Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1910048
Babak RezaeeDaryakenari
ABSTRACT If nonviolent methods of resistance are effective – and perhaps even more successful than violent methods – why do opposition movements ever resort to violence? The literature on social movement and nonviolent resistance implies that expansion in an opposition movement’s size decreases the risk of violent dissent since successful recruitments improve the movement’s relative power and reduce the necessity of using violence to pressure the state. Nevertheless, a sudden and large expansion in movement size can overburden its organizational capacities and thus increase the risk of violent dissent. Therefore, this study contends while a gradual expansion in the size of the movement decreases the likelihood of violent dissent, a sudden and large expansion in its size raises the risk of violence. These theoretical arguments are evaluated empirically using Nonviolent and Violent Campaigns and Outcomes 2.1 and Mass Demonstrations and Mass Violent Events in the Former USSR datasets. The analysis of these datasets across several regression models supports the developed theoretical arguments.
{"title":"The dilemma of violence","authors":"Babak RezaeeDaryakenari","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1910048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1910048","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT If nonviolent methods of resistance are effective – and perhaps even more successful than violent methods – why do opposition movements ever resort to violence? The literature on social movement and nonviolent resistance implies that expansion in an opposition movement’s size decreases the risk of violent dissent since successful recruitments improve the movement’s relative power and reduce the necessity of using violence to pressure the state. Nevertheless, a sudden and large expansion in movement size can overburden its organizational capacities and thus increase the risk of violent dissent. Therefore, this study contends while a gradual expansion in the size of the movement decreases the likelihood of violent dissent, a sudden and large expansion in its size raises the risk of violence. These theoretical arguments are evaluated empirically using Nonviolent and Violent Campaigns and Outcomes 2.1 and Mass Demonstrations and Mass Violent Events in the Former USSR datasets. The analysis of these datasets across several regression models supports the developed theoretical arguments.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1910048","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43809588","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1989314
François Randour
ABSTRACT The literature on national parliaments and the EU has built up its knowledge on the strength and activities of domestic parliaments in the European Union. While these studies were of outmost importance to understand how and why parliaments and MPs act on EU affairs, we still know little on the influence of domestic parliaments on the EU policy of their executive and on EU policy-making more generally. The article first presents the current gaps in knowledge as well as the challenges to study the influence of parliaments in EU affairs and ends by presenting a research strategy which advocates ‘reconnecting’ empirical works on national parliaments and the EU with the Principal-Agent model. This research agenda could foster new theoretical and empirical studies with important implications for the debate on the (re)parliamentarisation of the European Union as well as on EU negotiations.
{"title":"Studying the influence of national parliaments in EU affairs: reconnecting empirical research and the Principal-Agent approach","authors":"François Randour","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1989314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1989314","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The literature on national parliaments and the EU has built up its knowledge on the strength and activities of domestic parliaments in the European Union. While these studies were of outmost importance to understand how and why parliaments and MPs act on EU affairs, we still know little on the influence of domestic parliaments on the EU policy of their executive and on EU policy-making more generally. The article first presents the current gaps in knowledge as well as the challenges to study the influence of parliaments in EU affairs and ends by presenting a research strategy which advocates ‘reconnecting’ empirical works on national parliaments and the EU with the Principal-Agent model. This research agenda could foster new theoretical and empirical studies with important implications for the debate on the (re)parliamentarisation of the European Union as well as on EU negotiations.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43948875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734
Andreas Schedler
ABSTRACT Even before the invention of modern democracy, political theorists have warned about the dangers of ‘majoritarian tyrannies.’ While the concept has been perennially suspicious of serving as an antidemocratic stratagem, I propose to revalue it as an antipopulist tool of horizontal accountability among citizens (‘demos accountability’). Subverting the populist narrative of popular unity and virtue, it allows aggrieved minorities to call their majoritarian fellow citizens to account for the injustices they help to produce. Given its metaphorical quality, however, its rootedness in the image of the personal tyrant, the idea of majoritarian tyranny carries deep democratic ambiguities. To recognize these ambiguities, I argue, we need to resist the suggestive power of its animating metaphor and take the empirical complexities of its logical building blocks seriously: the exercise of tyranny, the exclusive targeting of minorities, and collective action by the majority. My stepwise analytical reconstruction of these three constitutive elements of majoritarian tyrannies reveals two metaphorical pitfalls that threaten the democratic fertility of the concept: its vilifying and its simplifying assumptions.
