Wellbeing in Politics and Policy will bring new lenses through which to understand the significance of the dramatic rise of interest in wellbeing as a goal of public policy. While a number of academic disciplines have been influential in both shaping and seeking to explain developments, the Politics discipline has been relatively silent, leaving important theoretical and empirical insights largely absent from debates: insights that have increasing significance as political interest grows. This series will provide a distinctive addition to the field that puts politics and policy at the centre, while embracing interdisciplinary contributions. Contributions will be encouraged from various subfields of the discipline (e.g., political theory, comparative politics, governance and public policy, international relations) and from those located in other disciplines that speak to core political themes (e.g., accountability, gender, inequality, legitimacy and power). The series will seek to explore these themes through policy studies in a range of settings-international, national and local. Comparative studies-either of different policy areas and/or across different settings-will be particularly encouraged. The series will incorporate a wide range of perspectives from critical to problem-solving approaches, drawing on a variety of epistemologies and methodologies. The series welcomes Pivots, edited collections and monographs.

This chapter summarises key points in the wellbeing economics framework and illustrates how it can be used to guide decision-making. The first section lists the 24 propositions that emerged as key points in the analysis of the preceding eight chapters. The second section introduces a diagram that integrates inputs into wellbeing capabilities (7 types of capital stock) with outputs of wellbeing capabilities (11 wellbeing indicators developed by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). The diagram is called the wellbeing fabric. The remainder of the chapter illustrates how the wellbeing fabric can be applied at different levels of human choices, before a brief conclusion.

No abstract

No abstract

Kant views every human action as either entirely determined by natural necessity or entirely free. In viewing human action this way, it is unclear how he can account for degrees of responsibility. In this article, I consider three recent attempts to accommodate degrees of responsibility within Kant's framework, but argue that none of them are satisfying. In the end, I claim that transcendental idealism constrains Kant such that he cannot provide an adequate account of degrees of responsibility.