This essay discusses the relation between ideal theory and two forms of political moralism identified by Bernard Williams, structural and enactment views. It argues that ideal theory, at least in the sense Rawls used that term, only makes sense for structural forms of moralism. These theories see their task as describing the constraints that properly apply to political agents and institutions. As a result, they are primarily concerned with norms that govern action. In contrast, many critiques of ideal theory are structured and motivated by their commitment to an enactment model of political theorizing. This instead sees political agents and institutions as instruments for producing or promoting better states of affairs. Enactment models treat the evaluations that rank different states of affairs as justificatorily basic, rather than norms governing action on which structural models focus. This reveals an important feature of debates about ideal theory. Whether ideal theory is capable of appropriately guiding action will depend on what the criteria for appropriately guiding action are, about which different theorists have importantly different views. For example, some popular strategies for defending ideal theory fail, while it may be much less clear that some alternatives to ideal theory can provide action guidance than their advocates claim.

Research has explored the impact of politicians holding second jobs, or moonlighting, on their performance and recruitment, but less is known about how citizens respond to such behavior. Citizens may react negatively to Members of Parliament (MPs) moonlighting, viewing outside earnings as a conflict of interest or a distraction, or instead they might view MPs with second incomes positively, seeing them as a connection with the “real world” beyond politics. Utilizing a series of survey experiments, we assess how British citizens respond to MPs moonlighting. We demonstrate preferences more complex than those revealed by traditional survey instruments. Citizens respond to both size and source of income. They do not respond negatively to all second incomes; they are more sympathetic to the entrepreneur who continues to draw an income than medical doctors or lawyers who continue to practice. They are most hostile to politicians who take on part-time company directorships.

Disasters continue to increase in frequency and affect more and more citizens of the world community. Economic costs are increasing at an alarming rate. The death toll in the last 50 years has been in excess of 12 million persons, billions of people have been “affected”, and economic costs are estimated as high as US$4 trillion. Human and economic costs have been estimated for disasters caused by natural and manmade events. Manmade events are segregated into technological and inter-human conflicts. Defined human costs do not include those effects such as short- and long-term psychosocial problems that cannot be quantified. The lack of structure for the conduct of research and evaluation of interventions impairs our ability to learn from experiences. This Chapter introduces a structural framework for investigations into the medical and public health aspects of disasters including: (1) a standardized, universal set of definitions; (2) a conceptual model for disasters; (3) indicators and standards; (4) descriptions of 14 basic societal functions bound together by a coordination and control function; and (5) a disaster response template and two research templates. The templates are to be used in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of research and/or evaluations of interventions directed at preventing hazards from becoming a disaster-producing event, mitigating the effects of such an event on the affected society, and/or responses to a disaster.

The purpose of research is to discover or change laws and theory while the purpose for evaluations is to affix a value to the process or outcome. Research is used to define a cause:effect relationship between independent and dependent variable(s). Currently, such experimental studies either are impossible to conduct in the setting of a disaster or are considered unethical. Until recently, reports of disaster responses primarily have been anecdotal and descriptive with little or no structure. They have had little value in the elimination of hazards, reduction of risks, improvement in the absorbing and/or buffering capacities, reduction in vulnerability, and or enhancement of disaster preparedness. They have served to shape our perceptions of the medical and public-health needs associated with certain events. During the last two decades, methodologies used in the social sciences gradually have been adapted to the study of disasters. Such studies have contributed greatly to our understanding of the pathophysiology of disasters and the effects of specific interventions on the affected populations or populations at risk for an event. Not all aspects of such interventions can be measured, but most can be assessed using qualitative methodologies. The importance of using both qualitative and quantitative assessments of effects is discussed.

During the last five years, the debate on the performance of humanitarian assistance has intensified. The motivation to “do better” has come both from within the humanitarian agencies as well as from pressure exerted by the donors and the media. Paradoxically, until now, the voice of those who are to benefit from this assistance has not been heard.

This paper is an overview of the most important initiatives to increase the quality of humanitarian assistance. The introduction of the logical framework and the increasing body of knowledge made available through guidelines have improved project management by measuring process and outcomes. Increasingly, evaluations are used to give account and to learn from experiences. But, current evaluation practice must develop in a wider variety of approaches more appropriate to create change of the operations in the field. Some agencies oppose new developments like the Sphere and the Humanitarian Accountability Projects, arguing that standards and regulation would undermine necessary flexibility to adjust responses to the local context, or be a threat to their independence. Nonetheless, standards are considered to be a prerequisite as reference to assess performance. Furthermore, it is hoped that a new breakthrough will be achieved by improved accountability towards beneficiaries.

An option to address some of the gaps in the current quality assessment tools was to widen the perspective on performance from projects to the organisations behind them. Quality management models may provide the required framework, and they also can be used to embed current initiatives by organisations. Humanitarian organisations may want to develop forms of self-regulation rather than waiting for accreditation by donors. Another area in which progress is needed is a system-wide approach to performance. At this level, the influence of political actors, donors, national governments, and other representatives of the parties in a conflict also should be assessed. It is their legal obligation to protect the basic right to assistance of persons affected by disasters, as enshrined in international law.