Suchergebnisse

Political theory without borders : an introduction / Robert E. Goodin and James S. Fishkin -- To prevent a world wasteland / George F. Kennan -- Two kinds of climate justice : avoiding harm and sharing burdens / Simon Caney -- The human right to water and common ownership of the earth / Mathias Risse -- Tax competition and global background justice / Peter Dietsch and Thomas Rixen -- Sovereign debt, human rights and policy conditionality / Christian Barry -- Justice in the diffusion of innovation / Allen Buchanan, Tony Cole and Robert O. Keohane -- From migration in geographic space to migration in biographic time : views from europe / Claus Offe -- On citizenship, states and markets / Ayelet Shachar and Ran Hirschl -- Colonialism as structural injustice : historical responsibility and contemporary redress / Catherine Lu -- The judging of nations / Clifford Geertz -- From humanitarian intervention to the responsibility to protect / Gareth Evans -- The misuse of power, not bad representation : why it is beside the point that no one elected Oxfam / Jennifer C. Rubenstein

Deeply divided societies would seem to be infertile ground for mass deliberation. 'Enclave deliberation', among people on the same side, may well occur. But people on opposing sides may not trust one another, they may not listen with an open mind, or they may regard the other side's arguments as insincere cover for sectional interests. Perhaps, though, we underestimate their deliberative capacities? This article examines a deliberative poll (DP) in the Omagh area of Northern Ireland, a society having only recently emerged from protracted violence, reflecting and reinforcing the deep divide between Catholics and Protestants. The topic -- the future of the local schools -- was one on which many of the issues were heavily impinged by the Catholic-Protestant divide. We examine the extent to which a representative sample, including both Catholics and Protestants, was able to deliberate constructively and how the experience changed their policy attitudes and their opinions of one another. Adapted from the source document.

Deeply divided societies would seem to be infertile ground for mass deliberation. 'Enclave deliberation', among people on the same side, may well occur. But people on opposing sides may not trust one another, they may not listen with an open mind, or they may regard the other side's arguments as insincere cover for sectional interests. Perhaps, though, we underestimate their deliberative capacities? This article examines a deliberative poll (DP) in the Omagh area of Northern Ireland, a society having only recently emerged from protracted violence, reflecting and reinforcing the deep divide between Catholics and Protestants. The topic – the future of the local schools – was one on which many of the issues were heavily impinged by the Catholic–Protestant divide. We examine the extent to which a representative sample, including both Catholics and Protestants, was able to deliberate constructively and how the experience changed their policy attitudes and their opinions of one another.

AbstractDeliberation is widely believed to enhance democracy by helping to refine the 'public will', moving its participants' policy attitudes closer to their 'full-consideration' policy attitudes – those they would hypothetically hold with unlimited information, to which they gave unlimited reflection. Yet there have also been claims that the social dynamics involved generally 'homogenize' attitudes (decreasing their variance), 'polarize' them (moving their means toward the nearer extreme), or engender 'domination' (moving their overall means toward those of the attitudes held by the socially advantaged) – attitude changes that may often beawayfrom the participants' full-consideration attitudes and may thus distort rather than refine the public will. This article uses 2,601 group-issue pairs in twenty-one Deliberative Polls to examine these claims. Reassuringly, the results show no routine or strong homogenization, polarization, or domination. What little pattern there is suggests some faint homogenization, but also some faintmoderation(as opposed to polarization) andopposition(as opposed to domination) – all as is to be expected when the outside-world forces shaping pre-deliberation attitudes are slightly more centrifugal than centripetal. The authors lay out a theoretical basis for these expectations and interpretations and probe the study's results, highlighting, among other things, deliberation's role in undoing outside-world effects on pre-deliberation attitudes and the observed homogenization's, polarization's, and domination's dependence on deliberative design.

Using data from a randomized field experiment within a Deliberative Poll, this paper examines deliberation's effects on both policy attitudes and the extent to which ordinal rankings of policy options approach single-peakedness (a help in avoiding cyclical majorities). The setting was New Haven, Connecticut, and its surrounding towns; the issues were airport expansion and revenue sharing – the former highly salient, the latter not at all. Half the participants deliberated revenue sharing, then the airport; the other half the reverse. This split-half design helps distinguish the effects of the formal on-site deliberations from those of other aspects of the treatment. As expected, the highly salient airport issue saw only a slight effect, while much less salient revenue-sharing issue saw a much larger one.