This paper aims to reexamine the positions on the value judgment in economics, by using the classification of the "value judgment of the subject" and the "value judgment of the object". The former is the value judgment of the researcher of economics, while the latter is the value judgment of the object of research, namely the motivation of the actor in economic studies. This classification can clarify the point of the contrast between Amartya Sen and Lionel Robbins about economic methodology. It is well known that Robbins eliminated any value judgments from economics, and strictly separated economics from ethics. However, in fact, he eliminated value judgments only in the field of economic science, and he explicitly needed value judgments in his field of political economy. So, the contrast between Sen, who emphasizes the interaction between economics and ethics, and Robbins is not about whether economists should consider value judgments. (Both of them would say "yes" in response to this question.) It must be about whether economists can ignore value judgments in some fields of study in economics. (Only Sen would deny this possibility.) Robbins based his proposition about the objectivity of economics on that of Max Weber. Robbins regarded Weber's Wertfreiheit as an attitude that considered people's value judgments as matters of fact. Robbins believed that we can treat people's value judgments as fact without our own value judgment (namely the value judgment of the subject). This means that Robbins eliminated value judgments of the subject from economic science but took account of value judgments of the object as fact. However, Robbins's understanding is not correct. Surely, Weber insisted that we could treat value judgments of the object as fact. However, in addition, Weber also insisted that in social sciences we cannot eliminate value judgments of the subject; therefore, we must use some Idealtypus in studies. From the perspective of Weber, social science cannot be wertfrei by merely taking the value judgments of the object as fact. In contrast to Robbins, Sen regards both value judgments of the subject and of the object as being inescapable in economics. His proposition about the inescapability of value is based on the philosophy of Hilary Putnam. Putnam points out the collapse of the fact-value dichotomy. He insisted that not only normative analyses but also descriptions and prescriptions are entangled with values (Putnam calls it "the entanglement of fact and value".) All descriptions premise some epistemic values, for example "coherence". Moreover, some descriptions, for example "cruel", essentially involve ethical values. From the perspective of Putnam, Sen concludes that we cannot ignore value judgments in any fields of study in economics. Both welfare economics and descriptive economics need to consider value judgments, not only of the object but also of the subject. In economic studies, we must investigate the way in which description and normative analysis are studied at the same time.

抄録全体を表示

This paper assesses empirically the performance of municipal e-government. For the purpose, this study develops a performance indicator that reveals "comprehensive goal attainment levels in municipal e-government" and examines the impacts of organizational factors on the indicator using data from Japanese municipalities. Based on the findings, political implications are discussed.

抄録全体を表示

The conception of Basic Income proposed by Philippe Van Parijs, which requires an unconditional and universal provision of benefit expounds a logic which goes far beyond traditional capitalism or socialism in that, as he says, "it consists in making accessible to all members of society a parasitic existence" and aims to guarantee the real freedom for all. Moreover, his idea of redistributing the rents of assets equally among all individuals is a perspective that goes far beyond normal libertarian theory. If the Japanese public assistance were to be reformed along the following lines, it could be regarded as a form of Basic Income. The first desideratum is to loosen the stipulation of "the complementary principle", second, to change the provision unit from household to individual, third, to change the way of providing, that is, from providing only for those who are in need to providing for all members of society, while imposing a positive tax on non-needy in the result. The most attractive point of this proposal is that we can expect a dramatically increase of take-up rate. However, we must note that his conception is basically grounded in the liberal market not only practically but also theoretically. This feature appears typically in the following methodological features of his real libertarianism. First, it leaves the evaluation and determination of the actual contents and level of the real freedom in the hands of market mechanism, that is, purely competitive equilibrium price systems. Second, it intends to reduce external points of views, which exist outside of market, and by which individuals can reflect on their actions or preferences behind choices that are one of constraint conditions of the realization of social goals. This feature differs from Amartya Sen's Capability theory (1980, 1985, 1992), though they are common in turning their attention to real freedom, which shows a necessity and possibility to evaluate the contents and level of real freedom outside of market, basing on public reasoning or discussion. It also differs from John Rawls's justice as reciprocity (1971b) which introduces a logic that is distinguished from the logic of market in realizing principles of justice. Rather, it is similar to the neo-classical economics which tries to construct a self-contained and internally consistent theory, refusing any viewpoints external to the theory. If it is the basic standpoint of the real libertarianism, the relationship between the two is interesting. The purpose of this paper is to examine a methodological problem involved in realizing real freedom for all through investigating the impasse the Japanese public assistance is now confronted.