{"title":"An ambiguous tool of demos accountability: taking the metaphorical concept of majoritarian tyranny seriously","authors":"Andreas Schedler","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.2007734","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Even before the invention of modern democracy, political theorists have warned about the dangers of ‘majoritarian tyrannies.’ While the concept has been perennially suspicious of serving as an antidemocratic stratagem, I propose to revalue it as an antipopulist tool of horizontal accountability among citizens (‘demos accountability’). Subverting the populist narrative of popular unity and virtue, it allows aggrieved minorities to call their majoritarian fellow citizens to account for the injustices they help to produce. Given its metaphorical quality, however, its rootedness in the image of the personal tyrant, the idea of majoritarian tyranny carries deep democratic ambiguities. To recognize these ambiguities, I argue, we need to resist the suggestive power of its animating metaphor and take the empirical complexities of its logical building blocks seriously: the exercise of tyranny, the exclusive targeting of minorities, and collective action by the majority. My stepwise analytical reconstruction of these three constitutive elements of majoritarian tyrannies reveals two metaphorical pitfalls that threaten the democratic fertility of the concept: its vilifying and its simplifying assumptions.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47973071","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343
Felix Butzlaff, Michael Deflorian
ABSTRACT Currently proliferating alternative action organizations, such as food cooperatives, solidary agriculture, repair cafés, or DIY initiatives, pursue social transformation at a deliberate distance from party politics. Instead, they concentrate on changing society directly by altering everyday routines and thereby prefiguring an alternative society. Local and experimental movements promise to pioneer social alternatives, which traditional organizations appear to be unable to accomplish. This indicates a remarkable shift, since in the past, social mobilizations often pursued direct social action and party politics simultaneously. The current literature conceptualizes movements and parties primarily as cross-fertilizing allies or even potential hybrids (movement parties) yet struggles to explain why alternative action organizations in countries that have not experienced post-crisis austerity measures have largely abandoned the parliamentary arena. Addressing this gap, we compare contemporary understandings of direct social action in Germany with past understandings: that of the 1920s labour movement and the 1970s new social movements. Applying sociological theories of modernization, we demonstrate that processes of individualization and flexibilization have increased the demand for immediate experiences of social change and decreased the attractiveness of formal organization. Since this makes strategic alliances between movements and political parties increasingly unlikely, societies’ capacity to organize long-term social struggles might be impaired.
{"title":"Direct social action beyond party politics. How new subjectivities change the idea of social transformation","authors":"Felix Butzlaff, Michael Deflorian","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Currently proliferating alternative action organizations, such as food cooperatives, solidary agriculture, repair cafés, or DIY initiatives, pursue social transformation at a deliberate distance from party politics. Instead, they concentrate on changing society directly by altering everyday routines and thereby prefiguring an alternative society. Local and experimental movements promise to pioneer social alternatives, which traditional organizations appear to be unable to accomplish. This indicates a remarkable shift, since in the past, social mobilizations often pursued direct social action and party politics simultaneously. The current literature conceptualizes movements and parties primarily as cross-fertilizing allies or even potential hybrids (movement parties) yet struggles to explain why alternative action organizations in countries that have not experienced post-crisis austerity measures have largely abandoned the parliamentary arena. Addressing this gap, we compare contemporary understandings of direct social action in Germany with past understandings: that of the 1920s labour movement and the 1970s new social movements. Applying sociological theories of modernization, we demonstrate that processes of individualization and flexibilization have increased the demand for immediate experiences of social change and decreased the attractiveness of formal organization. Since this makes strategic alliances between movements and political parties increasingly unlikely, societies’ capacity to organize long-term social struggles might be impaired.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1896343","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46367014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1934049
Taavi Sundell
ABSTRACT Plan S, promoted by cOAlition S, is a significant attempt to hegemonize a specific form of Open Access (OA) as the future of academic publishing on a global level. It mandates that the results from Coalition-funded research must be published in fora compliant with its criteria. This article questions the Plan’s supposed radicalness from a political economy perspective with the help of post-foundational discourse theory. Specific attention will be paid to its implications for property rights as the contingent foundation of knowledge production. The Plan and OA will be examined within the context of globally unequal structures of scientific knowledge production and attempts to transform them into a more equal system. The analyzed data consist of the archive from the following sequence: (i) the publication of draft guidance on the implementation of the Plan, released by the Coalition in November 2018, (ii) a collection of feedback statements on the draft by the Coalition from November 2018 to February 2019, and (iii) release of the updated guidance adopted and published by the Coalition in May 2019. The primary object of analysis is the antagonism articulated towards the Plan within what is here termed the conservative-propertarian discursive formation.
