First published in 1922, this title written by L. T. Hobhouse, British politician and one of the leading theorists of Social Liberalism, is a seminal work concerning the social application of ethical principles for the common good. The object of the book is to show that social and political institutions are not ends in themselves. Hobhouse argues that the social ideal is to be sought not in the faultless unchanging system of an institutional Utopia, but in the love of a spiritual life with its unfailing system of harmonious growth unconfined.

Since its publication in 1965, Brian Barry's seminal work has occupied an important role in the revival of Anglo-American political philosophy. A number of ideas and terms in it have become part of the standard vocabulary, such as the distinction between ""ideal-regarding"" and ""want-regarding"" principles and the division of principles into aggregative and distributive. The book provided the first precise analysis of the concept of political values having trade-off relations and its analysis of the notion of the public interest has also been significant.

First published in 1921, this book explores the function of Reason in practical life. It considers whether there is a Rational, demonstrable, standard of values to which the actions of man and the institutions of society may be referred for judgement, and to what authority and power does it possess to influence the actual conduct of men and society.

[Volume 3].

First published in 1985, this study, focusing on Iran, looks at the underlying reasons why certain political, economic and social events have taken place in the country’s history. It provides vital analysis of the political and economic issues of the country, and those that have affected it, as well as providing statistical material on all the key data of the political economy. The book was originally published as part of the Middle East Research Institute (MERI) Reports on the Middle East which quickly established themselves as the most authoritative and up-to-date information on the state of affairs in the region.

This is a sociological study of a Norwegian penal institution. The author spent two years in the institution, observing and interviewing inmates and staff, the target being to learn the extent to which American prisons fit with prison life in a different culture. He gives a fascinating answer to the question: Norwegian prisons were, at the time of the study, miles away from their American counterparts. The conflicts between prison officers and inmates were certainly there, but they took a very different form. Rather than engaging in deviant practices and norms, emphasising more or less solidary opposition against the staff, the Norwegian prisoners criticised the staff and the prison fiercely on the basis of their own norms; rather than engaging in deviance, they turned the common practises and norms of Norwegian society against the staff, engaging in a kind of moral surveillance of those in power. He coined the phrase of "censoriousness" to this approach from the "bottom" if the prison. Mathiesen spells out the major causes of this different approach, from characteristics of this particular prison to broader social forces.