抄録全体を表示

2009年の福祉社会学会大会でシンポジウム「(共助の時代〉再考」が開

催され，筆者はその企画を担当したーその趣意文は以下である。例えば

2000年の公的介護保険の開始までの間に，そしてその後に，何が日本の

社会に起こってきたのか明日の我が身」が，そしてそのために，また

それに加えて「共助」が語られてきた。語られてきただけでなく，その

ような仕組みができて，社会福祉とはそのようなものであるということに

なった。そしてその時皆が，有限性の認識を「程々に」という良識を，

分け持っていたそのようにも見えるのだが，その見立ては外れているの

かもしれない。すくなくとももっと様々があったし，あるのだろう。そし

てその経緯，現況をどう評定し，そして今後を展望するか。報告者，討論

者の方々に話していただき，そして考えてみたい」本稿では，このシン

ポジウムの報告者であった

と天田城介が本誌に寄せた論文から私

たちが何を受けとることができるのか，それをどのようにこれからの我々

の考察・研究につなげていくことができるのか，私の考える何点かを記す

ものである。

抄録全体を表示

本稿では, Amartya Senの主張するCapability Approachを参考として, コミュニティバスの効果を福祉の視点から評価する手法を提案した. この手法は, Capabdity (生き方の幅) に着目し, 人がさまざまなFunctioning (機能) を達成できる状態の広がりを情報基礎として, コミュニティバスの貢献を評価する手法である. ここでは, Functioningとして, 外出行動を取り上げ, 吹田市の福祉巡回バスの利用者に調査を行い, 評価を行った. その結果, 福祉巡回バスがFunctioningの達成についての不均等の改善に役立っていることがわかった.

抄録全体を表示

これまで就労と福祉を分離することの最大の規範的課題としてフリーライダーの問題に焦点が当てられてきた。スチュワート・ホワイトによれば, 他の条件が公正な場合, 社会的協働の成果を享受しつつその創造に参加しないことは貢献した人々から搾取することであり, 彼ら彼女らに対する互恵的な尊重を怠ることである。本稿では, 搾取とは当事者の間で協働のルールを決める手続きが不公正であることに起因する点を明らかにする。その上で公正な手続きにもとづいて導出されるロールズの自由原理を参照点とし, 働かずに福祉給付に依存することが労働者・納税者の平等な地位を侵害する搾取に当たるのかどうかを検証する。その結果, それぞれの自由の間で均衡を保つ閾値にまで働く人から働かない人に財を移転することは正当化しうることを明らかにする。互いの最大限広範な自由を平等に尊重することは公正な条件の下で両者にとって合意可能であるため, その限りで働く納税者が脱生産主義的な善の構想を抱く人々を支えることは, 両者の市民としての平等な地位を互恵的に尊重することと矛盾しない。

抄録全体を表示

地域公共交通計画は，生活を営む上で最低限必要な移動を地域社会として保障する一種の相互扶助計画であるが，ニーズや効用等の個人間比較ができない情報だけでは誰が相対的に劣悪な環境におかれているかを互いに認識できない．先に著者らは，相対比較が可能な活動機会指標に基づく地域公共交通計画の策定支援手法を構築したが，この手法には，活動機会を維持・拡大するためのサービス拡充に必要な費用負担を考慮していないという課題が残されていた． そこで本研究では，活動機会の拡大という受益とそのための負担の組合せを計画代替案として住民に提示し，公共的判断に基づいて各住民が最も望ましいと考える代替案を選択する，という手法への拡張を行う．現実的な状況を設定して実施したウェブ調査実験を通じ，本手法の有用性を確認することができた．

抄録全体を表示

がん性疼痛管理でオピオイド製剤はその主軸になる. 多くの製薬会社がオピオイドの製剤開発を進めてきた. 経口, 座薬, 経皮吸収, 注射薬などが豊富になったことでがん疼痛患者の治療も随分と楽になった. 本項では, 現在日本で使用されているオピオイド製剤の特徴について概説する.

抄録全体を表示

The purpose of this study is to develop a comprehensive model for assessing the value of e-government services, to verify it quantitatively, and to assess the performance. This paper focuses principally on the theoretical aspects of the study. First, it develops a theoretical model based on two well-known standards for the measurement and assessment of IS or public services. Second, the research model and the hypotheses to test the theoretical model are explored. Finally, the significance of this paper is discussed. The result and implications of data analyses will be exhibited at the conference.

抄録全体を表示