Deliberation on Long-term Care for Senior Citizens:
|
|
- Myron Green
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Deliberation on Long-term Care for Senior Citizens: A Study of How Citizens Jury Process Can Apply in the Policy Making Process of Thailand Wichuda Satidporn Stithorn Thananithichot 1 Abstract The Citizens Jury process is one of deliberative democratic tools that allow policy makers and the public to hear thoughtful citizen input. This paper examines the Citizen Jury process applied by the Thailand National Health Commission Office of Thailand (NHCO) as one of the participatory approaches used in the process of developing the Statute on the National Health System of Relying on a quasi-experimental method of examination, a case study of a Citizens Jury on long-term care for senior citizens was used to investigate what risks and benefits of applying a Citizens Jury process and how the framing of the process affected the attitude formation among the citizens. This article argues that the process of receiving public opinions used in this case study could be an evidence of true democracy, in which citizens are free and equal to engage in the public forums that provide them an opportunity to have a real influence on public policy decisions. However, the final decisions that used only some part of the public s opinions that emerged from the meetings are evidence of the limitations of deliberative democracy s practices. Thus, in order to realize the ultimate goal of deliberative advocates, to engages the public in discussion with decision makers in open and transparent ways before decisions are finalized, deliberative practitioners must avoid applying deliberative democracy as a mechanism aimed at getting some approvals on public policies that have already been set in the minds of policy makers. Keywords: Citizen Jury process; Public deliberation; Long-term care for senior citizens policy; Thailand 1 Contact information: King Prajadhipok's Institute, The Government Complex (Building B) 5th floor (Southern Zone), Chaengwattana Road, Thung Song Hong, Laksi District, Bangkok Tel: , Fax: , stithorn@kpi.ac.th
2 1. Introduction The Citizens Jury process is one of deliberative democratic tools that allow policy makers and the public to hear thoughtful citizen input. This paper examines the Citizen Jury process applied by the National Health Commission Office of Thailand (NHCO) as one of the participatory approaches used in the process of developing the Statute on the National Health System of Relying on a quasi-experimental method of examination, a case study of a Citizens Jury on long-term care for senior citizens was used to investigate what risks and benefits of applying a Citizens Jury process and how the framing of the process affected the attitude formation among the citizens. This article argues that the process of receiving public opinions used in this case study could be an evidence of true democracy, in which citizens are free and equal to engage in the public forums that provide them an opportunity to have a real influence on public policy decisions. However, the final decisions that used only some part of the public s opinions that emerged from the meetings are evidence of the limitations of deliberative democracy s practices. Thus, in order to realize the ultimate goal of deliberative advocates, to engages the public in discussion with decision makers in open and transparent ways before decisions are finalized, deliberative practitioners must avoid applying deliberative democracy as a mechanism aimed at getting some approvals on public policies that have already been set in the minds of policy makers. 2. Debating Deliberative Democracy The concept of deliberative democracy has long been developed, yet it remains debatable. It may be conceptualized in a narrow sense as it was first devised as a discussion on the floor of the representative assembly (Bessette 1980; Elster 1998; Estlund 2008). It could also be defined in a very broad sense to include an everyday talk, which is not only formal forms of conversation but also informal ones such as storytelling, joking, and greeting, 2
3 as a crucial part of the full deliberative system (Mansbridge 1999). However, this paper focuses on the most familiar term of deliberative democracy that has widely been discussed and referred to as a theory of public administration that provides a bridge between democratic theory and concrete policy practices (Fischer 2003). More specifically, deliberative democracy or any other terms used in this paper such as democratic deliberation, public deliberation, and so on is understood as a political process that engages the public in discussion with decision makers in open and transparent ways before decisions are finalized. 