Suchergebnisse

The role of generalist courts in reviewing the work of expert agencies is generally portrayed as either an institutional necessity on the one hand or a Pandora's Box on the other. Courts are expected to ensure the accountability of agency actions through their legal oversight role, yet on matters of science policy they do not have the expertise of the agencies nor can they allow themselves to become amateur policymakers in the course of their review. Given these challenges, we set out to better understand what courts are doing in their review of agency science. We conducted a qualitative examination of the courts' review of challenges to agency scientific choices in the entire set of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Our study revealed an increasingly rigorous and substantive engagement in the courts' review of scientific challenges to the EPA's NAAQS over time that tracked the Agency's own progress in developing rigorous analytical approaches. Our findings, albeit preliminary, suggest the emergence of a constructive partnership between the courts and agencies in science policy in NAAQS cases. In overseeing scientific challenges, the courts appear to serve as a necessary irritant, encouraging the agency to develop much stronger administrative governance and deliberative decisions on complex science-policy issues. Conversely, in developing stronger decisionmaking processes, the resulting agency efforts have a reciprocal, positive impact on the courts' own standards for review. The courts and agencies thus appear to work symbiotically through their mutual efforts on the establishment of rigorous analytical yardsticks to guide the decision process. While our findings may be limited to the NAAQS, which likely present a best case in administrative process, the findings may still offer a grounded, normative model for imagining a constructive and even vital role for generalist courts in technically complex areas of social decision making. ; The Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Business

In this paper we aim to contribute to the literature on social entrepreneurship by nuancing both existing micro-level characterizations as well as its presumed macro level societal impacts. Moreover, we explore connections between the micro and macro levels of analysis to see which types of social entrepreneurs are more likely to achieve what kinds of societal impacts. We present findings from an illustrative sample of 28 interviews with Dutch social entrepreneurs working in International Development. At the micro level, our qualitative findings do not support a perception of social entrepreneurs – often found in the Anglo Saxon literature - as heroic 'lone rangers' who 'go it alone' and with 'dogged determination' fight for a self-defined social cause. Instead, most social entrepreneurs in our study are acutely aware of the need to cooperate with other stakeholders and often use existing 'off the shelf' social causes and theories of change, even when they do develop innovative ways to try and achieve these goals. At the macro level, two starkly contrasting views exist on the possible societal impacts of social entrepreneurs. The first is an, often implicit, extension of the 'lone-ranger' perception of social entrepreneurs as people who 'change the world' or at least significantly contribute to social and economic transformation. At the other end of the spectrum in the literature we find those who argue that social entrepreneurs are potentially counterproductive to international development interventions as their social mission is not the result of a 'collective deliberative process', their activities are likely to displace NGO and/or government interventions and might even give governments an excuse to not intervene and ignore deeper levels of political contestation and societal inequalities. The paper is structured as follows. We first explain the rise in social entrepreneurship in international development, and we introduce the central assumptions in the literature on how social entrepreneurs define their ...

The urge to involve stakeholders from the start of ecosystem service (ES) assessments is increasingly addressed in literature. This is even more the case when studying rural landscape planning for which impacts on ES have proved to be highly context specific. Despite the growing amount of social ES valuations, few studies integrate them to a biophysical ES assessment. To fill in this gap, we developed a methodology where the social ES valuation directly serves the biophysical ES assessment. By combining components of the Delphi and the focus group methods, our approach allows to provide good insights on the preferred ES within the studied locality. Thanks to the deliberative phase, it also provides information on the divergences and convergences among the social values held by local stakeholders. The underpinning aim of the exercise is to reach a consent within the group. Conversely to a consensus where the decision must be unanimous, a consent seeks decisions where nobody has fundamental opposition to it. We believe that applying such approach has the potential to: - guide the biophysical ES assessment towards ES which are relevant to the study area and important in the eyes of local stakeholders; - create opportunity for collective social learning; - identify networks of influences and/or social interdependencies related to ES; - empower local stakeholders while enhancing the democratic process of decision-making. The presentation first introduces the backbone of the methodology. Two case-studies in which we applied the innovative approach will then be presented. The first case study relates to local ES assessment carried out in agroecological and conventional farms in a Western locality in Belgium. The second case-study relates to a land consolidation scheme project. Outcomes of the approach applied in both cases are put forward, and adaptation of the methodology for the distinct purposes and contexts are elucidated.