{"title":"Political economy of Plan S: a post-foundational perspective on Open Access","authors":"Taavi Sundell","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1934049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1934049","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Plan S, promoted by cOAlition S, is a significant attempt to hegemonize a specific form of Open Access (OA) as the future of academic publishing on a global level. It mandates that the results from Coalition-funded research must be published in fora compliant with its criteria. This article questions the Plan’s supposed radicalness from a political economy perspective with the help of post-foundational discourse theory. Specific attention will be paid to its implications for property rights as the contingent foundation of knowledge production. The Plan and OA will be examined within the context of globally unequal structures of scientific knowledge production and attempts to transform them into a more equal system. The analyzed data consist of the archive from the following sequence: (i) the publication of draft guidance on the implementation of the Plan, released by the Coalition in November 2018, (ii) a collection of feedback statements on the draft by the Coalition from November 2018 to February 2019, and (iii) release of the updated guidance adopted and published by the Coalition in May 2019. The primary object of analysis is the antagonism articulated towards the Plan within what is here termed the conservative-propertarian discursive formation.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1934049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49183980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1932532
Tim Vlandas, Dan McArthur, Michael Ganslmeier
ABSTRACT Population ageing, and the decline in the working-age population, represent a profound global demographic shift. What political consequences do ageing populations have for the economies of advanced democracies? To address this question, we carry out a wide-ranging, systematic literature review using network-based community detection algorithms and manual coding to select almost 150 articles. We find that research in this area typically focuses on a few mechanisms and is therefore – by design – unable to identify gaps in existing knowledge or assess interactions between different strands of literature. Our review suggests that ageing has important implications for a variety of domains including electoral behaviour, social policy preferences, and public spending. Taken together, the political consequences of population ageing are likely to have previously overlooked and indirect impacts on economic outcomes. Future research should, therefore, examine how population ageing shapes political dynamics and policy choices in ways that also affect the economy.
{"title":"Ageing and the economy: a literature review of political and policy mechanisms","authors":"Tim Vlandas, Dan McArthur, Michael Ganslmeier","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1932532","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1932532","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 Population ageing, and the decline in the working-age population, represent a profound global demographic shift. What political consequences do ageing populations have for the economies of advanced democracies? To address this question, we carry out a wide-ranging, systematic literature review using network-based community detection algorithms and manual coding to select almost 150 articles. We find that research in this area typically focuses on a few mechanisms and is therefore – by design – unable to identify gaps in existing knowledge or assess interactions between different strands of literature. Our review suggests that ageing has important implications for a variety of domains including electoral behaviour, social policy preferences, and public spending. Taken together, the political consequences of population ageing are likely to have previously overlooked and indirect impacts on economic outcomes. Future research should, therefore, examine how population ageing shapes political dynamics and policy choices in ways that also affect the economy.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1932532","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45836544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2021.1938149
Enrique Hernández, Margarita Torre, Antoni-Italo de Moragas
ABSTRACT The distinction between constitutional monarchies and republics constitutes a striking divide in how modern democracies are institutionalized. However, the lack of data about citizens' preferences for a monarchic or republican model of democracy has hindered the analysis of public opinion about this topic. This research note introduces a comprehensive survey that gauges citizens' attitudes towards the monarchy in Spain. The survey was fielded in late 2020 and provides unique information such as respondents' preferences about different models of democracy, how they define an ideal monarch, and their evaluations of whether current and former Spanish kings live up to these ideals. We first highlight the unique features of the dataset and provide a detailed account of the variables included. We then illustrate the potential of this survey for the study of political culture through descriptive analyses of some of the key variables included in the dataset.
{"title":"The crown: a survey about the Spanish monarchy","authors":"Enrique Hernández, Margarita Torre, Antoni-Italo de Moragas","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1938149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1938149","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The distinction between constitutional monarchies and republics constitutes a striking divide in how modern democracies are institutionalized. However, the lack of data about citizens' preferences for a monarchic or republican model of democracy has hindered the analysis of public opinion about this topic. This research note introduces a comprehensive survey that gauges citizens' attitudes towards the monarchy in Spain. The survey was fielded in late 2020 and provides unique information such as respondents' preferences about different models of democracy, how they define an ideal monarch, and their evaluations of whether current and former Spanish kings live up to these ideals. We first highlight the unique features of the dataset and provide a detailed account of the variables included. We then illustrate the potential of this survey for the study of political culture through descriptive analyses of some of the key variables included in the dataset.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1938149","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41963189","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-12-30DOI: 10.1080/2474736X.2020.1860652
Bastian Becker
ABSTRACT Widespread unawareness and indifference arguably contribute to growing inequalities. However, previous studies have paid little attention to the applicability of these arguments over time. This paper demonstrates that perceptions of inequality and their effects on attitudes towards inequality and redistribution can change considerably. Using social survey data from the United States (1987–2009), it is shown that perceptions of income inequality do not have the same effect on attitudes throughout the period under study. Perceptions of opportunity inequality, which have received less attention in prior studies, produce more stable results. Accounting for and explaining such changes is necessary to advance research on inequality and public opinion.
