Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T08:16:55.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PATERNALISM AND GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2015

Michael Barnett
Michael Barnett*
Affiliation:
International Affairs and Political Science, George Washington University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Contemporary global governance is organized around an odd pairing: care and control. On the one hand, much of global governance is designed to reduce human suffering and improve human flourishing, with the important caveat that individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. On the other hand, these global practices of care are also entangled with acts of control. Peacebuilding, public health, emergency aid, human rights, and development are expressions of this tension between care and control. There is a concept that captures this tension: paternalism. Drawing on our moral intuitions, I argue that paternalism is the attempt by one actor to substitute his judgment for another actor's on the grounds that such an imposition will improve the welfare of the target actor. After discussing and defending this definition, I note how our unease with paternalism seems to grow as we scale up from the interpersonal to the international, which I argue owes to the evaporation of community and equality. After exploring the implications of this definition and distinguishing it from other forms of intervention, I consider how different elements of paternalism combine to generate different configurations. Specifically, I point to five dimensions that are most relevant for examining the paternalism found in contemporary global and humanitarian governance: the tools used to restrict another actor’s liberty (force versus information); the scope of the interference (wide versus narrow); the purpose of the intervention (prevention of harm versus emancipation); the source of the paternalizer’s confidence (faith versus evidence); and the mechanisms of accountability (internal versus external). These different elements often correlate historically, suggestive of two ideal types of global paternalism: strong and weak. Contemporary global and humanitarian governance is largely the weak variety: force is severely proscribed, interference is relatively restricted, the paternalizer’s confidence has epistemic roots, and accountability to local populations remains a noble but rarely practiced goal. I further speculate that a major reason for this difference is the effects of liberalism and rationalization. I use this taxonomy to suggest how two different global efforts to improve the lives of those peoples living in what were perceived to be unstable and illiberal territories — the civilizing missions of the nineteenth century and the peacebuilding operations of the post-Cold War period — exhibited different kinds of paternalism. I conclude by reflecting on the ethics of international paternalism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Social Philosophy and Policy , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , Fall 2015 , pp. 216 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Fassin, Didier, “Humanitarianism: A Nongovernmental Government,” in Feher, Michael, ed., Nongovernmental Politics (New York: Zone Books, 2007), 151.Google Scholar

2 Jessica Ho, “The Quest for an HIV Vaccine,” http://www.vaccineethics.org/issue_briefs/HIV_clinical_trials.php.

3 Redfield, Peter, Life in Crisis: The Ethical Journey of Doctors Without Borders (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013).Google Scholar

4 Saunders, Penelope, “Prohibiting Sex Work Projects, Restricting Women's Rights: The International Impact of the 2003 U.S. Global AIDS Act,” Health and Human Rights 7, no. 2 (2004): 179–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Autesserre, Séverine, Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 My reading of the contributions to Social Philosophy and Policy on the subject of global affairs is that many of the articles are more interested in arguing with other political theorists over the finer points of normative theory than they are in having a dialogue with ethics as they are practiced. The consequence is that the arguments are nearly ahistorical, except for those articles that resort to a highly selective use of events (and often quite idiosyncratic interpretations).

7 Sorenson, Georg, A Liberal World Order in Crisis: Choosing between Imposition and Restraint (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richardson, James L., Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2001)Google Scholar; Hall, Martin and Hobson, John M., “Liberal International Theory: Eurocentric but not always Imperialist?” International Theory 2, no. 2 (2010): 210–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Merriam Webster, s.v. “Paternalism,” accessed July 22, 2014, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/paternalism.

9 Oxford Dictionaries, s.v. “Paternalism,” accessed July 22, 2014, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/paternalism.

