民主理论家的制度讨价还价(或我们如何学会停止担忧并喜欢讨价还价)

IF 9.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Annual Review of Political Science Pub Date : 2020-05-11 DOI:10.1146/annurev-polisci-060118-102113
J. Knight, Melissa Schwartzberg
{"title":"民主理论家的制度讨价还价(或我们如何学会停止担忧并喜欢讨价还价)","authors":"J. Knight, Melissa Schwartzberg","doi":"10.1146/annurev-polisci-060118-102113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary political science takes bargaining to be the central mechanism of democratic decision making, though political theorists typically doubt that processes that permit the exercise of unequal power and the use of threats can yield legitimate outcomes. In this review, we trace the development of theories of institutional bargaining from the standpoint of pluralism and positive political theory before turning to the treatment of bargaining in the influential work of John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. Their ambivalence about bargaining gave rise to a new focus on the value of negotiation and compromise but this literature constitutes an unstable midpoint between the justificatory ambitions of deliberative democracy and the desire to provide plausible models of political decision making. Instead of advocating changes in mindset or motivation, we argue that a fair bargaining process requires institutional reform, as well as a justificatory framework centered on the preservation of egalitarian decision making.","PeriodicalId":48264,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Political Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Institutional Bargaining for Democratic Theorists (or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Haggling)\",\"authors\":\"J. Knight, Melissa Schwartzberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-polisci-060118-102113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Contemporary political science takes bargaining to be the central mechanism of democratic decision making, though political theorists typically doubt that processes that permit the exercise of unequal power and the use of threats can yield legitimate outcomes. In this review, we trace the development of theories of institutional bargaining from the standpoint of pluralism and positive political theory before turning to the treatment of bargaining in the influential work of John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. Their ambivalence about bargaining gave rise to a new focus on the value of negotiation and compromise but this literature constitutes an unstable midpoint between the justificatory ambitions of deliberative democracy and the desire to provide plausible models of political decision making. Instead of advocating changes in mindset or motivation, we argue that a fair bargaining process requires institutional reform, as well as a justificatory framework centered on the preservation of egalitarian decision making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48264,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual Review of Political Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual Review of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060118-102113\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual Review of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060118-102113","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

当代政治科学将讨价还价视为民主决策的核心机制,尽管政治理论家通常怀疑允许行使不平等权力和使用威胁的过程能否产生合法的结果。在本文中,我们从多元主义和积极政治理论的角度追溯制度议价理论的发展,然后转向约翰·罗尔斯和约尔根·哈贝马斯有影响力的著作中对议价的处理。他们对讨价还价的矛盾心理引起了对谈判和妥协价值的新关注,但这些文献构成了一个不稳定的中间点,介于协商民主的正当野心和提供合理的政治决策模型的愿望之间。我们不主张改变思维方式或动机,而是认为公平的谈判过程需要制度改革,以及以维护平等主义决策为中心的辩护框架。
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
Institutional Bargaining for Democratic Theorists (or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Haggling)
Contemporary political science takes bargaining to be the central mechanism of democratic decision making, though political theorists typically doubt that processes that permit the exercise of unequal power and the use of threats can yield legitimate outcomes. In this review, we trace the development of theories of institutional bargaining from the standpoint of pluralism and positive political theory before turning to the treatment of bargaining in the influential work of John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas. Their ambivalence about bargaining gave rise to a new focus on the value of negotiation and compromise but this literature constitutes an unstable midpoint between the justificatory ambitions of deliberative democracy and the desire to provide plausible models of political decision making. Instead of advocating changes in mindset or motivation, we argue that a fair bargaining process requires institutional reform, as well as a justificatory framework centered on the preservation of egalitarian decision making.
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
CiteScore
15.20
自引率
4.60%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Political Science has been published since 1998 to provide comprehensive coverage of critical advancements in the field. It encompasses a wide range of subjects within Political Science, such as political theory and philosophy, international relations, political economy, political behavior, American and comparative politics, public administration and policy, and methodology.
期刊最新文献
The US Presidency: Power and Constraint Three Traditions of African American Political Thought: Realism, Reformism, and Nationalism Corruption and Social Norms: A New Arrow in the Quiver Theories of Democratic Backsliding Terra Incognita: The Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Global Perspective
×
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