{"title":"Temporal change in inequality perceptions and effects on political attitudes","authors":"Bastian Becker","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2020.1860652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1860652","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Widespread unawareness and indifference arguably contribute to growing inequalities. However, previous studies have paid little attention to the applicability of these arguments over time. This paper demonstrates that perceptions of inequality and their effects on attitudes towards inequality and redistribution can change considerably. Using social survey data from the United States (1987–2009), it is shown that perceptions of income inequality do not have the same effect on attitudes throughout the period under study. Perceptions of opportunity inequality, which have received less attention in prior studies, produce more stable results. Accounting for and explaining such changes is necessary to advance research on inequality and public opinion.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2020.1860652","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42915633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736x.2020.1802206
Nardine Alnemr, T. Choucair, Nicole Curato
ABSTRACT There are many ways of amplifying the voices of the poor in today’s multimedia saturated societies. In this article, we argue that the dominant portrayals of poverty in the media privilege voices that exclude the poor from authentic and consequential deliberations that affect their lives. We make a case for amplifying the poor’s deliberative agency – the performance of political justification in the public sphere – when creating media content. Through two illustrative examples, we demonstrate that amplifying the poor’s deliberative agency is both normatively desirable and politically possible. We begin with the case of Brazil where we discuss how slow journalism drew attention to the diversity of the poor’s political claims about a mining disaster, followed by the case of citizen journalism in Lebanon where a protest movement shifted the dominant arguments about the garbage crisis from an issue of the dirty poor to an issue of the corrupt elite. Through these examples, this article makes a normative case for portraying poor communities as democratic agents who are bearers of ideas, reasons, justifications, and aspirations. We argue that this portrayal is essential for promoting virtues of deliberative democracy – inclusiveness, pluralistic reason-giving, and reflexivity – that are very much needed in contemporary times.
{"title":"Can the poor exercise deliberative agency in a multimedia saturated society? Lessons from Brazil and Lebanon","authors":"Nardine Alnemr, T. Choucair, Nicole Curato","doi":"10.1080/2474736x.2020.1802206","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1802206","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There are many ways of amplifying the voices of the poor in today’s multimedia saturated societies. In this article, we argue that the dominant portrayals of poverty in the media privilege voices that exclude the poor from authentic and consequential deliberations that affect their lives. We make a case for amplifying the poor’s deliberative agency – the performance of political justification in the public sphere – when creating media content. Through two illustrative examples, we demonstrate that amplifying the poor’s deliberative agency is both normatively desirable and politically possible. We begin with the case of Brazil where we discuss how slow journalism drew attention to the diversity of the poor’s political claims about a mining disaster, followed by the case of citizen journalism in Lebanon where a protest movement shifted the dominant arguments about the garbage crisis from an issue of the dirty poor to an issue of the corrupt elite. Through these examples, this article makes a normative case for portraying poor communities as democratic agents who are bearers of ideas, reasons, justifications, and aspirations. We argue that this portrayal is essential for promoting virtues of deliberative democracy – inclusiveness, pluralistic reason-giving, and reflexivity – that are very much needed in contemporary times.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1802206","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47592619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.1080/2474736x.2020.1809474
Sergiu Gherghina, Brigitte Geißel
ABSTRACT The models of direct and deliberative democracy are broadly considered the major alternatives to representative democracy. So far, the two models have been merged under the broad umbrella of participatory democracy and thus little is known about why citizens support direct democracy and/or deliberation. They are distinct procedures, driven by different logics and outcomes and this makes it likely that the preference for them rest on different premises. This article fills this gap in the literature and distinguishes between the models proposing two central arguments. First, we expect that several general determinants have a positive impact on the support for both direct democracy and deliberation because they are different from representative democracy. Second, we test the effect of specific determinants that drive people towards supporting more one of the two alternative models of democracy. We use individual level data from an original survey conducted in December 2018 on a representative sample of 1094 respondents in the UK. The results indicate that the supporters of direct democracy differ from those of deliberative democracy in several ways.
{"title":"Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: understanding the difference","authors":"Sergiu Gherghina, Brigitte Geißel","doi":"10.1080/2474736x.2020.1809474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1809474","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The models of direct and deliberative democracy are broadly considered the major alternatives to representative democracy. So far, the two models have been merged under the broad umbrella of participatory democracy and thus little is known about why citizens support direct democracy and/or deliberation. They are distinct procedures, driven by different logics and outcomes and this makes it likely that the preference for them rest on different premises. This article fills this gap in the literature and distinguishes between the models proposing two central arguments. First, we expect that several general determinants have a positive impact on the support for both direct democracy and deliberation because they are different from representative democracy. Second, we test the effect of specific determinants that drive people towards supporting more one of the two alternative models of democracy. We use individual level data from an original survey conducted in December 2018 on a representative sample of 1094 respondents in the UK. The results indicate that the supporters of direct democracy differ from those of deliberative democracy in several ways.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1809474","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43071825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：