10 Claassen, Rutger, “Capability Paternalism,” Economics and Philosophy 30, no. 1 (2014): 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Dworkin, Gerald, “Paternalism,” The Monist 56, no. 1 (1972): 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Dworkin, Gerald, “Defining Paternalism,” in Coons, Christian and Weber, Michael, eds., Paternalism: Theory and Practice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 25–38 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shiffrin, Seana, “Paternalism, Unconscionability Doctrine, and Accommodation,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 29, no. 3 (2000): 205–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 For a sampling of the definitional debate, see Thompson, Dennis F., Political Ethics and Public Office (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990): 148–77Google Scholar; Archard, David, “Paternalism Defined,” Analysis 50, no. 1 (1990): 36–42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garren, David J., “Paternalism, Part I,” Philosophical Books 47, no. 4 (2006): 334–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garren, David J., “Paternalism, Part II,” Philosophical Books 48, no. 1 (2007): 50–59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dworkin, Gerald, “Paternalism,” The Monist 56, no. 1 (1972): 64–84 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sartorius, Rolf, ed., Paternalism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Gert, Bernard and Culver, Charles M., “Paternalistic Behavior,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6, no. 1 (1976): 45–58 Google Scholar; VanDeVeer, Donald, Paternalistic Intervention: The Moral Bounds of Benevolence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mead, Lawrence M., “The Rise of Paternalism,” in Mead, Lawrence M., ed., The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997), 1–38 Google Scholar; Husak, Douglas N., “Legal Paternalism,” in LaFollette, Hugh, ed., The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 387–412 Google Scholar; Young, Robert, “John Stuart Mill, Ronald Dworkin, and Paternalism,” in Ten, C. L., ed., Mill’s On Liberty: A Critical Guide (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Dworkin, Ronald, Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000)Google Scholar; Kelman, Steven J., “Regulation and Paternalism,” Public Policy 29, no. 2 (1981): 219–54Google Scholar; Grill, Kalle, “The Normative Core of Paternalism,” Res Publica 13, no. 4 (2007): 441–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shafer-Landau, Russ, “Liberalism and Paternalism,” Legal Theory 11, no. 3 (2005): 169–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hanson, Robin, “Making Sense of Medical Paternalism,” Medical Hypotheses 70, no. 5 (2008): 910–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Talbott, William J., Human Rights and Human Well-Being (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 See Easterly, William, The White Man’s Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good (New York: Penguin Books, 2007)Google Scholar; and Easterly, William, The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor (New York: Basic Books, 2013).Google Scholar

15 Richard Garfield, et al., “Common Needs Assessments and Humanitarian Action,” Network Paper, no. 69 (Overseas Development Initiative: Humanitarian Practice Network, 2011), http://www.odihpn.org/documents/networkpaper069.pdf (accessed July 23, 2014).

16 Hopgood, Stephen, The Endtimes of Human Rights (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

17 Talbott, William J., Human Rights and Human Well-Being (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Tsai, George, “Rational Persuasion as Paternalism,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 42, no. 1 (2014): 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Tsai’s assertion is not that all forms of persuasion count as paternalism, but rather that “not all instances of rational persuasion are morally on a par,” and that some acts of persuasion exhibit paternalism because they are guided by a distrust of someone’s ability to make a reasonable judgment and might, in the process, intrude on someone’s agency.

19 Talbott, William J., Human Rights and Human Well-Being (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar (italics in original).

20 Lake, David A., Hierarchy in International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011).Google Scholar Also see Cooley, Alexander, The Logics of Hierarchy: The Organization of Empires, States, and Military Occupations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008).Google Scholar

