This article challenges E.P. Thompson's definition of 'moral economy' as a traditional consensus of crowd rights that were swept away by market forces. Instead, it suggests that the concept has the potential of improving the understanding of modern civil society. Moral economy was a term invented in the eighteenth century to describe many things. Thompson's approach reflects only a minor part of this conceptual history. His understanding of moral economy is conditioned by a dichotomous view of history and by the acceptance of a model according to which modern economy is not subject to moral concerns. It is on principle problematic to confine a term conjoining two concepts as general as 'moral' and 'economy' to a specific historical and social setting. Recent approaches that frame moral economy as an emotively defined order of morals are also misleading since they do not address economic issues in the way they are commonly understood. The most promising current approaches appear to be those that consider the moral economy of welfare, humanitarianism, and civil society. The concept of moral economy may help us to clarify alternative ways of 'utility maximisation' through the construction of altruistic meaning for economic transactions.

No abstract

Starting from the observation of a renaissance of the term ‘parliamentary diplomacy’ in practical politics - if with a shift of meaning from parliamentary methods and procedures toward parliamentary agents - this article pleads for a scholarly adaptation of the concept and suggests not to neglect either of these dimensions. Reviewing the history of the League of Nations, in particular its creation and the policies and patterns of delegation and group formation pursued by the Scandinavian countries, the historical interrelation of the aspect of strategic alignment and representative delegation of legislators is shown. International relations theory, in particular constructivist approaches, should note that the twentieth century’s contribution to diplomatic history, meaning the emergence of multilateral diplomacy on a regular basis, is parliamentary not only in regard to the character of its proceedings, but also increasingly in regard to some of the relevant diplomatic agents.

In this article I aim to provide a better understanding of the concept `non-governmental organization' and its implications for the politics of international relations. As the prevailing confusion about the term stems largely from poor knowledge about the politics behind its introduction and function, the overarching question asks how NGOs have been socially constructed as actors on the margins of the international stage. To this end, a sound insight into the little-known conceptual history and background of the term `NGO' in what might be called a `Westphalian nomenclature' is given. I suggest that the still prevalent NGO terminology is an outcome of political games played by various actors, restricting and containing the signified organizations. The article provides a non-substantial, functional and politics-oriented definition of the term NGO, which differs significantly from previous attempts to attach meaning to it. It also suggests improved choices of terminology for general International Relations theorizing.