Ranging over a wide array of cases, Andrew Stark draws on legal,
moral, and political thought--as well as the rhetoric of
officeholders and the commentary of journalists--to analyze several
decades of debate over conflict of interest in American public
life. He offers new ways of interpreting the controversies about
conflict of interest, explains their prominence in American
political combat, and suggests how we might make them less venomous
and intractable.
Stark shows that over the past forty years public opinion has
shifted steadily toward an objective conception of conflict:
instead of considering case-by-case motivations, we have adopted
broadly prophylactic rules barring a variety of circumstances with
no regard for whether individuals facing those circumstances would
be moved in culpable ways. At the same time, we have shifted toward
a subjective conception of interest: where we once focused narrowly
on money, we now inquire into various commitments individuals might
pursue in ways that could impair their judgment.
In exploring the consequences of these twin migrations--the
passage of "conflict" from a subjective to an objective
understanding; the transformation of "interest" from an objective
to a subjective conception--the author aims to make our debates
over public ethics less vexatious for officials, and more lucid for
citizens.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
Welcome to Loot.co.za!
Sign in / Register |Wishlists & Gift Vouchers |Help | Advanced search