21 See Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science 211, no. 4481 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel, “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” Science 185, no. 4157 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Sunstein, Cass R., “Behavioral Economics and Paternalism,” The Yale Law Journal 122, no. 7 (2013)Google Scholar; Levy, Neil, “Forced to be Free? Increasing Patient Autonomy by Constraining It,” Journal of Medical Ethics 40, no. 5 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23 See Sunstein, Cass R. and Thaler, Robert H., “Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron,” The University of Chicago Law Review 70, no. 4 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thaler, Robert H. and Sunstein, Cass R., Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Thaler, Richard H. and Sunstein, Cass R., “Libertarian Paternalism,” American Economic Review 93, no. 2 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sunstein, Cass, “Preferences, Paternalism, and Liberty,” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 59 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shlomo Cohen, “Nudging and Informed Consent,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 6; Sagoff, Mark, “Trust versus Paternalism,” American Journal of Bioethics 13, no. 6 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Qizilbash, Mozaffar, “Sudgen’s Critique of Sen’s Capability Approach and the Dangers of Libertarian Paternalism,” International Review of Economics 58, no. 1 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ben-Porath, Sigal, Tough Choices: Structured Paternalism and the Landscape of Choice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 Sunstein, Cass R. and Thaler, Robert H., “Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron,” The University of Chicago Law Review 70, no. 4 (2003): 1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25 Ibid., 1201. Also see Ben-Porath, Sigal, Tough Choices: Structured Paternalism and the Landscape of Choice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Conly, Sarah, Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google ScholarPubMed

26 Yet the central issue is not whether individuals understand their “true” motives, or even whether acts of caring might advance the interests of others; instead, it is whether actors are motivated by the sincere desire to aid another.

27 This is neither the time nor place to devolve into a discussion regarding the concept of political community. For three contrasting views see, Kymlicka, Will, Liberalism, Community, and Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Sandel, Michael J., Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality In Politics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005)Google Scholar; and Kukathas, Chandran, The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar My reading of this literature, moreover, suggests that much of the battle is fought over the domestic terrain, and the dominant view is that any deep sense of community does not exist in cross-boundary relations.

28 Tönnies, Ferdinand, Community and Society (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications: 2011).Google Scholar

29 For adoption of the language of community in international relations, see Adler, Emanuel and Barnett, Michael, Security Communities (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buzan, Barry, From International to World Society? English School Theory and the Social Structure of Globalisation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

30 Suchman, Mark C., “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches,” The Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3 (1995).Google Scholar

31 See, for instance, Jackson, Robert H., Quasi-States: Sovereignty, International Relations, and the Third World (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993)Google Scholar and Risse, Thomas, ed., Governance Without a State? Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood (New York: Columbia University Press, 2013).Google Scholar

32 Anghie, Antony, Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).Google Scholar

33 Rawls, John, The Law of Peoples: With, the Idea of Public Reason Revisited (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar For a discussion of this Rawlsian-centered analysis and the general question of interference in postwar situations, see Recchia, Stefano, “Just and Unjust Postwar Reconstruction: How Much External Interference Can be Justified?” Ethics and International Affairs 23, no. 2 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34 This is why many scholars of international relations oppose any weakening of sovereignty. See Jackson, Robert H., The Global Covenant: Human Conduct in a World of States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 412 Google Scholar; Bain, William, Between Anarchy and Society: Trusteeship and the Obligations of Power (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 26 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 173; Bain, William, “The Political Theory of Trusteeship and the Twilight of International Equality,” International Relations 17, no. 1 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Bain, William, “In Praise of Folly: International Administration and the Corruption of Humanity,” International Affairs 82, no. 3 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar However, see Søbjerg, Lene Mosegaard, “Trusteeship and the Concept of Freedom,” Review of International Studies 33, no. 3 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Zaum, Dominik, The Sovereignty Paradox: The Norms and Politics of International Statebuilding (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 McCarthy, Thomas, Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Søbjerg, Lene Mosegaard, “Trusteeship and the Concept of Freedom,” Review of International Studies 33, no. 3 (2007), 479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Applbaum, Arthur Isak, “Forcing a People to Be Free.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35, no. 4 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39 See, for instance, Mead, Lawrence M., “The Rise of Paternalism,” in Mead, Lawrence M., ed., The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Archard, David, “Paternalism Defined,” Analysis 50, no. 1 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and VanDeVeer, Donald, Paternalistic Intervention: The Moral Bounds of Benevolence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 Mead, Lawrence M., “The Rise of Paternalism,” in Mead, Lawrence M., ed., The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997).Google Scholar

41 Barnett, Michael N., “International Paternalism and Humanitarian Governance,” Global Constitutionalism 1, no. 3 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 See McCarthy, Thomas, Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muthu, Sankar, Enlightenment Against Empire (Princeton, NJ; Princeton University Press, 2003).Google Scholar

