Search results

Deliberative democracy (DD), to date, represents perhaps the chief defying paradigm with which representative democracy is bound to deal with. In this paper we try to en-compass the outstandingly heterogeneous and multivocal debate from which this new democratic concept stemmed. The core idea, both normative and procedural, of DD, is brought out, starting from the Habermasian foundations up to the most recent and pragmatic variants. The DD, as it turns out, is affected with substantial aporias in its theoretical corpus, and with paradoxes in its practical implementation. Nonetheless, the deliberative-participative rhetoric and policies are seeing a noticeable success which, we argue, can be traced back to the fact that the DD represents a useful answer to clear-cut needs of the contemporary society: filling the gap between the citizens and their government, by building consensus, on one hand, and providing new tools to deal with the uncertainty and the complexity which undoubtedly characterize the management of the res publica, on the other hand.

This Element focuses on New Public Governance as one of the major administrative narratives of our times. It offers a critical interpretation of NPG as a hybrid tool for management, governance, and reform, arguing that NPG coexists with and is likely to gradually merge into New Public Management. Several arguments support the 'continuity and hybridization' hypothesis, whereby the transition from NPM to NPG occurred through the retention of key elements and a layering and sedimentation process. These arguments challenge the "linear substitution" hypothesis, accounting for NPM's persistence and dominance. The Element develops a new interpretation of NPG and discusses the challenges that NPG poses. Finally, it shows that exploring hybridity is critical for evaluating the potential of NPG in terms of a shift in public administration and understanding governance trajectories and reform scenarios.

The gender-professionalism nexus is the source of persistent inequalities in our society. Its continuing relevance emerges even more in the pandemic crisis as a revealing context of social dynamics, showing a "differential in visibility" among welfare professionals, associated with gender, status and power. The attribution of "masculine" and "feminine" connotations (re)produces structures of inequality: there are male/dominant and female/subordinate professions. The exploration of this nexus reveals the existence of two polar meanings of care and body work, as well as two conceptions of professionalism and citizenship. Caring as "therapy" is related to "work on the body" and reflects a classical conception of professionalism aimed at client-citizens; whereas caring as "to care for" is related to "work with and between bodies" and meets better new professionalism aimed at active citizens. Considering gender as professional practice ideology highlights how "gender commonality" is not a solution to inequalities. Furthermore, it can contribute to the deconstruction of the dominance structures. In a such research agenda, narratives of professionals are the key to open the black box. Taking up the challenge to open the gender-professionalism black box is not just a matter of research, but of political action, starting from academia itself.