China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Don’t be evil
Published in Jack J. Barry, Information Communication Technology and Poverty Alleviation, 2018
If internet access can theoretically be considered instrumental to many rights it needs to be further elucidated how access fits into instrumental theory. A utilitarian perspective of instrumental theory depicts rights as instruments for achieving an optimal distribution of utility (Wenar 2008), however, an objection to grounding rights in such a utilitarian theory is that resulting rights will be too “flimsy.” If rights are justified only insofar as they generate good consequences, it may seem that instrumental rights theory based on utilitarianism will need to prune its rights, perhaps severely, whenever maximum utility lies elsewhere (ibid.). Influenced by the Enlightenment’s Lockean tradition, Bentham and the utilitarians argued for utility maximization as the goal for governments in drafting rights law. Instrumental theories, which are not based on utilitarianism, may not have the same problems with weak rights (Scanlon 1977: 137–152). For example, a pure egalitarian theory portrays rights as instruments for achieving a more equal distribution of resources. Yet, the right to access need not be limited to egalitarian approaches or to utilitarianism. In fact, most useful for my purposes is a prioritarian instrumental theory, which is similar to egalitarianism, except that it gives extra weight to the interests of the worst off (Wenar 2008). In other words, for realization of the right, governments must provide access to those who cannot afford it.
Adapting to floods in social housing in the UK
Published in Edmund C. Penning-Rowsell, Matilda Becker, Flood Risk Management, 2019
Diana King, Edmund C. Penning-Rowsell
First, the egalitarian philosophy favours equality, from ensuring that resources are distributed equally to providing equal access of opportunity. Egalitarians focus on individual capabilities (e.g. individuals are able to participate in politics; access to health services) to assess whether the system is producing fair opportunities for everyone (Sen, 1992) (i.e. is procedurally just). As noted by Johnson et al. (2007), an egalitarian FRM policy would ‘ensure that all those at risk of flooding have an equal opportunity of having their flood risk managed by the state’.
Contested access: improving water security through benefit sharing
Published in Water International, 2018
In this article, three types of benefit-sharing regimes provide a useful basis for exploring water security settings: hierarchical, egalitarian and distributive (Nkhata et al., 2012a) (Table 1). Hierarchical regimes involve benefit-sharing arrangements centred on command-and-control policy instruments established to support a central agenda. This type of arrangement provides the means for government to exercise power over other social actors at local or regional levels. This usually involves the delegation of government functions from the centre to the periphery in the process of allocating gains from water security. Egalitarian regimes are benefit-sharing arrangements based on the principle that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. Such arrangements are usually framed as a matter of water justice and highlight the desirability of equitably sharing the benefits arising from the use of water resources. Distributive arrangements are benefit-sharing arrangements involving voluntary exchanges established to support what Ostrom refers to as quid pro quo relationships. These relationships are essentially reciprocal, in that a party offers a favour or advantage in return for something. As such, the voluntary arrangements are meant to provide positive incentives to facilitate and support water security.