Search results

A. Conformal Transformation Methods A standard analytic method for the determination of field and potential distributions uses the Schwarz‐Christoffel (SC) conformal transformation integral. When applied to configurations such as the capacitor with fringing accounted for or a metal stripe separated by a dielectric from a ground plane, it leads to complicated expressions containing elliptic integrals, and when applied to a metal disc separated from a ground plane, Hankel transforms are also involved. Since elliptic integrals must be evaluated numerically in practice, it is desirable to replace these complicated analytic processes with one that is numerical from the start. Such a method has been published by Foster, Anderson, and Warner. It is based on the standardization of a two‐step conformal transform; Step 1 takes the original geometry and lays it out along the real axis and Step 2 converts this arrangement—using a reverse Schwarz‐Christoffel transform—into a rectangular structure from which the field lines and equipotentials can be determined by inspection. Step 1 is different for each problem but Step 2 is common to all problems, and represents one of several advantages of this procedure. The simplest example given by the originators is the tri‐plate strip line of Figure 1, which—by symmetry—can be reduced to the quadrant of Figure 2. The SC

The paper aims to examine Martha Nussbaum's latest theorising about the capabilities approach in relation to the “causal weight” and “texture” of the anarchical condition of the international system.

The paper provides a detailed reading of Nussbaum's creating capabilities with regard to its explicit and implicit assumptions about international relations.

While the paper endorses the aims of the capabilities approach, it draws attention to the limitations of Nussbaum's engagement with the international level of world politics, including relevant international relations (IR) theory. The paper argues that a more explicit engagement with IR theory in general and the so‐called English School in particular would strengthen one of the shortcomings of Nussbaum's counter‐theory to dominant ideas in development economics.

The Human Development and Capability Association is committed to generating ideas to challenge dominant approaches to human development. As such, the sense of direction pointed to in the paper – identifying international relations as the priority area for research and reform – is a contribution to planning the next stage of its activities.

The paper focuses on the international level of world politics, and as such offers insights into what Nussbaum herself admits is an “undertheorized” dimension of the capabilities approach.

Central to Martha Nussbaum's development of the capability approach into a theory of social and global justice is her addition of the notion of a capability threshold below which no dignified human life can be lived. This capability threshold identifies a standard for distributive justice that any decent political order must secure for all citizens. It is this threshold that is the intended focus of this paper.

Examining her most recent statement of the capability approach, Nussbaum's arguments that the threshold should be locally set by each nation in accordance with their history and traditions, and that all nations currently fail to satisfy the threshold condition, are assessed.

This paper shows that if Nussbaum's arguments are accepted, then the central function of a threshold as a tool of discrimination is undermined. If all nations fail to meet their locally set threshold, then there is no clear basis for the global redistribution that Nussbaum regards as necessary. Indeed, what basis there is could even justify counter‐intuitive redistribution from poorer to richer nations.

This paper concludes that if the capability approach is to be developed into a theory of social justice, then, rather than being set locally at different levels, the capability threshold may need to be a genuinely global one. Only then can the threshold discriminate between unjust political orders and those that are at least minimally just.

This chapter will explore how different feminist theories and theorists have informed what counts as research, what is defined as a research issue, and methodological approaches to research in higher education. It will consider the theoretical and methodological tools feminist academics have mobilized in order to develop more powerful explanations of how gender and other forms of difference work in the relation to the positioning of the individual, higher education and the nation state within globalized economies. It pays particular regard to the feminist political project of social justice.

The paper aims to examine the relationship between creating capabilities and political liberalism. It argues that the reality of climate change calls for the capabilities approach to be more rooted in a relational anthropology which the Aristotelian ethical tradition is more akin to.

It discusses how traces of this ethical tradition can be found in Nussbaum's capabilities approach itself: affiliation as an architectonic capability leads to the common good being the end of political action, and practical reason as an architectonic capability leads to reasoning being structured by concerns for the common good.

The paper suggests some practical implications of an Aristotelian version of the capabilities approach.

The paper seeks to build an account of social justice based on the capabilities approach with Aristotelian roots.

My response to the thoughtful and insightful critical discussions of my book, The End of Progress, offered by Reha Kadakal, George Steinmetz, Karen Ng, and Kevin Olson, restates its motivation and rationale to defend my interpretive claims regarding Adorno, Foucault, Habermas, Honneth, and Forst by applying standards drawn from the first two theorists that are consonant with postcolonial critical theory to the perspectives, claims, and theoretical contributions of the latter three theorists. Habermas, Honneth, and Forst presume a historical present that has shaped the second, third, and fourth generations of the Frankfurt School they represent – a present that appears to be characterized by relative social and political stability – a stability that only applies in the context of Europe and the United States. Elsewhere, anti-colonial struggles, proxy wars, and even genocides were related to the persistent legacies of European colonialism and consequences of American imperialism. Yet, critical theory must expand its angle of vision and acknowledge how its own critical perspective is situated within the postcolonial present. The essays of Kadakal and Ng express concerns about my metanormative contextualism and the question of whether Adorno’s work can be deployed to support it. Steinmetz challenges my “process of elimination” argument for metanormative contextualism and asks why I assume that constructivism, reconstructivism, and problematizing genealogy exhaust the available options for grounding normativity. Olson calls for a methodological decolonization to complement the epistemic decolonization I recommend. Critical theory should produce critical theories of actually existing societies, rather than being preoccupied with meta-theory or disputes over clashing paradigms.