中国环境政治的参与与合法性:一种现实主义的方法

Q2 Arts and Humanities Journal of Global Ethics Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17449626.2021.1942141
Ben Cross
{"title":"中国环境政治的参与与合法性:一种现实主义的方法","authors":"Ben Cross","doi":"10.1080/17449626.2021.1942141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Recent empirical literature suggests that some of the most prominent environmental policies that the Chinese government has pursued have involved at least some measure of participation from citizens. These findings suggest that at least some political authorities in China believe that effective environmental policies will require more participation. However, since the accounts of political legitimacy promulgated by the Chinese government have been developed in order to downplay the need for greater participation (at least in a liberal-democratic form), it is unclear whether these accounts of legitimacy can allow space for the kind of participation that successful environmental politics demands. In this article, I use a realist approach to political legitimacy to address this question. I argue that the dominant legitimation narratives in Chinese politics provide the government with legitimacy-related reasons to allow greater citizen participation in environmental politics, but also provide it with other legitimacy-related reasons to restrict participation.","PeriodicalId":35191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Global Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participation and legitimacy in Chinese environmental politics: a realist approach\",\"authors\":\"Ben Cross\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17449626.2021.1942141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Recent empirical literature suggests that some of the most prominent environmental policies that the Chinese government has pursued have involved at least some measure of participation from citizens. These findings suggest that at least some political authorities in China believe that effective environmental policies will require more participation. However, since the accounts of political legitimacy promulgated by the Chinese government have been developed in order to downplay the need for greater participation (at least in a liberal-democratic form), it is unclear whether these accounts of legitimacy can allow space for the kind of participation that successful environmental politics demands. In this article, I use a realist approach to political legitimacy to address this question. I argue that the dominant legitimation narratives in Chinese politics provide the government with legitimacy-related reasons to allow greater citizen participation in environmental politics, but also provide it with other legitimacy-related reasons to restrict participation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35191,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Global Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Global Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1942141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Global Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2021.1942141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要最近的实证文献表明,中国政府推行的一些最突出的环境政策至少在一定程度上涉及公民的参与。这些发现表明,至少中国的一些政治当局认为,有效的环境政策需要更多的参与。然而,由于中国政府颁布的政治合法性说明是为了淡化更多参与的必要性(至少在自由民主形式下),因此尚不清楚这些合法性说明是否能为成功的环境政治所要求的那种参与留出空间。在这篇文章中,我用现实主义的方法来处理这个问题。我认为,中国政治中占主导地位的合法化叙事为政府提供了允许公民更多地参与环境政治的合法性相关理由,但也为其提供了限制参与的其他合法性相关原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Participation and legitimacy in Chinese environmental politics: a realist approach
ABSTRACT Recent empirical literature suggests that some of the most prominent environmental policies that the Chinese government has pursued have involved at least some measure of participation from citizens. These findings suggest that at least some political authorities in China believe that effective environmental policies will require more participation. However, since the accounts of political legitimacy promulgated by the Chinese government have been developed in order to downplay the need for greater participation (at least in a liberal-democratic form), it is unclear whether these accounts of legitimacy can allow space for the kind of participation that successful environmental politics demands. In this article, I use a realist approach to political legitimacy to address this question. I argue that the dominant legitimation narratives in Chinese politics provide the government with legitimacy-related reasons to allow greater citizen participation in environmental politics, but also provide it with other legitimacy-related reasons to restrict participation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Global Ethics
Journal of Global Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
The Journal of Global Ethics after Twenty Years A human rights method of ethics – marrying intuitionism, reasoning, and communication Assessing the capability approach as a justice basis of climate resilience strategies Global ethics: sentimental education or ideological construction? Twenty-five years on: to move forward, we should return to Rawls’ The Law of Peoples
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1