must be at the core of a framework for international cooperation. The potential value of equity may be considered at three different levels. (1) Equity & justice promote cooperative behavior, itself needed for the provision of public goods. Although social cohesion may not be an absolute precondition in the supply of public goods, its value lies in making cooperation easier & giving global rules greater legitimacy & sustainability. (2) When the system is perceived to be fair & equitable, nations will participate in it willingly; otherwise, their contributions individually & collectively will tend to be insufficient to make the system work well, or at all. (3) Global equity is itself a public good that, without cooperation or coercion, may be undersupplied. 11 References. Adapted from the source document.