Suchergebnisse

This article addresses the question of how to define, operationalise and measure empirically the concepts of arguing and bargaining, which are central to the normative theories of deliberative democracy. It points at, and proposes a solution to, one particularly difficult problem with respect to operationalisation, namely the distinction between arguing and cooperative forms of bargaining. The key to capturing this distinction is to look not only at whether, but also at why, actors give reasons for their positions. Motivations partly define arguing and bargaining as types of social decision procedure and it is difficult for researchers within the "empirical turn" of deliberative democratic theory to distinguish the two without studying the motives of the actors. The most straightforward way of analysing motives is asking people about them in interviews. An illustration of how the survey method can be used in practise is given from an ongoing research project on the Council of the European Union.

This article addresses the question of how to define, operationalise and measure empirically the concepts of arguing and bargaining, which are central to the normative theories of deliberative democracy. It points at, and proposes a solution to, one particularly difficult problem with respect to operationalisation, namely the distinction between arguing and cooperative forms of bargaining. The key to capturing this distinction is to look not only at whether, but also at why, actors give reasons for their positions. Motivations partly define arguing and bargaining as types of social decision procedure and it is difficult for researchers within the "empirical turn" of deliberative democratic theory to distinguish the two without studying the motives of the actors. The most straightforward way of analysing motives is asking people about them in interviews. An illustration of how the survey method can be used in practise is given from an ongoing research project on the Council of the European Union.

This working paper presents findings from a study of network capital and cooperation patterns in the working groups of the Council of the European Union. Two successive rounds of telephone interviews with Council working group representatives from all member states were conducted in 2003 and 2006. It is demonstrated that some member states have a consistently higher stock of network capital (having close ties to a large number of powerful cooperation partners) than others, over time and across policy fields. Size explains a lot of this variation, but there is also room for actor-based factors. For small states in particular inter-personal trust seems to have a positive effect. The findings also indicate that cooperation patterns in the Council working groups follow geographical patterns. The dominant North-South dimension is consistent across policy fields. Rather than having one 'core' the EU15 Council revolved around a North (the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK) and a South (France, Italy, Spain) center, connected by Germany. The 2004 enlargement did not change this pattern, but only added new groups of countries to the periphery around the two main centers. There is evidence to suggest that the geographical cooperation patterns are mainly driven by cultural factors, rather than economic interests or political ideologies.

This article addresses the question of how to define, operationalise and measure empirically the concepts of arguing and bargaining, which are central to the normative theories of deliberative democracy. It points at, and proposes a solution to, one particularly difficult problem with respect to operationalisation, namely the distinction between arguing and cooperative forms of bargaining. The key to capturing this distinction is to look not only at whether, but also at why, actors give reasons for their positions. Motivations partly define arguing and bargaining as types of social decision procedure and it is difficult for researchers within the 'empirical turn' of deliberative democratic theory to distinguish the two without studying the motives of the actors. The most straightforward way of analysing motives is asking people about them in interviews. An illustration of how the survey method can be used in practise is given from an ongoing research project on the Council of the European Union. Adapted from the source document.

Der Beitrag zur Transparenz-Forschung erörtert die These, wonach bei empirischen Untersuchungen zwischen den Konzepten der Transparenz, Publicity und Verantwortlichkeit differenziert werden muss, um irreführende Schlussfolgerungen zur Signifikanz der Transparenz zu vermeiden. Nach der Veranschaulichung des theoretischen Arguments wird die Notwendigkeit dieser Unterscheidung an zwei Beispielen verdeutlicht: (1) dem Kampf gegen Korruption durch Transparenz und (2) der Frage nach der Unabhängigkeit und Verantwortlichkeit der Europäischen Zentralbank. Die Beispiele zeigen die Bedeutung der verschiedenen kausalen Mechanismen bei der Untersuchung von Transparenz und Publizität auf, deren Berücksichtigung sowohl für konzeptuelle Klarheit als auch für ein angemessenes Forschungsdesign in der empirischen sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung sorgen. (ICG2)

The effect of transparency reforms on political decision making will be studied. According to some, transparency reforms have a positive effect by promoting public-spirited arguing instead of self-interested bargaining. Others however consider that transparency will push actors towards "distributive" rather than "integrative" bargaining, thus losing efficacy. A third hypothesis states that real decision making will leak from formal to non-formal (non-transparent) settings. Methodologically, observation of public versus closed meetings in the Council of Ministers & municipalities of Sweden & interviews will be employed. References. Adapted from the source document.

Thanks to new transparency rules and increased efforts by scholars, researchers are better equipped than ever before to analyze the decision-making processes of the Council of the European Union and to test old wisdoms. This book covers the most contentious areas and important debates in current research

Theoretisch