Pub Date : 2023-11-15DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2023.2281603
Ruth Lane, Annica Kronsell, David Reynolds, Rob Raven, Christine Mannich
{"title":"Responsibility and innovation for low waste and circular economy transitions: what roles for households?","authors":"Ruth Lane, Annica Kronsell, David Reynolds, Rob Raven, Christine Mannich","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2023.2281603","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2023.2281603","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139272027","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-13DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2023.2279976
Sakrawandi Sakrawandi
Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP/Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education) for supporting the author’s education.
点击放大图片点击缩小图片披露声明作者未发现潜在的利益冲突。这项工作得到了Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (ldp /印度尼西亚教育捐赠基金)的支持，以支持作者的教育。
{"title":"Public Policy and Indigenous Futures <b>Public Policy and Indigenous Futures</b> , edited by Nikki Moodie and Sarah Maddison, Singapore, Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd, 2023, 129 pp., EUR €93.08 (ebook), €109.99 (hardcover), ISBN 978-981-19-9319-0","authors":"Sakrawandi Sakrawandi","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2023.2279976","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2023.2279976","url":null,"abstract":"Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationFundingThe work was supported by the Lembaga Pengelola Dana Pendidikan (LPDP/Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education) for supporting the author’s education.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"49 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136348181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-10DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2023.2280711
Ya Li, Lukas Salecker
ABSTRACTDeliberative policy analysis (DPA) has fallen short and has been far from reaching its potentials as an alternative to traditional policy analysis. As a response, DPA has been reframed toward a methodological orientation. This article is a follow-up to the two special issues on DPA in 2019 and 2020. It begins by outlining the methodological framework of DPA, introducing its key considerations, the process, and the proposed organizational solution. Two DPA cases, conducted in China and Europe, are presented to showcase how the framework has been used in practice, and in authoritarian and democratic context, respectively. Then, the article brings up our discussions of and reflections on the two cases from a comparative perspective, regarding their different political contexts, foci on conflicts of interests or values/worldviews, and the design of the processes. We end the article by proposing some topics for further exploration.KEYWORDS: Deliberative policy analysismethodological frameworkdeliberationconsensus buildingpractical cases AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank Hendrik Wagenaar and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on this article. The authors also appreciate the contribution and collaboration of the EAD team and the advisors of the Volt Europa deliberation project.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. A widely referenced definition of public policy is ‘whatever governments choose to do or not to do’ (Dye Citation2016, 1). Here we can understand ‘policy’ in a broader way: policy refers to public decision made by governments, communities, other public organizations, or international actors within their jurisdiction. It could be in forms of law, regulation, decree, plan or program, public rules or notice, guidelines or vision, organizational charter or constitution, international treaty or agreement, etc. DPA can be widely applied to these situations.2. In China, public participation is mandatory in three major institutional scenarios, public price hearing (Yang and Schachter Citation2003), administrative rule-making (Horsley Citation2018), and environmental impact assessment (Enserink and Alberton Citation2016).Additional informationNotes on contributorsYa LiYa Li is a professor of Public Administration at Beihang University, China, He also serves as the founding director of the Laboratory for Deliberative Policy Analysis (LDPA). His research focuses on deliberative policy analysis, public deliberation, and public dispute resolution. He proposed the methodological orientation of DPA and has accordingly conducted more than a dozen purposeful practice in Beijing. His recent books include Deliberative Policy Analysis (China Social Sciences Press 2022) and Resolving Public Disputes Creatively (Renmin 2015).Lukas SaleckerLukas Salecker is a political economist based in Berlin, Germany. He has actively engaged as a consultant, organizer, and leader in init
