协商实用主义均衡检讨:比较英国协商民主制度机制及其实施的框架

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS British Journal of Politics & International Relations Pub Date : 2013-01-30 DOI:10.1111/1467-856X.12000
Stephen Elstub
{"title":"协商实用主义均衡检讨:比较英国协商民主制度机制及其实施的框架","authors":"Stephen Elstub","doi":"10.1111/1467-856X.12000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p><i>This article:</i></p><ul>\n \n <li>Presents a framework for comparing institutions and their ability to enact various norms of deliberative democracy across various stages of the policy process and different levels of governance.</li>\n \n <li>Specifically contextualises this framework for application in the UK.</li>\n </ul>\n <p>A range of institutional mechanisms have been advocated to ensure the practical application of deliberative democracy, and these are now being employed in practice throughout the UK. However, different institutional mechanisms will be suited to the enactment of variant democratic principles and will be able to adapt to some features of complexity and not others. This means certain institutional devices will be able to operate effectively at different levels of governance, but not at others, and contribute to some, but not all, stages of a decision-making sequence, within different political systems. A comprehensive and systematic comparison of the relationship these institutions have to deliberative democracy is therefore required so that these institutions can be effectively sequenced to ensure all the key elements of deliberative democracy are enacted in the UK political system, at each level of governance and stage of decision-making. This article therefore develops the ‘Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review’ (DePER) framework to enable such a comparison of institutional mechanisms, with respect to how they enact key principles of deliberative democracy, by combining normative and empirical analysis through the employment of Fung's ‘pragmatic equilibrium’ approach. The framework is applicable to all political systems, but is here tailored specifically for institutional comparison in the UK, although it is not applied to concrete cases in this article.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51479,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","volume":"16 3","pages":"386-409"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12000","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review: A Framework for Comparing Institutional Devices and their Enactment of Deliberative Democracy in the UK\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Elstub\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-856X.12000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p><i>This article:</i></p><ul>\\n \\n <li>Presents a framework for comparing institutions and their ability to enact various norms of deliberative democracy across various stages of the policy process and different levels of governance.</li>\\n \\n <li>Specifically contextualises this framework for application in the UK.</li>\\n </ul>\\n <p>A range of institutional mechanisms have been advocated to ensure the practical application of deliberative democracy, and these are now being employed in practice throughout the UK. However, different institutional mechanisms will be suited to the enactment of variant democratic principles and will be able to adapt to some features of complexity and not others. This means certain institutional devices will be able to operate effectively at different levels of governance, but not at others, and contribute to some, but not all, stages of a decision-making sequence, within different political systems. A comprehensive and systematic comparison of the relationship these institutions have to deliberative democracy is therefore required so that these institutions can be effectively sequenced to ensure all the key elements of deliberative democracy are enacted in the UK political system, at each level of governance and stage of decision-making. This article therefore develops the ‘Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review’ (DePER) framework to enable such a comparison of institutional mechanisms, with respect to how they enact key principles of deliberative democracy, by combining normative and empirical analysis through the employment of Fung's ‘pragmatic equilibrium’ approach. The framework is applicable to all political systems, but is here tailored specifically for institutional comparison in the UK, although it is not applied to concrete cases in this article.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"volume\":\"16 3\",\"pages\":\"386-409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-856X.12000\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British Journal of Politics & International Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12000\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Politics & International Relations","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-856X.12000","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

本文提出了一个框架,用于比较制度及其在政策过程的不同阶段和不同治理水平上制定各种协商民主规范的能力。具体地说,这一框架在英国的应用。为了确保协商民主的实际应用,已经提倡了一系列的体制机制,这些机制现在正在整个联合王国的实践中得到采用。然而,不同的体制机制将适合于制定不同的民主原则,并将能够适应复杂性的某些特征而不适应其他特征。这意味着某些体制机制将能够在不同的治理层次上有效运作,但在其他层次上却不行,并有助于不同政治制度内决策顺序的某些阶段,而不是所有阶段。因此,需要对这些制度与协商民主的关系进行全面和系统的比较,以便有效地对这些制度进行排序,以确保协商民主的所有关键要素在英国政治制度中得以实施,在治理的各个层面和决策的各个阶段。因此,本文通过运用冯的“实用主义平衡”方法,结合规范和实证分析,开发了“协商实用主义平衡审查”(deep)框架,以便对制度机制进行比较,并就它们如何制定协商民主的关键原则进行比较。这个框架适用于所有的政治制度,但在这里是专门为英国的制度比较量身定制的,尽管它不适用于本文中的具体案例。
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
Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review: A Framework for Comparing Institutional Devices and their Enactment of Deliberative Democracy in the UK

This article:

  • Presents a framework for comparing institutions and their ability to enact various norms of deliberative democracy across various stages of the policy process and different levels of governance.
  • Specifically contextualises this framework for application in the UK.

A range of institutional mechanisms have been advocated to ensure the practical application of deliberative democracy, and these are now being employed in practice throughout the UK. However, different institutional mechanisms will be suited to the enactment of variant democratic principles and will be able to adapt to some features of complexity and not others. This means certain institutional devices will be able to operate effectively at different levels of governance, but not at others, and contribute to some, but not all, stages of a decision-making sequence, within different political systems. A comprehensive and systematic comparison of the relationship these institutions have to deliberative democracy is therefore required so that these institutions can be effectively sequenced to ensure all the key elements of deliberative democracy are enacted in the UK political system, at each level of governance and stage of decision-making. This article therefore develops the ‘Deliberative Pragmatic Equilibrium Review’ (DePER) framework to enable such a comparison of institutional mechanisms, with respect to how they enact key principles of deliberative democracy, by combining normative and empirical analysis through the employment of Fung's ‘pragmatic equilibrium’ approach. The framework is applicable to all political systems, but is here tailored specifically for institutional comparison in the UK, although it is not applied to concrete cases in this article.

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
4.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: BJPIR provides an outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain Founded in 1999, BJPIR is now based in the School of Politics at the University of Nottingham. It is a major refereed journal published by Blackwell Publishing under the auspices of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom. BJPIR is committed to acting as a broadly-based outlet for the best of British political science and of political science on Britain. A fully refereed journal, it publishes topical, scholarly work on significant debates in British scholarship and on all major political issues affecting Britain"s relationship to Europe and the world.
期刊最新文献
Crisis politics of dehumanisation during COVID-19: A framework for mapping the social processes through which dehumanisation undermines human dignity. Britain's COVID-19 battle: The role of political leaders in shaping the responses to the pandemic. COVID-19 vaccine apartheid and the failure of global cooperation. Alcohol policy, multi-level governance and corporate political strategy: The campaign for Scotland's minimum unit pricing in Edinburgh, London and Brussels. 'The Pope's own hand outstretched': Holy See diplomacy as a hybrid mode of diplomatic agency.
×
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