Should retributivists prefer pre-punishment?

Some philosophers believe that we can, in theory, justifiably pre-punish people – that is, punish them for a crime before they have committed that crime. In particular, it has been claimed that retributivists ought (in principle) to accept pre-punishment. The question of whether pre-punishment can be justified has sparked an interesting and growing philosophical debate. In this paper I look at a slightly different question: whether retributivists who accept that pre-punishment can be justified should prefer (ordinary) post-punishment or pre-punishment, or see them (in principle) as on a par. The answer is complex: asking this question brings to light unrecognised distinctions within both retributivism and pre-punishment, giving us four different answers to the question, depending on what kind of retributivism and what kind of pre-punishment are combined. Surprisingly, given that it is usually presented as a second best, to be pursued only when post-punishment is unavailable, some combinations will find pre-punishment preferable.

Entrepreneurship and cities: evidence from the post-communist world

While attributing urban success to more abundant supply of entrepreneurship, more recent studies on entrepreneurship have shifted their focus to examining cross-city variation in entrepreneurial activity. Despite a growing number of spatial-oriented studies of entrepreneurship worldwide to our best knowledge no empirical evidence exists on the determinants of cross-city variation in entrepreneurship in the context of the Former Soviet Union (FSU) states. Estrin and Mickiewicz (2010) show that transition economies generally exhibit lower rates of entrepreneurship than observed in most developed and developing market economies. This difference is even more pronounced for the FSU compared to Central and Eastern Europe. This paper investigates variation in entrepreneurial activity across FSU cities, attempting to bridge the city-level gap in spatial-oriented empirical research.