摘要协商性政策分析(deliberative policy analysis, DPA)作为传统政策分析的替代手段，其潜力还远远没有发挥出来。作为一种反应，发展业务分析会已朝着方法论方向重新调整。本文是DPA 2019年和2020年两期特刊的后续。本文首先概述了DPA的方法学框架，介绍了DPA的关键考虑因素、流程和建议的组织解决方案。在中国和欧洲进行的两个DPA案例分别展示了该框架如何在实践中以及在专制和民主背景下使用。然后，本文从比较的角度对这两个案例进行了讨论和思考，包括它们不同的政治背景、关注的利益冲突或价值观/世界观，以及流程的设计。最后，我们提出了一些有待进一步探讨的主题。作者要感谢Hendrik Wagenaar和两位匿名审稿人对本文的深刻评论。作者还感谢EAD团队和Volt Europa审议项目顾问的贡献和合作。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。一个被广泛引用的公共政策定义是“政府选择做或不做的任何事情”(Dye Citation2016, 1)。在这里，我们可以从更广泛的角度理解“政策”:政策是指政府、社区、其他公共组织或国际行为体在其管辖范围内做出的公共决策。它可以是法律、法规、法令、计划或项目、公共规则或通知、指导方针或愿景、组织章程或宪法、国际条约或协议等形式。DPA可以广泛应用于这些情况。在中国，公众参与在公共价格听证会(Yang and Schachter Citation2003)、行政规则制定(Horsley Citation2018)和环境影响评价(Enserink and Alberton Citation2016)这三种主要制度情景中是强制性的。作者简介李亚，中国北京航空航天大学公共管理学院教授，同时也是审议性政策分析实验室(LDPA)的创始主任。他的研究重点是审议性政策分析、公共审议和公共争端解决。他提出了DPA的方法论取向，并据此在北京进行了十多次有目的的实践。最近出版的著作包括《审慎的政策分析》(中国社会科学出版社2022)和《创造性地解决公共纠纷》(人民出版社2015)。Lukas Salecker是德国柏林的政治经济学家。他作为顾问、组织者和领导者积极参与赋予公民权力、挑战现状和为共同利益塑造集体未来的倡议。2021年，他在伏特欧罗巴参与组织了一个基于公民集会模式的参与式过程，在西方背景下试点审议性政策分析的实践。最近，他发起了审议项目，利用人工智能来加强审议决策，以实现包容性、共识性和可持续的民主参与。
{"title":"Practicing deliberative policy analysis: two cases from China and Europe","authors":"Ya Li, Lukas Salecker","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2023.2280711","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2023.2280711","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTDeliberative policy analysis (DPA) has fallen short and has been far from reaching its potentials as an alternative to traditional policy analysis. As a response, DPA has been reframed toward a methodological orientation. This article is a follow-up to the two special issues on DPA in 2019 and 2020. It begins by outlining the methodological framework of DPA, introducing its key considerations, the process, and the proposed organizational solution. Two DPA cases, conducted in China and Europe, are presented to showcase how the framework has been used in practice, and in authoritarian and democratic context, respectively. Then, the article brings up our discussions of and reflections on the two cases from a comparative perspective, regarding their different political contexts, foci on conflicts of interests or values/worldviews, and the design of the processes. We end the article by proposing some topics for further exploration.KEYWORDS: Deliberative policy analysismethodological frameworkdeliberationconsensus buildingpractical cases AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank Hendrik Wagenaar and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on this article. The authors also appreciate the contribution and collaboration of the EAD team and the advisors of the Volt Europa deliberation project.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. A widely referenced definition of public policy is ‘whatever governments choose to do or not to do’ (Dye Citation2016, 1). Here we can understand ‘policy’ in a broader way: policy refers to public decision made by governments, communities, other public organizations, or international actors within their jurisdiction. It could be in forms of law, regulation, decree, plan or program, public rules or notice, guidelines or vision, organizational charter or constitution, international treaty or agreement, etc. DPA can be widely applied to these situations.2. In China, public participation is mandatory in three major institutional scenarios, public price hearing (Yang and Schachter Citation2003), administrative rule-making (Horsley Citation2018), and environmental impact assessment (Enserink and Alberton Citation2016).Additional informationNotes on contributorsYa LiYa Li is a professor of Public Administration at Beihang University, China, He also serves as the founding director of the Laboratory for Deliberative Policy Analysis (LDPA). His research focuses on deliberative policy analysis, public deliberation, and public dispute resolution. He proposed the methodological orientation of DPA and has accordingly conducted more than a dozen purposeful practice in Beijing. His recent books include Deliberative Policy Analysis (China Social Sciences Press 2022) and Resolving Public Disputes Creatively (Renmin 2015).Lukas SaleckerLukas Salecker is a political economist based in Berlin, Germany. He has actively engaged as a consultant, organizer, and leader in init","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"124 27","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135137141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-09DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2023.2275289
Tuomas Tervasmäki
This research explores how anticipatory policymaking played out in Finnish higher education reform. The study applies a discourse theoretic framework to explore how policy narrative might prove attractive to subjects by mobilizing ideas, norms, and fantasies through affective identification. Fantasies frame and stabilize our sense-making practices, thereby providing affective belonging and (ir)rationale for our actions. As an empirical case, the analysis of the Vision Development 2030 reform elucidates how the policy documents construct fantasmatic narratives (with reference to obstacles, threats, and plenitude to come) that set the terms of debate in articulating the ‘problem’ of Finnish HE and in supplying the favorable policy solutions. Scrutinizing a range of ideological fantasies, such as articulating gloomy forecasts and reactivating cognitive and affective memories of past successes, Vision Development sought to evoke subjects’ latent emotions and desires, mobilizing them toward a reproduction of the techno-managerialist order. Applying poststructuralist discourse theory and the concept of fantasy in policy studies, the role of desire and affective rhetoric in anticipatory future-making can be critically evaluated and the implications of such policy doctrines contemplated.
