Suchergebnisse

Das Konzept der "erweiterten Partizipation" enthält den grundlegenden Gedanken, dass Bürger als Nutzer von öffentlichen Gütern und Dienstleistungen eine bedeutendere Rolle in jenen Prozessen erhalten sollten, die den Charakter dieser Güter und Dienstleistungen, also ihre Inhalte, ihre Verfügbarkeit und/oder ihre Verteilung beeinflussen. Der vorliegende Beitrag versucht diese Entwicklung zu verstehen und erklären. Was bildet die Grundlage für die Zunahme des Themas "Nutzerpartizipation" in der öffentlichen Debatte und in der Politikgestaltung vieler Länder und welche Implikationen oder Konsequenzen bringt die Umsetzung der verschiedenen Konzepte von Nutzerpartizipation mit sich? Anders ausgedrückt: Worauf ist die zunehmende Betonung von Nutzerpartizipation eine Reaktion und welche Herausforderungen verbergen sich in verstärkter Nutzerpartizipation? Für den Zweck des Beitrags wird der Challenge-Response-Ansatz (CRA) bewusst umgekehrt. Begonnen wird mit einem Phänomen, das eher als Response denn als Challenge betrachtet werden kann. Von hier aus wird dann in beide Richtungen geschaut: rückwärts, um zu sehen, welche Herausforderungen diese Antwort hervorgebracht haben und vorwärts, um zu bestimmen, welche Herausforderungen diese Antwort selbst in sich birgt. Der Beitrag beginnt mit einem Rückblick auf die Umstände, die zur Zunahme von Nutzerpartizipation beitrugen. Dem folgt eine Präsentation und kurze Diskussion der vielfältigen Konzepte von Nutzerpartizipation, bevor dann Probleme und Herausforderungen erörtert werden, welche durch die Einführung hervorgerufen werden. Der Beitrag schließt mit einer zusammenfassenden Diskussion. (ICA2)

This paper undertakes an analysis of five forms of local nonelectoral participation in three European countries. The primary question of interest is whether or not there is any systematic relationship between these forms of nonelectoral participation and the size of local political – administrative units. It is argued that, to the extent it is reasonable to expect size to be relevant, the nature of the relationships is likely to vary from one form of participation to another. Analyses are based on survey data collected during the 1990s in each country by means of logistic regression with a common set of variables. Although the findings vary somewhat from one country to another, and are not always in keeping with theoretical expectations, they nonetheless indicate that size does indeed appear to make some difference, even after controlling for the effects of individual characteristics. The effect of size, in other words, is not merely a byproduct of the compositional characteristics of the individuals living in different sized municipalities, as is sometimes suggested.

How citizen participation is distributed within the population is one of several fundamental questions of general significance to democratic theorists. This article briefly reviews some of the most salient normative arguments regarding the distribution of democratic citizen participation and then turns to the principal conceptual‐methodological issues to be encountered when considering the basic empirical question. Against this background the Norwegian case is discussed in detail, first in light of prior synchronic investigations, then by means of a diachronic analysis of panel study data from the 1965, 1969 and 1973 national election surveys. These analyses document more broadly based citizen participation in Norway than might otherwise be anticipated and discredit the idea of a cumulative hierarchical overlap pattern of political involvement. The article concludes with a discussion of several considerations relating to these findings, all of which suggest the need for greater sensitivity and explicitness among those who would advance claims or comparisons regarding the distribution of citizen participation in modern democracies.

ABSTRACTIssues of collective interest, to the extent they are brought into the public policy‐making arena, pose serious theoretical challenges for democratic societies ‐ challenges primarily associated with interest representation and agenda setting practices. The present article takes these challenges as its point of departure, focusing in particular on the role interest groups may play in meeting these. Using consumer protection policy‐making in Norway and the United States for illustrative purposes, the article explores the characteristics of consumer protection as a collective interest and then sets forth six alternative means of such interest articulation. The actual infrastructure of consumer interest representation in the Norwegian and U.S. cases is then examined, revealing major differences, and the implications of these differences are considered. The principal conclusion is that independent consumer associations are in all likelihood a sufficient, but certainly not necessary, condition for the realization of public consumer protection policies. The same also applies to a corporatist interest group arrangement as practised in Norway. Additional observations are offered regarding patterns of agenda setting and possible policy convergence in advanced industrial societies.