Making Drones to Kill Civilians: Is it Ethical?

A drone industry has emerged in the US, initially funded almost exclusively for military applications. There are now also other uses both governmental and commercial (in the US and abroad). Many military drones are still being made, however, especially for surveillance and targeted killings. Regarding the latter, this essay calls into question their legality and morality. It recognizes that the issues are complex and controversial, but less so as to the killing of non-combatant civilians. The government using drones for targeted killings maintains secrecy and appeals to non-traditional justifications. Most scholars who assess these killer drone practices support citizen immunity, either by favoring a modified just war theory that prioritizes civilians’ right to life or by challenging official deviations from applicable laws. They accordingly declare such killing immoral if not a war crime. The manufacturers of these killer drones are not themselves the killers, but they are abetters, i.e., sine qua non facilitators. So, I argue that any company concerned about its corporate social responsibility should cease manufacturing them.     

Heigh Ho,Heigh Ho: flexible labor contracts with real option characteristics

Business Economics - What is the strategic value of flexible labor contracts to workers? To answer this question, we examine workers’ labor supply decisions when choosing among alternative...     

A political ideology lens on social entrepreneurship motivations

ABSTRACT

The traditional literature regarding social entrepreneurship does not question the political dimension. On the contrary, it tends to de-politicize societal issues. A growing number of researchers underline how this perspective cannot address the complexity and the dialogical nature of social entrepreneurship. However, while there may be a case for incorporating a political perspective, there is currently no conceptual framework to systematically inform an empirical exploration of the role played by the political vision of entrepreneurs. In this paper, we use the concept of political ideology to offer a solid framework to show how politics can shape social entrepreneurs’ motivations. More precisely we identify three political profiles – anti-statist, reformist and neoliberal – which shape the motives to engage in social entrepreneurship. We take an embedded case study approach of 17 social entrepreneurs involved in a social innovation boot camp and reveal the existence of both, left and right-wing approaches in social entrepreneurship.     

Public goods and the paying public

This paper proposes a way to undercut anarchist objections to taxation without endorsing an authoritarian justification of government coercion. The argument involves public goods, as understood by economists and others. But I do not analyse options of autonomous prisoners and the like; for, however useful otherwise, these abstractions underestimate the real-world task of sorting out the prerogatives of and limits on ownership. Proceeding more contextually, I come to recommend a shareholder addendum to the doctrine of public goods. This recommendation involves modifying the public goods argument for government coercion to include a contributor-specific compensation provisio, thinking of contributors as investors, and including among the latter those whose investment is in the form not of a market transaction strictly speaking but of sacrifice. To reach this recommendation I constrain the market liberal's limited endorsement of taxation by drawing on the (idealized) postcommunist privatizer's continuing commitment to populism.Edmund F. Byrne is Professor of Philosophy at Indiana University in Indianapolis. His research interests center on policy and practices regarding technology, community, and social welfare. His most recent book isWork, Inc. (Temple University Press, 1990); and he is now writing another tentatively subtitledDemocracy, Civil Society, and Benevolence.     

Consumer Search in Retail Gasoline Markets

This paper develops direct tests for search behavior in retail gasoline markets. We exploit a unique market‐level dataset that allows us to directly measure search intensity with daily web traffic data from a gasoline price reporting website and perfectly measure daily changes in price levels and dispersion. Our simple yet powerful tests provide strong evidence of both cross‐sectional and intertemporal price search.     

THE TIME‐SERIES PROPERTIES OF UK INFLATION: EVIDENCE FROM AGGREGATE AND DISAGGREGATE DATA

This paper contrasts the time‐series properties of aggregate and disaggregate UK inflation. While aggregate inflation is found to be non‐stationary, unit root rejection frequencies are increasing when we use more disaggregate data. Structural break analysis suggests that structural shifts in monetary policy could alter inflation persistence. Additionally, panel evidence indicates that the unit root hypothesis can be rejected for sectoral inflation rates. Finally, we compare the persistence properties of UK inflation, finding statistically significant differences between aggregate and disaggregate series. Our analysis suggests that aggregation matters, which has important implications for econometric analysis and the conduct of monetary policy.     

The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex is Circumstantially Unethical

Business ethicists should examine not only business practices but whether a particular type of business is even prima facie ethical. To illustrate how this might be done I here examine the contemporary U.S. defense industry. In the past the U.S. military has engaged in missions that arguably satisfied the just war self-defense rationale, thereby implying that its suppliers of equipment and services were ethical as well. Some recent U.S. military missions, however, arguably fail the self-defense rationale. At issue, then, is whether a business supporting these latter missions may not be circumstantially unethical. No it is not, say defense industry advocates, for two principal reasons. For one, this business benefits society at large in numerous ways. And, for another, the organizer of these military missions is a superpower which by its very nature is not subject to the ethical constraints of the self-defense rationale. I dispute both reasons, argue against the second, and conclude that the U.S. military-industrial complex (MIC) is circumstantially unethical.