It was some fifty years ago, when Harry Johnson came to the LSE and established his monetary seminar there, that Vicky Chick and I first met, and have remained friends and colleagues ever since. During these fifty years there have been several regime changes in monetary management. The Bretton Woods system of pegged exchange rates gave way in 1971–72 to a rather inchoate non-system of regional pegging (or fixing as in the euro-zone) combined with a – somewhat managed – float between major currencies. So, until the early 1970s, only the Fed in the USA had to concern itself with the principles, regime and rules for managing its domestic monetary system.
Critical engagement with copyright law has exposed its uncertain and compromised relationship with a range of concepts that inform its justificatory discourse. This engagement addresses, in varying ways and degrees, the mismatch between concepts and conditions of creativity and cultural production, on the one hand, and their mutant second life according to copyright law, on the other. The emergence of a literature on the political economy of copyright, in particular, has exposed the way in which the romantic discourse of copyright has been corrupted by its engagement with the capitalist system. At the same time and running parallel to these debates, copyright as a legal construct has been appropriated into substantial engagements with other legal constructs and regimes. This engagement, precisely because it calls – in often contradictory ways – on particular aspects of the copyright legal regime, provides fertile empirical ground on which to reflect on the debates over the meaning of copyright’s life and work. In the light of the critical literature on the copyright concept, this contribution considers the relationship of the copyright regime with the regimes of international trade, cultural rights and cultural heritage.
B. Guy Peters
Scholars and the individuals involved in making public policy use a variety of words to describe how they actually arrive at the content of those policies. Perhaps the most commonly used word is “formulation” (see Jordan and Turnpenny, 2015), but words such as creation, innovation, and development are also used to describe the process of finding some form of intervention to confront a policy problem. The hope is always that the policy that is formulated or created will be able to “solve” the problem, and that government (and citizens) can go on to cope with the next problem that arises. When Herbert Simon (1996, 111) wrote that “everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones”, the definition was somewhat generic but was definitely speaking to policy design. Although thinking about policy design has become more common in policy studies, it should be considered as a significant alternative to more casual ways of thinking about policy formulation. As Jan Tinbergen (1958, 3), a Nobel laureate in economics argued, design (in particular design for development policy) was an alternative to “decisions taken on the basis of a general idea of progress and often somewhat haphazardly”. That haphazard style of making policies persists in many countries and in many policy areas. Therefore, careful consideration of design strategies is important for both academic students of policy and policymakers in the “real world” of government.
Jonathan F. Cogliano, Peter Flaschel, Reiner Franke, Nils Fröhlich and Roberto Veneziani
This chapter revisits the symbiotic relationship between liberal freedom and human rights based on the central assumption that freedom is an external, linear, progressive pursuit by a universal, finite, thinking subject and includes the accumulation of more rights. The chapter unpacks this assumption, which obscures the shared and complex inheritance of liberal freedom and human rights that is grounded in the legacies of violence of the colonial encounter; the formulation of freedom within the terms of the market; claims to cultural, racial and civilizational supremacy; and the reproduction and reinforcement of gender stereotypes. Human rights thus emerge from within the fishbowl as a mode of global governance, embedded within relations of power, based on a hierarchy of the subject and producing unfreedom, rather than meaningful freedom.
Jack Anderson, Richard Parrish and Borja García
Mat Coleman and John Agnew
In this introductory chapter, we explore the question of power as a plural rather than singular phenomenon, and what approaching “power in the plural” might mean for geographers and others interested in the relationship between power and space. By exploring recent debates in political geography, as well as anticipating the wider and more daring arguments made by the authors collected together in this volume, we argue that the spatiality of power is never singular and easily modeled according to straightforward theoretical bullet-points, but instead is best approached as plural, contextually emergent and relational, and as deserving of concrete yet transductive investigation in particular spacings and timings. One of our core interests – drawing on a variety of intellectual sources, including critical realism, Henri Lefebvre’s discussion of power and space, and more recent research on topology and so-called new materialisms – is to move beyond what we see as a rather limited discussion of power and space in political geography, and as such to put political geography “in question” as the taken-for-granted “home” of theorizing the relationship between power and space.
In this editorial introduction, the editor reflects on the general nature of the concept of social justice, using the position of minority ethnic groups as a case example (to be developed in a later chapter). The rationale for the book is outlined: to retrieve social justice as a concept owned by the political left (and not a term which can be used from a variety of political standpoints), to understand how the concept might be understood in a number of national contexts, and to illuminate how the concept of social justice informs practice in a number of welfare contexts. Furthermore, because most of the debates in the book are set within a liberal ‘Western’ paradigm, the chapter begins a discussion about how the concept of social justice might be understood in other religious and national settings.
Trudie Knijn and Manuela Naldini
This introductory chapter summarizes the book and puts in in the perspective of the extent to which EU citizenship is different for women and men, for the young and the old, for those who stay in their own country and for those who move within the European Union. It introduces diverse aspects of EU citizenship ranging among the political citizenship of young Europeans, the civil and social rights of migrant care workers, reproductive rights and variations in family law among member states, and EU gender politics and policies. It signals a remarkable and paradoxical tendency towards expanding the right to family life, exemplified by recognition of family diversity by the European Court for Human Rights and EU law, which have more recently substantially reduced the autonomy of national jurisdiction in not granting the right to family life to ‘other’ types of family forms, and the current process of increasing family dependency because of limited social citizenship rights for non-wage workers.