{"title":"Anticipatory policy rhetoric: exploring ideological fantasies of Finnish higher education","authors":"Tuomas Tervasmäki","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2023.2275289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2023.2275289","url":null,"abstract":"This research explores how anticipatory policymaking played out in Finnish higher education reform. The study applies a discourse theoretic framework to explore how policy narrative might prove attractive to subjects by mobilizing ideas, norms, and fantasies through affective identification. Fantasies frame and stabilize our sense-making practices, thereby providing affective belonging and (ir)rationale for our actions. As an empirical case, the analysis of the Vision Development 2030 reform elucidates how the policy documents construct fantasmatic narratives (with reference to obstacles, threats, and plenitude to come) that set the terms of debate in articulating the ‘problem’ of Finnish HE and in supplying the favorable policy solutions. Scrutinizing a range of ideological fantasies, such as articulating gloomy forecasts and reactivating cognitive and affective memories of past successes, Vision Development sought to evoke subjects’ latent emotions and desires, mobilizing them toward a reproduction of the techno-managerialist order. Applying poststructuralist discourse theory and the concept of fantasy in policy studies, the role of desire and affective rhetoric in anticipatory future-making can be critically evaluated and the implications of such policy doctrines contemplated.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":" 17","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135242404","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-11-02DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2023.2274542
Laura Porak
This paper addresses the tensions between political sovereignty and global capitalist accumulation that arise from neoliberal globalization: in the context of neoliberal globalization, the role of the state was substantially altered, and competitiveness became important to sustain economic growth, employment and wealth. However, for this purpose, the internal stabilization of the economy also has to be ensured. Competition state-ness aims to reconcile domestic and global market dynamics. This paper addresses this challenge from a Cultural Political Economy perspective, arguing that the specific way this is done results from ideas, institutional selectivities and materiality. As the supranational level gained importance during globalization, this paper uses the European competition state project as an empirical example. It uses a Critical Discourse Analysis to analyze the economic imaginaries on competition of the European socio-economic strategy, Europe 2020. The central findings are two imaginaries on competition that address different market dynamics in the neoliberal political economy: the ‘sovereign entity’ that promotes a well-functioning domestic market, and the ‘competitive entity’ that aims to increase European competitiveness to thrive on the world market. Although tensions arise between the imaginaries, it is argued in the end that three strategies based on them constitute the European competition state project.
