DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
Deliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015ions, University of SouthamptonContact: j.c.boswelltgisoton.ac.ukAbstractKey theorists and scholars of democracy have focused on understanding and enhancing the institutions and practices that shape decision-making. Indeed, the most influential contemporary normative account—the deliberative version DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015—though increasingly adapted to the complex realities of contemporary politics, retains a tight focus on the conditions of legitimate will formation.DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
This remains the core underpinning the normative the impetus for innovation and reform in contemporary democratic politics. Yet missing from even the Deliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015terature to show how the inescapably attritional and opaque policy process can magnify asymmetries that theorists and scholars of contemporary- democracy, chief among them deliberative democrats, ought to be much better attuned to. I argue that in failing to consider these problems adequately, conte DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015mporary democratic thinkers, scholars and reformers risk lending legitimacy to institutions and practices that might sustain the very biases they areDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
mobilized against. As such, I identify institutional innovations and governing practices that can embed aspects of democratic deliberation ‘downstreamDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015xplore the value of these institutions and practices, and expand the repertoire of governing mechanisms available to counter the distortions that occur through the policy process.1 This paper is forthcoming in slightly amended form in Perspectives on Politics. I thank the editor and reviewers there. DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015 David Owen, John Dryzek and Carolyn Hendriks for useful comments on earlier drafts.1IntroductionDemocratic thinkers and scholars have shown deep concDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
ern about the distortive effects of power at even point up to and including the formation of will: meanwhile, the execution of that will is largely igDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015ften vague and contingent. The policies and programs that result offer ‘wriggle room’—flexibility that enables policy elites to exercise considerable discretion in how to apply given decisions for a particular context. Wriggle room is not just available to bureaucrats, either. Networks of private ac DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015tors, professionals and experts must equally exercise discretion in policy oversight and service delivery'. The political battle among them continuesDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
in low profile settings, where better-resourced actors often ‘wriggle’ away from costly actions. Consequently, the process typically favors powerful aDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015’ in the democratic process. These are power asymmetries that scholars of democracy ought to take much more seriously.This is especially so for proponents of deliberative democracy, broadly understood as the pursuit of accountable, public and inclusive discussion on matters of common interest.11 foc DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015us on the deliberative account for four reasons. First, it is the most influential.11 Deliberative democracy dominates normative theory, but, contra tDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
he stereotypical image of this subfield, is hardly an esoteric enterprise; it underpins the most active and influential efforts to reform democratic pDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015litics/administration) distinction that sees democratic politics cease at the point of will formation. Third, it is especially vulnerable. The pervasive distortions that recur after will formation threaten the norms that deliberative2democracy is supposed to imbue; clouding accountability, obscuring DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015 publicity and blocking inclusion in the policy process. Fourth, it provides a toolkit to combat these distortions. Better embedding aspects of democrDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
atic deliberation alter will formation can reassert elite accountability, ensure greater publicity and enable greater inclusion. It can mitigate the pDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015how a revelation to scholars of democracy; least of all deliberative democrats. On die contrary, the normative core of the deliberative movement, even as it has evolved considerably, has remained a desire to mitigate power asymmetries in democratic politics. I llis underpinned Habermas’s pioneering DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015work on communicative ethics in the public sphere.w It subsequently inspired the micro focus on scaled-down institutional designs in the hope that theDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
y might bypass the pathologies of the broader public sphere?' And, again, in the face of unequal capacities and entrenched interests which can undermiDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015. Power biases, then, have remained front and centre. Nevertheless, scant attention has been paid to the exacerbation of such biases ‘downstream’ in the policy process, and their impact on how given decisions actually lake shape. This is an oversight that threatens Io undermine efforts to enhance an DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015d reform democracy in practice. By continuing to neglect die politics of administration and implementation, deliberative democrats don’l just fail toDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
identify important distortions in the long, attritional, iterative policy process: they risk endorsing institutions and practices that might, when purDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015t ent adaptations to confront the asymmetries in opinion and will formation, rhe key is to extend these3https://khothuvien.cori!concessions further, beyond the point of will formation. I argue for the need to embed aspects of democratic deliberation through the policy process as vague, contingent de DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015cisions are put into action. Doing so can better confront and counter prevailing power asymmetries ‘downstream’, and realize a more deliberative and dDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
emocratic form of politics.The main body of the paper builds this argument over three parts. In the first, I draw out shifting ideas about deliberativDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015ill formation. In the second, I draw across rich scholarship on policy and administration to highlight the complex political contestation that occurs through the long, attritional process after will formation, with a view to emphasizing the power asymmetries that implementation can exacerbate. These DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015 asymmetries, I argue, reflect precisely the sons of problems that democrats—especially deliberative democrats—are typically concerned about, and whicDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
h ought to be a much greater focus in their scholarship and practice. In the third part of the paper, I begin thinking through the mitigation of theseDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015h which bureaucratic elites justify their interpretation of policy commitments, contestatory reviews, which civil society actors can trigger in response to perceived bias in interpretation, and feedback funnels, which enable inclusive reflection on the experience of sendee delivery. I also note emer DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015ging governing practices, including structured partnerships, which guarantee lesser-resourced actors informal access, and co-production, which elicitsDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
citizen participation in the provision of public services. I highlight how these promising examples can counter pathologies ‘downstream’ in democratiDeliberating downstream: Countering democratic distortions in the policy process1Author: Dr John BoswellAffiliation: Politics and International Relati DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015.4Theorizing will formation: the evolution of deliberative democracyScholarship on democracy and democratization is overwhelmingly concerned with the inputs to decision-making. Normatively, the focus is on how best to reach collective ends: the means through which such ends are achieved is implicitl DeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015y read off as apolitical. Empirically, too, analyses of democratic quality emphasize the formation of public preferences, legislative responsiveness tDeliberatingDownstream_PoP_Clean_resubmission21.12.2015
o those preferences, and institutions that scrutinize decision-making: the subfields of policy and administration are ignored or typecast as technicalGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook