Outline of the argument. 1.2.1 Ideal-typical logics of action The theoretical argument advanced in this thesis is that central bank cooperation should be understood as driven not just by material, but also by normative considerations. The fundamental idea that social action is not just oriented towards specific purposes, but also towards values is hardly new. Xxxxx distinguished between instrumental rationality (zweckrational) and value-based rationality (wertrational) (Rutgers & Schreurs, 2006), and more recently March and Olsen (1998, 2011) have argued that action could be interpreted as driven by either a logic of consequences or a logic of appropriateness. These two labels are applied throughout this study. The logic of consequences entails that actors base their decisions on the expected outcomes of their actions; from the perspective of the logic of appropriateness, actions are geared at the fulfilment of a certain role or identity that an actor seeks to embody. To be sure, the two logics of action refer to the perceived meaning that actors attach to their actions. They do not imply a judgment of whether those actions are rational according to some external, objective standard (Xxxxxx, 1981). Whether a decision actually served a given material interest is of less interest than whether it was seen as such by the actor that took it. Though, somewhat confusingly, the language of rationality is used here – note Xxxxx’x terms zweckrational and wertrational – these two logics, therefore, do not necessarily imply a rational choice view of the world, but label subjective logics of action. These logics of action are understood, and xxxxxxxx explained, through ‘rational interpretation, which […] is a matter of reconstructing a context of meaning for the purpose of understanding why persons act as they do’ (Xxxxxxx, 1992, p. 112). As Xxx Xxxxx cautioned, it is ‘not legitimate to interpret this procedure as involving a rationalistic bias […] but purely as a methodological device’ (X. Xxxxx, 1968, pp. 6–7). Xxxxx as the dichotomy between these logics of action may be at first glance, it helps position the main claims of this thesis against the literature on central bank cooperation, where the logic of consequence has by far been the dominant perspective. The studies that conceive of central bank cooperation as motivated by national material interests – be they economic (McDowell, 2012), diplomatic (Sahasrabuddhe, 2019), or strategic objectives (Helleiner, 2014) – by definition argue that...
Outline of the argument. The argument for the Capability to Live in the Community with Equal Standing is made up of three parts, the CA, community, and equal standing. The first three chapters will each focus on these concepts, which individually constitute a core component of the CLCES. Subsequently, once I have justified the use of the CA, and put forth a conception of community and equal standing from the CA, I will bring these together to propose the CLCES and explain what this capability entails. The capability is conceptualised as a freedom to achieve physical and social inclusion while living within the community, and the ability to stand as an equal. The argument will then be assessed further in relation to persons with severe mental disabilities and the practical implications that arise when arguing for this capability. The purpose of this application is both to show the relevance and fit. Additionally, the application aims to resolve tensions that might arise from applying this argument in the real world, and to present some of the practical implications that would follow. In Chapter One, I introduce the CA and justify its use for this argument after having shown that a theory of justice is better suited than the biomedical model or social model of disabilities. I show that the argument for living in the community with equal standing should be framed as a capability. There are five reasons why I argue the CA is the best theory of justice for this argument. These include, that it is an approach centred on the individual; that the CA considers wellbeing as multidimensional; that the CA takes disabilities into consideration from the start by understanding freedoms (capabilities) to be made up of internal and external factors; and, by incorporating the idea of conversion factors to explain how diversity influences one’s possibility to convert resources into functionings; and that it is concerned with social exclusion and the importance of sociability to wellbeing. I then show how some these reasons are core components of the approach by presenting Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx’ view on the CA. Next, alternative theories will be contrasted with the CA to show why this approach fares better than others when discussing this aspect of wellbeing. Finally, some critiques and limitations of the CA will be presented and addressed. The second chapter will be focused on the concept of community. Despite the importance of this concept, as shown in the first chapter, I show that a clear conceptualisat...