{"title":"Political sovereignty in tension with global capitalist accumulation: the case of the European socio-economic strategy","authors":"Laura Porak","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2023.2274542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2023.2274542","url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the tensions between political sovereignty and global capitalist accumulation that arise from neoliberal globalization: in the context of neoliberal globalization, the role of the state was substantially altered, and competitiveness became important to sustain economic growth, employment and wealth. However, for this purpose, the internal stabilization of the economy also has to be ensured. Competition state-ness aims to reconcile domestic and global market dynamics. This paper addresses this challenge from a Cultural Political Economy perspective, arguing that the specific way this is done results from ideas, institutional selectivities and materiality. As the supranational level gained importance during globalization, this paper uses the European competition state project as an empirical example. It uses a Critical Discourse Analysis to analyze the economic imaginaries on competition of the European socio-economic strategy, Europe 2020. The central findings are two imaginaries on competition that address different market dynamics in the neoliberal political economy: the ‘sovereign entity’ that promotes a well-functioning domestic market, and the ‘competitive entity’ that aims to increase European competitiveness to thrive on the world market. Although tensions arise between the imaginaries, it is argued in the end that three strategies based on them constitute the European competition state project.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"60 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135934792","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
‘Sustainable Development’ can be understood as a widely used discourse that has become even more prominent since the publication of the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development in 2015. In this paper we analyze the way sustainable development discourse unfolds within the context of development aid in Germany by undertaking a discourse analysis of reports on development policy published 1973–2017 by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Our analysis reveals that the sustainable development discourse is characterized by distinct components and storylines that change over time. We detect, in general, a shift away from a focus on environmental protection toward an emphasis on the role of the private sector in leading sustainable development. We argue, therefore, that although development is now only legitimate if it is ‘sustainable’, the discourse apparently facilitates the uneven allocation of development aid. The concern that arises here is that although Agenda 2030 pledges to take “bold and transformative steps’ to secure the planet and to leave ‘no one behind” the least developed states who cannot provide ‘private sector opportunities’ or fulfil ‘national self-responsibilities’ for sustainable development are indeed being ‘left behind’.
{"title":"Sustainable development discourse and development aid in Germany: tracking the changes from environmental protectionism towards private sector opportunities","authors":"Fabio Schojan, Amanda Machin, Magdalene Silberberger","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2023.2265988","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2023.2265988","url":null,"abstract":"‘Sustainable Development’ can be understood as a widely used discourse that has become even more prominent since the publication of the UN Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development in 2015. In this paper we analyze the way sustainable development discourse unfolds within the context of development aid in Germany by undertaking a discourse analysis of reports on development policy published 1973–2017 by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Our analysis reveals that the sustainable development discourse is characterized by distinct components and storylines that change over time. We detect, in general, a shift away from a focus on environmental protection toward an emphasis on the role of the private sector in leading sustainable development. We argue, therefore, that although development is now only legitimate if it is ‘sustainable’, the discourse apparently facilitates the uneven allocation of development aid. The concern that arises here is that although Agenda 2030 pledges to take “bold and transformative steps’ to secure the planet and to leave ‘no one behind” the least developed states who cannot provide ‘private sector opportunities’ or fulfil ‘national self-responsibilities’ for sustainable development are indeed being ‘left behind’.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"46 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136376380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-16DOI: 10.1080/19460171.2023.2267631
Regina Queiroz
ABSTRACTFriedrich Hayek presents a demarchic conception of democracy as a solution for what he takes to be the inherently corrupt and totalitarian nature of liberal democracy. While still preserving the label ‘liberal representative democracy’, this Hayekian demarchy precludes parliamentary and governmental institutions from providing positive laws and policies on behalf of their constituents where this would require the transfer of the private property of individuals. Such laws and policies would, on this demarchic conception of liberal democracy, undermine individuals’ free usufruct. I argue that demarchy’s detachment from any concern with the well-being of many of its citizens is an illiberal and anti-democratic (sub)version of liberal democracy that increases populism and risks crushing liberal democracy between the pseudo- and anti-liberal support of a totalitarian majoritarian people’s sovereign power and a minoritarian anti-democratic elite. As such, liberal democracy conceived of in Hayekian demarchic terms is itself an oppressive totalitarian political theory incapable of preventing an increase in illiberal and anti-liberal political forces. Moreover, I argue that it is imperative that we acknowledge and appreciate the extent to which demarchy undermines, rather than strengthens, liberal democracy.KEYWORDS: Demarchyilliberalismliberal democracymarketspopulism AcknowledgmentsThe author is grateful for the helpful comments and suggestions of the anonymous reviewers and Britt Harrison.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. https://www.blaetter.de/aktuell/dokumente/»wir-werden-wege-finden-die-parlamentarische-mitbestimmung-so-zu-gestalten-dass-si, accessed 27th July.2. See Law No. 31/2012 of 14/08 (Lei n. 31/2012, de 14 de Agosto (pgdlisboa.pt) acceded 29 January 2021.3. The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [0].Notes on contributorsRegina QueirozRegina Queiroz is a researcher at IFILNOVA, NOVA University Lisbon, and teaches at Lusófona University. Her interests lie in the justice and rationality of social and political institutions, uniting Rawlsian theories of fairness, Aristotelian theories of phronesis, comparative analysis of liberalism and neoliberalism, and gender and racial discrimination.