Through an ethnographic account of the decision-making process of the World Social Forum (WSF) and its governance structures, specifically the International Council and the Local Organising Committee, the micro-politics of the alter-globalisation movements will be explored. Looking at the debates around whether the WSF should be an open arena or become an actor, the paradox of the "tyranny of structurelessness" will be presented. More accurately, this paper exposes the asymmetry between the values and the practices of the WSF process by analysing the role of "social movement entrepreneurs" and the complex constellations of conflicting interests. Theoretical claims of horizontal consensual and open decision-making are used to eliminate any democratic procedure, paving the way to highly unequal oppressive power relations that dominate the deliberative space of encounter between different movements. The paper questions the capacity of the World Social Forum to articulate alternatives to neoliberalism, and to present different and more democratic ways of doing politics. After having unmasked the oppressive power structures within a social movement claiming to fight against them, this paper advocates for moving beyond the WSF discursive dichotomy of "neoliberal/anti-neoliberal", and calls for a Gramscian resistance to the hegemonic neoliberal discourse played through direct transformative engagement with the institutions of our society. This paper offers a detailed view inside the black box of decision-making processes within social movements contributing to the academic as well as the activists' debate on their governance. This analysis is particularly relevant in the light of the global occupy and anti-austerity movements, which have been making similar claims to those of the WSF of being a leaderless initiative, without any political affiliation, and using consensual methodologies, thus facing some of the same shortcomings and challenges.

A lo largo de las últimas décadas, hemos asistido a un renovado interés por la participación asociativa. Son muchos los teóricos, en filosofía política y en ciencias sociales, que han afirmado que la viabilidad y la salud de nuestras democracias dependen de una sociedad civil fuerte y vibrante. En la tesis analizamos las interpretaciones liberales, comunitaristas, republicanas y deliberativas de los cuerpos intermedios en la obra de Alexis de Tocqueville, De la démocratie en Amérique. Estudiamos las insuficiencias de cada una de estas líneas interpretativas para la comprensión de la pluralidad de funciones que tiene todo el entramado asociativo en el pensamiento de Tocqueville. Y, en particular, incidimos en que una lectura atenta de De la démocratie en Amérique nos obliga a poner en entredicho que la participación asociativa produzca sólo efectos positivos ya que Tocqueville también repara en algunos problemas que dicha participación comporta para la democracia. Por último, recogemos las conclusiones y los resultados de los tres primeros capítulos para insertarlos en el debate actual sobre la relación entre asociacionismo y democracia. Estos debates más actuales ponen sobre la mesa algunos problemas, que ya puso de relieve Tocqueville, así como nuevos problemas que están surgiendo en nuestras sociedades del siglo XXI. Tanto el estudio, en la obra de Alexis de Tocqueville, del papel que deben jugar los cuerpos intermedios en una sociedad democrática como los estudios más actuales sobre la relación entre Democracia y Participación asociativa nos invitan a la cautela puesto que dicha relación es compleja. ; Recently there has been a resurgence of interest by the society and also by academic research in Philosophy and Political Science on the relationship between the civil society (notably participation) and democracy, emphasizing the importance of a vibrant civil society for democracy. In this thesis, we analyze the liberal, communitarian, republican and deliberative interpretations of Alexis de Tocqueville's ...

Trends in international human rights law have challenged States globally to rethink involuntary mental health interventions from a non-discrimination perspective. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in particular prohibits laws that discriminate on the basis of disability. However, a key criterion for compulsory mental health treatment under typical mental health legislation is a psychiatric diagnosis (in conjunction with risk of harm and other criteria). Hence, for people with mental health disabilities, rights to liberty and consent in healthcare are held to a different standard compared to other citizens. A prominent law reform option being explored by some governments and commentators for achieving non-discrimination is to replace the diagnostic criterion for triggering involuntary intervention with an assessment of mental capacity. After all, every citizen is subject to restrictions on autonomy where they are deemed to lack mental capacity, such as where concussion necessitates emergency service. However, the use of mental capacity "testing" is seen by diverse commentators as wanting in key respects. A prominent criticism comes from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which considers mental capacity assessments a form of disability-based discrimination. This article queries the call to replace the diagnostic criterion in mental health law with an assessment of mental capacity in the light of jurisprudence on equality and non-discrimination in international human rights law. Instead, we examine the doctrine of necessity as an area of law, which might help identify specific thresholds for overriding autonomy in emergency circumstances that can be codified in a non-discriminatory way. We also consider the need for deliberative law reform processes to identify such measures, and we suggest interim, short-term measures for creating a "supported decision-making regime" in the mental health context. The article focuses in particular on the Australian context of mental health law reform, though the analysis can be generalised to international trends in mental health law.

