公正咨询与最大代表性:非参与者对协商论坛合法性认知的联合实验

Saskia Goldberg
{"title":"公正咨询与最大代表性:非参与者对协商论坛合法性认知的联合实验","authors":"Saskia Goldberg","doi":"10.16997/JDD.973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Citizen involvement in deliberative forums is frequently discussed with an eye to boosting the legitimacy of decision-making. However, this idea has been radically challenged by Cristina Lafont (2015, 2017, 2019), who argues that deliberative forums may decrease rather than increase legitimacy. Yet Lafont’s legitimacy challenge has been primarily discussed at a theoretical level without taking the perceptions of citizens into account. Referring to an explorative student conjoint experiment this article examines how non-participants assess deliberative forums. It focuses on different authorization mechanisms and a set of institutional design features and combines them with non-participants’ substantive considerations and their awareness of such forums. Empirical findings of the student sample confirm Lafont’s critique, as they suggest that respondents want the authority of deliberative forums to be clearly circumscribed and minimal but also maximally representative and inclusive. Moreover, legitimacy perceptions are closely tied to substantive considerations and awareness of such novel and unfamiliar institutions.","PeriodicalId":23601,"journal":{"name":"VOLUME-8 ISSUE-10, AUGUST 2019, REGULAR ISSUE","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Just Advisory and Maximally Representative: A Conjoint Experiment on Non-Participants' Legitimacy Perceptions of Deliberative Forums\",\"authors\":\"Saskia Goldberg\",\"doi\":\"10.16997/JDD.973\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Citizen involvement in deliberative forums is frequently discussed with an eye to boosting the legitimacy of decision-making. However, this idea has been radically challenged by Cristina Lafont (2015, 2017, 2019), who argues that deliberative forums may decrease rather than increase legitimacy. Yet Lafont’s legitimacy challenge has been primarily discussed at a theoretical level without taking the perceptions of citizens into account. Referring to an explorative student conjoint experiment this article examines how non-participants assess deliberative forums. It focuses on different authorization mechanisms and a set of institutional design features and combines them with non-participants’ substantive considerations and their awareness of such forums. Empirical findings of the student sample confirm Lafont’s critique, as they suggest that respondents want the authority of deliberative forums to be clearly circumscribed and minimal but also maximally representative and inclusive. Moreover, legitimacy perceptions are closely tied to substantive considerations and awareness of such novel and unfamiliar institutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23601,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"VOLUME-8 ISSUE-10, AUGUST 2019, REGULAR ISSUE\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"VOLUME-8 ISSUE-10, AUGUST 2019, REGULAR ISSUE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.973\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VOLUME-8 ISSUE-10, AUGUST 2019, REGULAR ISSUE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.973","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

为了提高决策的合法性,人们经常讨论公民参与协商论坛的问题。然而,克里斯蒂娜·拉丰(Cristina Lafont, 2015、2017、2019)从根本上挑战了这一观点,她认为审议论坛可能会降低而不是增加合法性。然而,拉丰的合法性挑战主要是在理论层面上讨论的,没有考虑到公民的看法。参考一个探索性的学生联合实验,本文探讨了非参与者如何评估审议论坛。它侧重于不同的授权机制和一套制度设计特征,并将它们与非参与者的实质性考虑和他们对此类论坛的认识结合起来。学生样本的实证研究结果证实了拉丰的批评,因为他们表明,受访者希望审议论坛的权威得到明确的限制和最小化,但也最大限度地具有代表性和包容性。此外,合法性观念与对这种新颖和不熟悉的制度的实质性考虑和认识密切相关。
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
Just Advisory and Maximally Representative: A Conjoint Experiment on Non-Participants' Legitimacy Perceptions of Deliberative Forums
Citizen involvement in deliberative forums is frequently discussed with an eye to boosting the legitimacy of decision-making. However, this idea has been radically challenged by Cristina Lafont (2015, 2017, 2019), who argues that deliberative forums may decrease rather than increase legitimacy. Yet Lafont’s legitimacy challenge has been primarily discussed at a theoretical level without taking the perceptions of citizens into account. Referring to an explorative student conjoint experiment this article examines how non-participants assess deliberative forums. It focuses on different authorization mechanisms and a set of institutional design features and combines them with non-participants’ substantive considerations and their awareness of such forums. Empirical findings of the student sample confirm Lafont’s critique, as they suggest that respondents want the authority of deliberative forums to be clearly circumscribed and minimal but also maximally representative and inclusive. Moreover, legitimacy perceptions are closely tied to substantive considerations and awareness of such novel and unfamiliar institutions.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cycling Trends in Scotland during the Early Phase of the COVID Pandemic 'Unity in Diversity': Centralised British Identity in the Post-War Work of Robert Colquhoun and William Scott Health modelling of transport in low-and-middle income countries: A case study of New Delhi, India Global Diversity in Higher Education Workforces: Towards Openness Modern Indian Utopian Art and Literature: An Introduction
×
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