摘要弗里德里希·哈耶克提出了民主的界定概念，作为他所认为的自由民主固有的腐败和极权本质的解决方案。虽然仍然保留了“自由代议制民主”的标签，但这种哈耶克式的政策排除了议会和政府机构代表其选民提供积极的法律和政策，这需要转移个人的私有财产。按照这种自由民主的界定概念，这样的法律和政策将破坏个人的自由用益权。我认为，demarchy对其许多公民福祉的任何关注都是自由民主的一种非自由主义和反民主(次)版本，它会增加民粹主义，并有可能在极权主义多数主义人民主权和少数主义反民主精英的伪自由主义和反自由主义支持之间摧毁自由民主。因此，哈耶克式的自由主义民主本身就是一种压迫性的极权主义政治理论，无法阻止非自由主义和反自由主义政治力量的增长。此外，我认为，我们必须承认并理解政策在多大程度上削弱(而不是加强)自由民主。关键词:自由主义自由民主市场民粹主义感谢匿名审稿人和Britt Harrison的宝贵意见和建议。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。https://www.blaetter.de/aktuell/dokumente/»wir-werden-wege-finden-die-parlamentarische- mitbestimung -so-zu-gestalten-dass-si，访问日期为7月27日。见2008年1月29日通过的第31/2012号法律(Lei n. 31/2012, de 14 de Agosto (pgdlisboa.pt))。作者报告说，没有相互竞争的利益需要申报。本研究得到了联合国科学技术基金会(funda o para a Ciência e a Tecnologia)的支持[0]。作者简介regina Queiroz regina Queiroz是里斯本NOVA大学IFILNOVA的研究员，并在Lusófona大学任教。她的兴趣在于社会和政治制度的正义和合理性，将罗尔斯的公平理论、亚里士多德的实践理论、自由主义和新自由主义的比较分析以及性别和种族歧视结合起来。
{"title":"Jeopardizing liberal democracy: the trouble with demarchy","authors":"Regina Queiroz","doi":"10.1080/19460171.2023.2267631","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2023.2267631","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTFriedrich Hayek presents a demarchic conception of democracy as a solution for what he takes to be the inherently corrupt and totalitarian nature of liberal democracy. While still preserving the label ‘liberal representative democracy’, this Hayekian demarchy precludes parliamentary and governmental institutions from providing positive laws and policies on behalf of their constituents where this would require the transfer of the private property of individuals. Such laws and policies would, on this demarchic conception of liberal democracy, undermine individuals’ free usufruct. I argue that demarchy’s detachment from any concern with the well-being of many of its citizens is an illiberal and anti-democratic (sub)version of liberal democracy that increases populism and risks crushing liberal democracy between the pseudo- and anti-liberal support of a totalitarian majoritarian people’s sovereign power and a minoritarian anti-democratic elite. As such, liberal democracy conceived of in Hayekian demarchic terms is itself an oppressive totalitarian political theory incapable of preventing an increase in illiberal and anti-liberal political forces. Moreover, I argue that it is imperative that we acknowledge and appreciate the extent to which demarchy undermines, rather than strengthens, liberal democracy.KEYWORDS: Demarchyilliberalismliberal democracymarketspopulism AcknowledgmentsThe author is grateful for the helpful comments and suggestions of the anonymous reviewers and Britt Harrison.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. https://www.blaetter.de/aktuell/dokumente/»wir-werden-wege-finden-die-parlamentarische-mitbestimmung-so-zu-gestalten-dass-si, accessed 27th July.2. See Law No. 31/2012 of 14/08 (Lei n. 31/2012, de 14 de Agosto (pgdlisboa.pt) acceded 29 January 2021.3. The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [0].Notes on contributorsRegina QueirozRegina Queiroz is a researcher at IFILNOVA, NOVA University Lisbon, and teaches at Lusófona University. Her interests lie in the justice and rationality of social and political institutions, uniting Rawlsian theories of fairness, Aristotelian theories of phronesis, comparative analysis of liberalism and neoliberalism, and gender and racial discrimination.","PeriodicalId":51625,"journal":{"name":"Critical Policy Studies","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136112895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","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：