Are we witnessing the decline of liberal democracy and the emergence of alternative forms of democracy? Today, democracy is first and foremost a language of political legitimacy. And more often than not, it serves as a language of self-justification, even self-praise. Almost all existing states—regardless of where they may be located in or beyond the matrix of polyarchy—purport to be democratic in nature. Faced with this situation of democratic inflation, it becomes important to explain and explore (by way of comparison) some of the defining features that distinguish one form from another.In recent years, it has become increasingly commonplace to criticize democracy of the liberal kind that historically emerged in modern Western Europe but eventually spread to the rest of the world by the end of the 20th century. Moreover, emerging countries like China, Russia, Indonesia, Nigeria, and even the Arab Emirates, while considerably less democratic by liberal standards, have become more and more vocal in stressing their own versions of democracy, thus posing some challenges to the liberal view. (Notable exceptions are Brazil, India and South Africa, though the equality component of democracy seems weak in these countries). In response to these challenges as well as to doubts about the meaning, the outreach and even the universality of democracy, there are attempts to explore various ways to improve representation, redistribution, policy-making, and legitimacy, both at state and inter-state levels. Some opt for the deepening of democracy within existing liberal regimes – this is at the roots of lively debates about the "quality of democracy" (vs. "malfunctioning democracy"), "democratic responsiveness", "accountability" and "transparency", as well as "participatory" or "deliberative" democracy. There is even a new quest for "cosmopolitan" democracy. Others seek to combine the demand for enhancing democracy with post-colonialist outlook, thereby claiming that the forms of regimes should match the diversity of political ...

Taxation has been suggested as a possible preventive strategy to address the serious public health concern of childhood obesity. Understanding the public's viewpoint on the potential role of taxation is vital to inform policy decisions if they are to be acceptable to the wider community. A Citizens' Jury is a deliberative method for engaging the public in decision making and can assist in setting policy agendas. A Citizens' Jury was conducted in Brisbane, Australia in May 2013 to answer the question: Is taxation on food and drinks an acceptable strategy to the public in order to reduce rates of childhood obesity? Citizens were randomly selected from the electoral roll and invited to participate. Thirteen members were purposively sampled from those expressing interest to broadly reflect the diversity of the Australian public. Over two days, participants were presented with evidence on the topic by experts, were able to question witnesses and deliberate on the evidence. The jurors unanimously supported taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks but generally did not support taxation on processed meats, snack foods and foods eaten/ purchased outside the home. They also supported taxation on snack foods on the condition that traffic light labelling was also introduced. Though they were not specifically asked to deliberate strategies outside of taxation, the jurors strongly recommended more nutritional information on all food packaging using the traffic light and teaspoon labelling systems for sugar, salt and fat content. The Citizens' Jury suggests that the general public may support taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks to reduce rates of obesity in children. Regulatory reforms of taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks and improved labelling of nutritional information on product packaging were strongly supported by all members of the jury. These reforms should be considered by governments to prevent childhood obesity and the future burden on society from the consequences of obesity.

The aim of this article is to propose a framework for analysis to introduce the reader to the debate on public, private and social associative relations (RaPPS), proposed by the author as an instrument of change in public management. Based on the tendency of governments to act in a network, the RaPPS allow governments to enhance the relational capacities of their public administrations, in the provision of their services or even in some of the phases of the public policy process. In the article, it is tried to give some clues that characterize an associative relation, of a traditional public-private association. In exploring three municipal cases of associative relations, two in Mexico and one in Chile, the reader is drawn to the attributes that were identified in the three types of associative relations between government, civil society and business, in order to contribute inputs to their own reflection. The application of techniques of observation, interviews and documentary review allowed gathering evidence about the complexity in the functioning of associative relations and the barriers of sustainability that they face. It proposes the existence of three types of RaPPS: a) deliberative, b) corporate and c) participatory. ; El objetivo del artículo es proponer un marco de análisis para introducir al lector al debate de las relaciones asociativas pública, privada y social (RaPPS), propuestas por el autor como instrumento de cambio en la gestión pública. Con base en la tendencia de los gobiernos para actuar en red, las RaPPS permiten a los gobiernos potenciar las capacidades relacionales de sus administraciones públicas, en la prestación de sus servicios o incluso en alguna de las fases del proceso de política pública. En el artículo, se pretende dar algunas pistas que caractericen una relación asociativa, de una tradicional asociación público- privado. Al explorar tres casos municipales de relaciones asociativas, dos en México y uno en Chile, se dibuja al lector los atributos que se identificaron en los tres ...

