Economic Ideas and the Political Construction of the Financial Crash of 2008

This article is a short introduction to a special section on economic ideas and the political construction of the financial crash. It begins by explaining why economic ideas and the politics of appeals to certain ideas are so integral to the historical significance of the crash of 2008 and the question of whether it can be considered a crash at all. The first section covers the literature on ideas and economic crisis. The second section highlights that the contribution of the special section is to engage in a stock taking exercise of the empirical and conceptual patterns concerning the politics of ideational change underway in the areas of: comparative fiscal policy; monetary policy and Euro zone debt management; capital controls; and financial and securities market regulation and standard setting. The final section outlines the structure of this special section and content of the individual articles.

Bearing Witness to the 'Pain of Others': Researching Power, Violence and Resistance in a Women's Prison

Addressing the dynamics of interpersonal violence, institutionalised abuses and prisoner isolation, this article consolidates critical analyses as challenges to the essentially liberal constructions and interpretations of prisoner agency and penal reformism. Grounded in long-term research with women in prison in the North of Ireland, it connects embedded, punitive responses that undermine women prisoners’ self-esteem and mental health to the brutalising manifestations of formal and informal punishments, including lockdowns and isolation. It argues that critical social research into penal policy and prison regimes has a moral duty, an ethical obligation and a political responsibility to investigate abuses of power, seek out the ‘view from below’. Challenging the revisionism implicit within the ‘healthy prison’ discourse, it argues for alternatives to prison as the foundation of decarceration and abolition.

Doing Gendered Time: The Harms of Women's Imprisonment

This chapter focuses on women’s imprisonment in the context of gendered punishment inflicted by the State. It considers the gender-specific consequences of incarceration for women prisoners and the potential of gender-responsive alternatives to custodial sentences. Following a brief historical overview, it traces the rise and consolidation of women’s incarceration in UK jurisdictions, noting the significance of devolution on the prison systems of Scotland and Northern Ireland. In examining the impact of neo-liberal policies and globalisation on women’s imprisonment, it draws comparisons with other advanced democratic states. Analysing the rationale underpinning the disproportionate rise in women’s incarceration, particularly in the UK and the USA the chapter identifies the persistent tensions between retributivism/ incapacitation and reformism/rehabilitation. Drawing on international research demonstrating the complex needs and vulnerabilities of women and girl prisoners, the chapter reveals the gendered harm experienced within penal regimes and the recent development - and limitations - of official gender-specific policies and practices. The emergence of distinct but related political discourses on ‘risk’ and ‘responsibilisation’ as applied to women in conflict with the law, and their consequent criminalisation, is critiqued in the contexts of structural disadvantage, gender discrimination and institutionalised racism. Within these oppressive dynamics often severe deprivations are inflicted on women’s acts of resistance both inside prison and in their communities post-release, further confining the potential of individual and collective agency. Finally, the chapter proposes fundamental change through establishing women-centred alternatives to prison, alongside policies committed to decarceration, while working towards securing the abolition of women’s imprisonment.

Raymond Geuss’ radicalization of realism in political theory

Raymond Geuss has been viewed as one of the figureheads of the recent debates about realism in political theory. This interpretation, however, depends on a truncated understanding of his work of the past 30 years. I will offer the first sustained engagement with this work (in English and German) which allows understanding his realism as a project for reorienting political theory, particularly the relationship between political theory and politics. I interpret this reorientation as a radicalization of realismin political theory through the combination of the emphasis on the critical purpose of political theory and the provision of practical, contextual orientation. Their compatibility depends on Geuss’ understanding of criticism as negative, of power as ‘detoxified’ and of the critical purchase of political theory as based on the diagnostic engagement with its context. This radicalization particularly challenges the understanding of how political theory relates to its political context.

Exposure to Political Violence in Northern Ireland and Outcome of First Episode Psychosis

The impact of political violence on individuals presenting with an episode of first episode psychosis has not been examined. Individuals were assessed for exposure to political violence in Northern Ireland (the “Troubles”) by asking for a response to 2 questions: one asked about the impact of violence “on your area”; the second about the impact of violence “on you or your family’s life.” The participants were separated into 2 groups (high and low impact) for each question. Symptom profiles and rates of substance misuse were compared across the groups at baseline and at 3-year follow up. Of the 178 individuals included in the study 66 (37.1%) reported a high impact of the “Troubles” on their life and 81 (45.5%) a high impact of the “Troubles” on their area. There were no significant differences in symptom profile or rates of substance misuse between high and low groups at presentation. At 3-year follow-up high impact of the “Troubles” on life was associated with higher Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS) Total (P = .01), PANSS-Positive (P < .05), and PANSS-General (P < .01) scores and lower global assessment of functioning disability (P < .05) scores, after adjusting for confounding factors. Impact of the “Troubles” on area was not associated with differences in symptom outcomes. This finding adds to the evidence that outcomes in psychosis are significantly impacted by environmental factors and suggests that greater attention should be paid to therapeutic strategies designed to address the impact of trauma.

The Dark Side of Nudging: The Ethics, Political Economy, and Law of Libertarian Paternalism

Libertarian paternalism, as advanced by Cass Sunstein, is seriously flawed, but not primarily for the reasons that most commentators suggest. Libertarian paternalism and its attendant regulatory implications are too libertarian, not too paternalistic, and as a result are in considerable tension with ‘thick’ conceptions of human dignity. We make four arguments. The first is that there is no justification for a presumption in favor of nudging as a default regulatory strategy, as Sunstein asserts. It is ordinarily less effective than mandates; such mandates rarely offend personal autonomy; and the central reliance on cognitive failures in the nudging program is more likely to offend human dignity than the mandates it seeks to replace. Secondly, we argue that nudging as a regulatory strategy fits both overtly and covertly, often insidiously, into a more general libertarian program of political economy. Thirdly, while we are on the whole more concerned to reject the libertarian than the paternalistic elements of this philosophy, Sunstein’s work, both in Why Nudge?, and earlier, fails to appreciate how nudging may be manipulative if not designed with more care than he acknowledges. Lastly, because of these characteristics, nudging might even be subject to legal challenges that would give us the worst of all possible regulatory worlds: a weak regulatory intervention that is liable to be challenged in the courts by well-resourced interest groups. In such a scenario, and contrary to the ‘common sense’ ethos contended for in Why Nudge?, nudges might not even clear the excessively low bar of doing something rather than nothing. Those seeking to pursue progressive politics, under law, should reject nudging in favor of regulation that is more congruent with principles of legality, more transparent, more effective, more democratic, and allows us more fully to act as moral agents. Such a system may have a place for (some) nudging, but not one that departs significantly from how labeling, warnings and the like already function, and nothing that compares with Sunstein’s apparent ambitions for his new movement.