Suchergebnisse

Can private companies legitimately regulate sharing markets, and if yes, how? Whereas scholars have either criticized sharing platforms for expanding into private and public arenas or welcomed them to counterbalance encroaching government regulations, studies document their unbridled popularity. On the basis of a special version of social contracts theory pioneered by James Buchanan, we develop a heuristics that helps guide reasoning about the legitimacy of the sharing economy's regulatory function. First, we discuss the conditions under which free and responsible individuals deliberately subject themselves to rules without their prior direct participation, that is, exit, voice, and constitutional limits. Second, we suggest sharing platforms can use novel ordo-responsibilities to establish a sharing constitution that takes these conditions into account. Third, we argue that sharing platforms can legitimately do so within an enabling institutional environment in society, the provision of which relies on the joint efforts of sharing platforms, political actors, and civil society.

Vor welchen Herausforderungen steht das Projekt der Bioökonomie, wenn man aus einer ordonomischen Perspektive auf das Phänomen eines demokratischen Diskursversagens blickt? Zwei Arten des Diskursversagens sind zu unterscheiden: (a) der Fehl-Alarm und (b) der Fehlende Alarm. Gerade im Hinblick auf bioökonomische Neuerungen müssen wir Governance-Strukturen entwickeln, um uns kollektiv in die Lage zu versetzen, das Falsche zu unterlassen und das Richtige zu tun. Nicht nur technische Innovationen, sondern auch institutionelle und ideative Innovationen sind für den nachhaltigen Erfolg (und die soziale Akzeptanz) der Bioökonomie von entscheidender Bedeutung.

Purpose: Public debates on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are strongly influenced by the nongovernmental organization (NGO)-led advocacy, most of which is harshly critical of genetic engineering. This advocacy has resulted in discourse failures marked by the disregard for the scientific consensus on the risks and benefits of GMOs. This paper aims to present a theoretical inquiry into this phenomenon. Design/methodology/approach: Drawing on American institutionalism and Niklas Luhmann social systems theory, the paper explains these discourse failures in terms of the problematic relationship between institutions and technology. Findings: Clarence Ayres would likely see these discourse failures as a form of "institutional resistance" to the progress of science and technology. In contrast, Marc Tool's social value principle stresses the importance of democratic legitimation and public acceptance of new technologies, while being sensitive to the possibility of ideologically biased discourses. It is argued that the institutionalist understanding of the interplay between democracy, science and technology would benefit from a better account of Niklas Luhmann's concept of "complexity reduction". Social implications: The study shows that some NGOs are powerful enough to actively shape, if not manipulate, public attitudes and sentiments against GMOs. Originality/value: The case of the anti-GMO advocacy calls for a new conceptualization of how democracy, science and technology fit together.

Vor welchen Herausforderungen steht das Projekt der Bioökonomie, wenn man aus einer ordonomischen Perspektive auf das Phänomen eines demokratischen Diskursversagens blickt? Zwei Arten des Diskursversagens sind zu unterscheiden: (a) der Fehl-Alarm und (b) der Fehlende Alarm. Gerade im Hinblick auf bioökonomische Neuerungen müssen wir Governance-Strukturen entwickeln, um uns kollektiv in die Lage zu versetzen, das Falsche zu unterlassen und das Richtige zu tun. Nicht nur technische Innovationen, sondern auch institutionelle und ideative Innovationen sind für den nachhaltigen Erfolg (und die soziale Akzeptanz) der Bioökonomie von entscheidender Bedeutung. ; If you look from an ordonomic perspective at the phenomenon of democratic discourse failures, one can immediately identify several challenges faced by the bio-economy project. Two types of discourse failure have to be distinguished: (a) a false alarm and (b) a missing alarm. The main challenge with regard to the bio-economy project is to develop governance structures in order to collectively enable ourselves to do the right things and to refrain from unnecessary mistakes. Complementary to technological innovations, we also need innovations with regard to institutions and idea(l)s. The latter are of decisive importance for the sustainable success (and the social acceptance) of the bio-economy.