Taxation has been suggested as a possible preventive strategy to address the serious public health concern of childhood obesity. Understanding the public's viewpoint on the potential role of taxation is vital to inform policy decisions if they are to be acceptable to the wider community. A Citizens' Jury is a deliberative method for engaging the public in decision making and can assist in setting policy agendas. A Citizens' Jury was conducted in Brisbane, Australia in May 2013 to answer the question: Is taxation on food and drinks an acceptable strategy to the public in order to reduce rates of childhood obesity? Citizens were randomly selected from the electoral roll and invited to participate. Thirteen members were purposively sampled from those expressing interest to broadly reflect the diversity of the Australian public. Over two days, participants were presented with evidence on the topic by experts, were able to question witnesses and deliberate on the evidence. The jurors unanimously supported taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks but generally did not support taxation on processed meats, snack foods and foods eaten/ purchased outside the home. They also supported taxation on snack foods on the condition that traffic light labelling was also introduced. Though they were not specifically asked to deliberate strategies outside of taxation, the jurors strongly recommended more nutritional information on all food packaging using the traffic light and teaspoon labelling systems for sugar, salt and fat content. The Citizens' Jury suggests that the general public may support taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks to reduce rates of obesity in children. Regulatory reforms of taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks and improved labelling of nutritional information on product packaging were strongly supported by all members of the jury. These reforms should be considered by governments to prevent childhood obesity and the future burden on society from the consequences of obesity.

With the WTO trade talks deadlocked since 2008, the US and EU are turning towards preferential trade agreements. But these leave out the planet's more dynamic traders – including large emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil – so such agreements can only have a relatively small positive impact. From a world welfare perspective, deals to further integrate markets need to be multilateral. The challenge is how to get there. This study considers alternative ways forward and proposes specific solutions for revitalizing multilateral trade liberalization and rule-making in the WTO. A key premise is that any road map must recognize that trade today involves supply chains and that these are impacted by many policies. The book recommends adoption of a 'supply chain framework' to help negotiators identify how an overall package can be constructed and identifies ways the WTO can become a forum for deliberation on new policy areas and learn from regional initiatives. ; -- Executive Summary; -- 1. From Doha to Bali – The Doha Development Agenda: Diverging objectives; Explanations for the deadlock; The shift away from the WTO and the 2013 Bali Ministerial; -- 2. Developments in Global Trade—Diverging performance: a multipolar world economy; Growth in 'vertical specialization' and 'supply chain trade'; Foreign direct investment as a driver of trade growth; Services, data flows and digital trade; Changes in trade in agricultural and natural resource-based products. -- 3. Trends in Trade Policy and Trade Agreements --Changing political economy of trade policy; Trade agreements; Developing country participation in the WTO; Preferential trade agreements. -- 4. A Supply Chain-Informed Approach to Market Access. -- 5. Deliberation and Cooperation on New Issues—Deliberative mechanisms; Engaging with the PTAs: transparency and learning; Plurilateral cooperation and Annex IV WTO agreements; Defining a new agenda for multilateral cooperation. -- 6. Re-Thinking Economic Development in the WTO. -- Concluding Remarks. -- Bibliography ; Published revised version of EUI RSCAS WP 2014/27

Una respuesta muy plausible a la pregunta sobre su justificación, consiste en decir que la democracia es el método más adecuado para tomar decisiones que satisfagan los intereses de los ciudadanos. Siguiendo una estrategia tan simple como esta, muchas teorías democráticas asumen un reclamo epistémico. Otras teorías, en cambio, siguen un camino diferente, pues explican y justifican la adopción de procedimientos democráticos por el derecho que tienen los ciudadanos a tomar parte en la formación de la voluntad colectiva. Si las primeras teorías pueden describirse como epistémicas, las segundas pueden llamarse doxásticas, porque en ellas la legitimidad no depende en la corrección de las decisiones, sino de la mera expresión de preferencias. El objetivo de este trabajo es trazar esta distinción. La hipótesis es que cada uno de estos dos enfoques se conecta con una diferente manera de entender las fuerzas motivacionales que respaldan la formación de una esfera pública democrática.Palabras clave: Democracia deliberativa, teoría de la democracia, razón pública, constructivismo político, verdad.Abstract: A very plausible answer to the question about its justification, is that democracy is the most appropriate method to take decisions that meet citizens' interests. By following this quite simple strategy, many democratic theories embrace an epistemic claim. Nonetheless, many other theories follow a different path. They explain and justify the adoption of democratic procedures appealing to the right of citizens to participate in the formation of a collective will. If former theories are epistemic, the later may be called doxastic, because legitimacy does not depend on the correctness of decisions, but on the mere expression of preferences. The aim of this paper is to sketch this distinction. The hypothesis is that each of these two approaches is connected with a different understanding of the motivational forces that sustain a democratic public sphere.Keywords: Deliberative democracy, democratic theory, public reason, political constructivism, truth.