43 McCarthy, Thomas, Race, Empire, and the Idea of Human Development (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

44 Ibid., 175; Habibi, Don, “The Moral Dimensions of J. S. Mill’s Colonialism,” Journal of Social Philosophy 30, no. 1 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Dirks, Nicholas B., The Scandal of Empire: India and the Creation of Imperial Britain (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Westbrook, Robert, “An Uncommon Faith: Pragmatism and Religious Experience,” in Rosenbaum, Stuart, ed., Pragmatism and Religion: Classical Sources and Original Essays (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2003), 194.Google Scholar

47 Hopgood, Stephen, “Moral Authority, Modernity and the Politics of the Sacred,” European Journal of International Relations 15, no. 2 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Feldman, Ilana and Ticktin, Miriam, “Introduction: Government and Humanity,” in Feldman, Ilana and Ticktin, Miriam, eds., In the Name of Humanity: The Government of Threat and Care (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011).Google Scholar

48 For various statements on these issues, see Sunstein, Cass R., Free Markets and Social Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)Google Scholar; and Brint, Steven, In an Age of Experts: The Changing Role of Professionals in Politics and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

49 Haskell, Thomas L., ed., The Authority of Experts: Studies in History and Theory (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

50 White, Julie Anne, Democracy, Justice, and the Welfare State: Reconstructing Public Care (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000), 5 Google Scholar; Soss, Joe, Fording, Richard C., and Schram, Sanford F., Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Mosse, David, Adventures in Aidland: The Anthropology of Professionals in International Development (New York: Berghahn Books, 2011), 4 Google Scholar; Boström, Magnus and Garsten, Christina, eds., Organizing Transnational Accountability (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Branch, Adam, “Against Humanitarian Impunity: Rethinking Responsibility for Displacement and Disaster in Northern Uganda,” Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding 2, no. 2 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 For broader discussions regarding the globalization of accountability, see Ebrahim, Alnoor and Weisband, Edward, eds., Global Accountabilities: Participation, Pluralism, and Public Ethics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53 Larson, Magali Sarfatti, “The Production of Expertise and the Constitution of Expert Power,” in Haskell, Thomas L., ed., The Authority of Experts: Studies in History and Theory (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1984), 39.Google Scholar

54 See Sunstein, Cass R. and Thaler, Robert H., “Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron,” The University of Chicago Law Review 70, no. 4 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haskell, Thomas L., ed., The Authority of Experts: Studies in History and Theory (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984)Google Scholar, ix–xxxix. On professions and paternalism, see Thompson, Dennis F., Political Ethics and Public Office (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 161–64.Google Scholar

55 Glod, William, “Against Two Modest Conceptions of Hard Paternalism,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16, no. 2 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Talbott, William J., Human Rights and Human Well-Being (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mead, Lawrence M., “The Rise of Paternalism,” in Mead, Lawrence M., ed., The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1997).Google Scholar

56 For greater elaboration, see Barnett, Michael N., “International Paternalism and Humanitarian Governance,” Global Constitutionalism 1, no. 3 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 Chandler, David, International Statebuilding: The Rise of Post-Liberal Governance (New York: Routledge, 2010)Google Scholar; Jabri, Vivienne, “Peacebuilding, the Local, and the International: A Colonial or a Postcolonial Rationality?” Peacebuilding 1, no. 1 (2013): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

58 Hochshild, Adam, Bury the Chains: Prophets and Rebels in the Fight to Free an Empire’s Slaves (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 2005), 314.Google Scholar

59 Manela, Erez, The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Origins of Anticolonial Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).Google Scholar

60 Fox, Gregory H., Humanitarian Occupation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61 Paris, Roland, At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ponzio, Richard, “Transforming Political Authority: UN Democratic Peacebuilding in Afghanistan,” Global Governance 13, no. 2 (2007)Google Scholar; Chandler, David, Empire in Denial: The Politics of State-Building (London: Pluto Press, 2006).Google Scholar

62 Keohane, Robert O., “Political Authority after Intervention: Gradations in Sovereignty,” in Holzgrefe, J. L. and Keohane, Robert O., eds., Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Dilemmas (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar; Krasner, Stephen D., “Sharing Sovereignty: New Institutions for Collapsed and Failing States,” International Security 29, no. 2 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Fearon, James D. and Laitin, David D., “Neotrusteeship and the Problem of Weak States,” International Security 28, no. 4 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63 Autesserre, Séverine, Peaceland: Conflict Resolution and the Everyday Politics of International Intervention (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

64 Mosse, David, Adventures in Aidland: The Anthropology of Professionals in International Development (New York: Berghahn Books, 2011), 4.Google Scholar

65 Chandra Lekha Sriram, Olga Martin-Ortega, and Johanna Herman, “Strategies of Peacebuilding and Accountability: An Assessment of Contemporary Trends in Practice” (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, New York, February 2009), http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/3/1/2/3/1/pages312311/p312311–1.php; Chesterman, Simon, You, the People: The United Nations, Transitional Administration, and State-Building (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mitchell, John and Doane, Deborah, “An Ombudsman for Humanitarian Assistance?” Disasters 23, no. 2 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nicholas Stockton, “The Accountable Humanitarian” (Luce Lecture, 2005), cited in Austen Davis, “Concerning Accountability of Humanitarian Action,” Network Paper, no. 58 (Overseas Development Initiative: Humanitarian Practice Network, 2007), 11, http://www.odihpn.org/hpn-resources/network-papers/concerning-accountability-of-humanitarian-action (accessed July 23, 2014); Borton, John, “An Overview of Humanitarian Accountability in 2008,” The 2008 Humanitarian Accountability Report (Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, 2009)Google Scholar; Peter Raynard, “Mapping Accountability in Humanitarian Assistance” (report presented to ALNAP bi-annual, April 2000 and revised), http://www.adpc.net/pdr-sea/eval/file22.pdf (accessed July 23, 2014).

66 Darcy, James, Alexander, Jessica, and Kiani, Maria, 2013 Humanitarian Accountability Report (Geneva: Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International, 2009), 31.Google Scholar

67 Michael Barnett, “Expertise, Accountability, and Global Governance: Pick Your Dysfunction,” Regulation and Governance, forthcoming.

68 Mitchell, John and Doane, Deborah, “An Ombudsman for Humanitarian Assistance?” Disasters 23, no. 2 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 For the critical perspective, see Abu-Lughod, Lila, Do Muslim Women Need Saving? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014)Google Scholar, and for the conservative position see Coyne, Christopher, Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails (Palo Alto: Stanford Economics and Finance, 2013).Google Scholar

70 Feinberg, Joel, Harm to Self (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 25 Google Scholar; cited in de Marneffe, Peter, “Avoiding Paternalism,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 34, no. 1 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 Scoccia, Danny, “In Defense of Hard Paternalism,” Law and Philosophy 27, no. 4 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

72 For a recent and explicit defense of this argument, see Conly, Sarah, Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Sunstein, Cass, Why Nudge? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014).Google Scholar

73 See Thompson, Dennis F., Political Ethics and Public Office (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 156.Google Scholar

74 Ben-Porath, Sigal, Tough Choices: Structured Paternalism and the Landscape of Choice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 19.Google Scholar

75 For other ways to place boundaries on paternalism, see Thompson, Dennis F., Political Ethics and Public Office (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), 156–60.Google Scholar

76 Sunstein, Why Nudge?; Esther Duflo, “Paternalism versus Freedom?” Tanner lectures, May, 2012. Downloaded from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Feconomics.mit.edu%2Ffiles%2F7904&ei=WnwpVLv9LsHGsQTGooKIDA&usg=AFQjCNGnfYLrtP53-y11-o47jDUEeqBFZQ&sig2=NTrIfEmbtYYZcBZUL8ZfCw. September 26, 2014.