Full privatisation of schools would involve states abstaining from providing, funding or regulating schools. I argue that full privatisation would, in most circumstances, worsen social injustice in schooling. I respond to James Tooley's critique of my own arguments for funding and regulation and markets. I argue that even his principle of educational adequacy requires a certain level of state involvement and demonstrate that his arguments against a principle of educational equality fail. I show, furthermore, that he relies on an over-optimistic (...) attitude regarding the operation of markets, which involves a failure to appreciate the diversity of quality in states, and that he misreads the evidence concerning private schooling in some developing countries. (shrink)

Throughout, the book combines daring speculations with detailed investigations to portray the nature and status of rationality and the essential role that...

This chapter contains section titled: I The Hypothesis of Moral Free‐fall II The Moral free‐fall Hypothesis Evaluated Acknowledgement.

This chapter contains section titled: I II III IV Acknowledgement.

This chapter contains section titled: I The Extended Auction II Working in the Peep Show, Flirting in the Square III Insurance Behind a Veil of Ignorance IV Dworkin's Hybrid Scheme V Four Objections to Dworkin VI Ackerman Generalized VII Not Enough Redistribution? VIII Too Much Redistribution? Acknowledgement.

Dworkin's reconciliation of liberty and equality in chapter 3 of 'Sovereign Virtue' presupposes the compossibility of the satisfaction of the envy test and the realization of the principle of abstraction. It is, however, impossible to realize a distribution that is both envy-free and maximally sensitive to plans and preferences. When this conflict between the envy test and the principle of abstraction is brought to light, it will become apparent that Dworkin falls short of a complete reconciliation of liberty and equality.

_Dworkin and His Critics_ provides an in-depth, analytical discussion of Ronald Dworkin's ethical, legal and political philosophical writings, and it includes substantial replies from Dworkin himself. Includes substantial replies by Ronald Dworkin, a comprehensive bibliography of his work, and suggestions for further reading. Contributors include Richard Arneson, G. A. Cohen, Frances Kamm, Will Kymlicka, Philippe van Parijs, Eric Rakowski, Joseph Raz and Jeremy Waldron. Makes an important contribution to many on-going debates over abortion, euthanasia, the rule of law, distributive justice, (...) group rights, political obligation, and genetics. (shrink)

Defends a theory of social justice for education from within an egalitarian version of liberalism. The theory involves a strong commitment to educational equality, and to the idea that children's rights include a right to personal autonomy. The book argues that school reform must always be evaluated from the perspective of social justice and applies the theory, in particular, to school choice proposals. It looks at the parental choice schemes in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and in England and Wales, and argues that (...) they fall short of the requirements of justice, but that not all such schemes must do so. It elaborates an abstract voucher scheme that would combine choice with justice, and offers ways by which actual choice‐based reform can be modified to meet the requirements of justice. (shrink)

Professor Harry Brighouse has written extensively against ‘educational choice’ reforms in England and Wales and in the USA, and has challenged the status quo of private school provision in England and Wales. This paper explores the extent to which his arguments are applicable to the more radical, but prima facie linked, concept of the ‘privatisation of education’, that is, where funding, provision or regulation of education are progressively moved away from the state to the private sector. The arguments address in (...) particular the issues of autonomy-facilitating education and educational equality, suggesting that Brighouse's arguments that use these concepts are not powerful objections to the case for choice or privatisation. Indeed, it is suggested that there are several arguments in Brighouse's writings, concerning the virtues of efficiency, diversity and innovation, and the power of the ‘mimicking effect’ of parents who are not skilled choosers, that contain the kernel for an argument advanced elsewhere that defends, rather than opposes, the privatisation of education. (shrink)