Guided by the intention to understand the relationship between blogging and the political transformations in Malaysia, this research study asks 'How does blogging affect the citizenship practices of the everyday Malaysian bloggers?' To answer this question, 30 Malaysian bloggers were interviewed and their blogs observed. Focusing specifically on the experiences of the Malaysian citizen bloggers who are not part of the political elites and have been systematically excluded by the established political culture, this research contributes to Malaysian political and media scholarship by capturing and explicating how blogging enables everyday Malaysians to maneuver through the complex dynamics of a contested political culture, democratic media practice and individual life experiences as they are lived at a particular juncture of Malaysian political and media history. The study found that blogging allowed the bloggers to understand and participate in political discourses that are relevant and manifest in their own everyday lives, offering a more participative and deliberative accounts of politics, and an alternative to the established elitist and partisan Malaysian politics. This case is exemplified by how the bloggers in this study were able to negotiate the political by linking politically abstract laws and policies to how these notions are experienced in their everyday through blogging. Despite this new political experience, the study also identified interesting ambiguities in the ways the bloggers still uphold certain established structures such as religion and gendered traditions in their attempt to make sense of and adapt to the changes and conventions that shape their position as Malaysians. Thus, this study proposes that blogging fits into a changing Malaysian political landscape by enabling non-subversive political participation that expresses a desire to belong to a broader and more inclusive culture than the one that presently exists in Malaysia.

Taxation has been suggested as a possible preventive strategy to address the serious public health concern of childhood obesity. Understanding the public's viewpoint on the potential role of taxation is vital to inform policy decisions if they are to be acceptable to the wider community. A Citizens' Jury is a deliberative method for engaging the public in decision making and can assist in setting policy agendas. A Citizens' Jury was conducted in Brisbane, Australia in May 2013 to answer the question: Is taxation on food and drinks an acceptable strategy to the public in order to reduce rates of childhood obesity? Citizens were randomly selected from the electoral roll and invited to participate. Thirteen members were purposively sampled from those expressing interest to broadly reflect the diversity of the Australian public. Over two days, participants were presented with evidence on the topic by experts, were able to question witnesses and deliberate on the evidence. The jurors unanimously supported taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks but generally did not support taxation on processed meats, snack foods and foods eaten/ purchased outside the home. They also supported taxation on snack foods on the condition that traffic light labelling was also introduced. Though they were not specifically asked to deliberate strategies outside of taxation, the jurors strongly recommended more nutritional information on all food packaging using the traffic light and teaspoon labelling systems for sugar, salt and fat content. The Citizens' Jury suggests that the general public may support taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks to reduce rates of obesity in children. Regulatory reforms of taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks and improved labelling of nutritional information on product packaging were strongly supported by all members of the jury. These reforms should be considered by governments to prevent childhood obesity and the future burden on society from the consequences of obesity.

The paper builds on and contributes to literature in citizenship education studies in higher education. Many studies in this field have explored the history, development and implementation of various forms of citizenship formation as an advancement of social justice. However, little has been written on how the formation of critical democratic citizens 2 links with the notion of sustainable learning environments and how it relates to social justice. Studies by McKinney (2007); Waghid (2007; 2009), Lange (2012); and Leibowitz, Swartz, Bozalek, Carolissen, Nicholls &Rohleder(2012) are among those on citizen formation in the South African higher education context. Thisconceptual paper argues that the formation of critical democratic citizens through higher education relates not only to social justice, but also to the advancement of sustainable learning environments (SLEs) beyond physical spaces. The paper explores the normative value of a democratic education theory, Marion Young's (1990) theory of justice and the politics of difference, and human development principles in advancing citizenship education. These foster both sustainable learning environments and social justice. A democratic education theory lays the foundation for an inclusive and deliberative form of education, while a theory of justice and politics of difference advances better justice and an environment that is non-oppressive. Human development principles set the tone for a sustainable human development, which becomes a framework through which asustainable learning environment is built in pursuit of social justice. Drawing on a Capabilities Approach framework and the philosophy of Ubuntu, with emphasis on substantive freedoms, opportunities, and the thriving of the common good, the paper illustrates how citizenship education advances a conception of sustainable learning environments and social justices not necessarily limited to physical spaces, distributive justice or economic motives, but inclusive of institutional arrangements, policy issues and relational justice.