Suchergebnisse

Die Studie analysiert die Deliberations- und Verhandlungsprozesse im Europäischen Parlament. Der Band nimmt die Akteure der Entscheidung in den Blick: Wie gelangen Abgeordnete unterschiedlicher Nationen und Parteien zu einer gemeinsamen Entscheidung? Anhand ausgewählter Gesetzestexte untersucht der Band parlamentarische Verhandlungsprozesse vergleichend in Ausschussdebatten und in informellen Arenen. In einem Parlament ohne Mehrheit zählen überzeugende Argumente; am Ende der Verhandlungen steht ein Kompromiss.Die Stärke des EPs im Institutionensetting liegt in der Einigkeit seiner Akteure begründet – diese zu erzielen gelingt den Akteuren in deliberativen Verhandlungen. Die Studie konzeptualisiert Entscheidungsprozesse, indem sie deliberative Ansätze und Rollenkonzepte kombiniert. Die theoretischen Annahmen überprüft sie empirisch in einer vergleichenden Diskursanalyse der Ausschussdebatten und in Interviews mit den Entscheidungsträgern.Die Autorin forscht zu Parlamenten, Parteien und Öffentlichkeit in der Europäischen Union.

Cover -- 1 Why study deliberation in European Parliament committees? -- 2 Parliamentary deliberation -- 2.1 Legislating within the European Parliament -- 2.1.1 Parliamentary committees -- 2.1.2 Plenary session -- 2.1.3 Political group meetings & -- Informal forums of deliberation -- 2.2 Compromising within the European Parliament -- 3 Deliberative theory -- 3.1 The concept of deliberation -- 3.1.1 The foundations of deliberative democracy -- 3.1.2 The pluralistic challenge: criticism toward deliberation -- 3.2 Beyond deliberation: ideal types of parliamentary discourses -- 3.2.1 Extended deliberation: integratin -- 3.2.2 Avoiding concept-stretching: a typology of discourses -- 3.2.3 Adopting a sequentialized approach -- 4 Studying deliberation -- 4.1 Deliberation in parliamentary committees: the institutionalvariables -- 4.1.1 Impact on decision-making -- 4.1.2 Time constraints -- 4.1.3 Pressures for agreement -- 4.1.4 Ordinary legislative procedure: the impact of institutionalvariables -- 4.2 Stages of the deliberative process: the temporal variable -- 4.3 Deliberation under constraints: the situational var -- 4.3.1 Topic-related variables -- 4.3.2 Veto-Players -- 4.3.3 Publicity -- 4.3.4 External pressures -- 5 The actors of debate: their parliamentary roles -- 5.1 Parliamentary role orientations: a situational approach -- 5.1.1 Representational role orientations -- 5.1.2 Purposive role orientations -- 5.1.3 Role-choice of representatives -- 5.2 Role sets in the European Parliament -- 6 Research design -- 6.1 Assessing the situation of decision-making -- 6.2 Analyzing MEPs role orientations -- 6.3 Discourse analysis: the Discourse Quality Index -- 6.3.1 Analyzing deliberation - adopting a multidimensional approach -- 6.4 Case selection -- 7 Decision-making in European Parliament committees.

"Deliberating, negotiating, designing, and implementing water management policies are often disconnected activities. Different actors come together in separate arenas at different times, places and levels to gain support for their policies, programs and projects. Scale represents a class of key choices, commitments and constraints that actors contest or are forced to accept. In the Mekong region water governance is multi-level and multiscale with issues and actors that surge and ebb as they move from deliberation, negotiation and allocation of water and related services and back out again. The attributes and outcomes of multi-level governance - like fairness, equity and sustainability - depends not only on the interplay of institutions, but also the fortuitous and staged cross-level interactions among less rigid and formalized social networks and deliberative platforms. While attributing impacts to deliberative engagement is not a straight-forward exercise, our hypothesis remains that cross-level interactions in deliberations initially produce and later help influence negotiations and the robustness of structure of rules, agreements, policies and institutions." (author's abstract)

The work of Crocco and her colleagues, "Deliberating Public Policy Issues with Adolescents," combines two important fields—deliberative democracy and discussion as a pedagogy—with a study of policy deliberations in three classrooms. Their article yields valuable insights. As the authors note, the results are disappointing. This may be because the students were not actually asked to deliberate, if "deliberation" means discussing in order to make a decision. After all, the students could not decide US policy on immigration. Their discussion was a kind of simulated deliberation. Evidence suggests that we may see better results from real deliberations that occur within student-led voluntary associations or from simulated deliberations in which the students role-play powerful decision-makers, rather than playing themselves in a discussion that has no political impact.

Deliberacija oziroma kritična, odprta, vključujoča in argumentirana javna razprava o stvareh javnega interesa je ključen mehanizem demokratične politične ureditve. Po prepričanju zagovornikov deliberativne demokracije, kot je Jürgen Habermas, deliberacija prispeva k doseganju boljše in pravičnejše družbe. Prispevek analizira prepletenost razvoja te politične vrednote v evro-atlantskem svetu s protestantizmom in njegovim razvojem. Novejša raziskovanja zgodovine protestantizma in politične zgodovine demokracije kažejo kompleksno, a zgovorno sliko: kljub prisotnosti religijskih konzervativnih tendenc v protestantizmu se zdi, da je za družbe, v katerih je protestantizem postal prevladujoča religijska kultura, postala značilna precejšnja mera svobode raziskovanja, verovanja in debatiranja. To dejstvo je bilo delno rezultat naključnih zgodovinskih dogodkov, delno pa notranjih teoloških impulzov v protestantski misli. Deliberation as critical, open, inclusive and argument-based discussion about matters of public interest is a crucial mechanism of a healthy democracy. According to deliberative democracy defenders, like Jürgen Habermas, deliberation contributes to achieving a better and more just society. The present essay analyses the intertwinement between the development of this political value in the Euro-Atlantic world on the one hand, and Protestantism and its development on the other. Recent works in the history of Protestantism and the political history of democracy paint a complex, but powerful picture: despite the religious conservative tendencies in Protestantism, it seems that a notable measure of freedom of research, belief and debate could be found in the societies where Protestantism had become a dominant religious culture. While this development is partly a result of contingent historic events, it also had much to do with internal theological impulses within the Protestant thought.

We present a group‐based approach to the study of deliberation. Deliberation occurs in groups, yet many studies of deliberation do not take the group as a unit of analysis. We argue that group composition and the attendant social dynamics to which they give rise are an important aspect of deliberation. We offer several examples of ways to study these effects, including the interaction of gender composition and the group's decision rule in the context of an experimental study of decisions about justice, the effect of racial composition in simulated juries, and the effect of ideological composition in local meetings. We examine the consequences of these factors on a variety of outcomes, including individuals' private opinion, individuals' behaviour, and group decisions. In conclusion we discuss the implications that group effects have for empirical and normative theories of deliberation.