Suchergebnisse

This article addresses the codification of formal rules and procedures of governance through Administrative Procedure Acts (APAs). The recent enactment of APAs in two new democracies, South Korea and Taiwan, highlights an apparent paradox. Because administrative reform limits the executive's power, it is clear why legislatures in separation-of-power systems would favour APAs. But it is less clear why presidents would support them. Why would a president accept a law designed to restrict her ability to act freely? The answer is that presidents have agency problems too. The more intra-branch conflict they face during their administrations, the more likely they will support administrative reform. Thus, instead of tying the hands of future administrations, presidents also use APAs to overcome current control problems. Three recently democratized East Asian countries, two with APAs (South Korea and Taiwan) and one without (Philippines), support this 'reining in' theory. Conflict within the executive branch may be an important ingredient in democratic consolidation. APAs result from political struggle.

The problem I have in mind is the problem of the possible justification of subjecting one's will to that of another, and of the normative standing of demands to do so. The account of authority that I offered, many years ago, under the title of the service conception of authority, addressed this issue, and assumed that all other problems regarding authority are subsumed under it. Many found the account implausible. It is thin, relying on very few ideas. It may well appear to be too thin, and to depart too far from many of the ideas that have gained currency in the history of reflection on authority. The present article modifies some aspects the account, and defends it against some criticism made against it.

I want to begin by thanking Göran Holmqvist and Karin Metell Cueva for financing (on behalf of Sida) our independent research of the PRS processes in Latin America in the first place, and now in particular for taking up the challenge to respond to my doubts and criticisms of the PRS approach. They recognise that this approach has been too optimistic and, in particular, that too many goals have been attached to one single instrument. The proposal they put forward is interesting and worth discussing. I share their concerns about the continuing poverty and inequality in Latin America and agree that donors should focus their efforts on trying to reduce them. But I wonder whether their proposed solution to the shortcomings of the PRS approach is really so different from current practice.

Methods for consulting the public are classified according to a scheme that considers the method of selection and the forms of public opinion solicited. The major approaches are considered for their merits and limitations. The methods discussed include self selected forums, polls, discussion groups, citizen juries, conventional polls and Deliberative Polls. Applications are considered from various countries and the contrast between conventional polls and Deliberative Polls is a principal topic.