2.1 What is Democratic Deliberation? According to Gutmann and Thompson (2004), there are at least four important characteristics of democratic deliberative process. First and most importantly, democratic deliberation is a reason-giving requirement process, in which the reasons that the deliberative democracy asks citizens and their representatives to give should appeal to principles that individuals who are trying to find fair terms of cooperation cannot reasonably reject. The reasons are neither merely procedural nor substantive, but they are reasons that should be accepted by free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation. A second characteristic of democratic deliberation is that the reasons given in this process should be accessible to all the citizens to whom they are address. In other words, the reasons must be public, and they are public in two senses: (1) in the sense that the deliberation itself must take place in public, not merely in the privacy of one s mind; and (2) in the sense that the reasons must be public concerning their content a deliberative justification does not even begin if those to whom it is addressed cannot understand its essential content. The third characteristic of democratic deliberation is that its process aims at producing a decision that is binding for some period of time. In this respect the deliberative process is not like a talk show or an academic seminar. The participants do not argue for argument s 3
4 sake; they do not argue even for truth s own sake. They intend their discussion to influence a decision the government will make, or a process that will affect how future decisions are made. The fourth characteristic of democratic deliberation is that its process is dynamic. Although deliberation aims at a justifiable decision, it does not presuppose that the decision at hand will in fact be justified, let alone that a justification today will suffice for the indefinite future. It keeps open the possibility of a continuing dialogue, one in which citizens can criticize previous decisions and move ahead on the basis of that criticism. Combining these four characteristics, Gutmann and Thompson (2004:7) define deliberative democracy as a form of government in which free and equal citizens (and their representatives), justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching conclusions that are blinding in the present on all citizens but open to challenge in the future. For this reason, deliberative democracy differs from some other attitudes and practices in democratic politics in that it exhorts participants to be concerned not only with their own interests but to listen to and take account of the interests of others insofar as these are compatible with justice. Practices of deliberative democracy also aim to bracket the influence of power differentials in political outcomes because agreement between deliberators should be reached on the basis of argument, rather than as a result of threats or force (Young 2001). 2.2 What are the Risks and Benefits of Establishing a Democratic Deliberation Process? What will democratic deliberation do for us? Gutmann and Thompson (1996) identify four principal benefits: it (1) helps promote the legitimacy of collective decisions; (2) encourages public-spirited perspectives on public issue; (3) promotes mutually respectful decision making; and (4) helps democracies correct the mistakes of the past. Deliberative 4
5 democracy promises legitimate that is, morally justifiable and rationally produced solutions to vexing political problems. Especially when these problems are difficult, affording no clear way to arrive at unequivocally satisfactory solution, deliberation recommends itself because it relies on a broad consideration of alternative solution, increasing the likelihood that the perspectives held by all members of a heterogeneous community will be given voice. Deliberation is also clarifying and enlightening, highlighting the moral issues at stake in political debates and allowing citizens to elucidate these issues for themselves. Finally, democratic deliberation enhances democracy. Democratic theorists now take deliberation to be the exemplary practice or activity for democrats, and they gear their arguments toward its realization. Hence, deliberation has become a standard for the accomplishment of democracy. And, when democratic theorists suggest remodeling our politics, it is in the direction of making them more deliberative. With these benefits, the deliberative democrat thinks that the best way to limit political domination and the naked imposition of partisan interest and to promote social justice through public policy is to foster the creation of sites and processes of deliberation among diverse and disagreeing elements of the polity (Young 2003). Most deliberative democrats, however, acknowledge one objection that critics have put to this contention: deliberative methods of decision making can fail to advance these political values under unfavorable conditions such as economic equality, cultural difference, or the absence of a reciprocal willingness to engage in the practice of deliberation (Fung 2005). Economic inequalities, for example, enable wealthier parties to improperly displace communicative power by mounting threats, purchasing compliance, drowning out other perspectives, mobilizing many forms of support, or simply privatizing some area of concern out of the domain of public deliberation. Another effect of such inequality is that individuals encounter 5
6 each other with very different capacities to deliberate. Political and administrative inequalities allow officials to restrict and eliminate domains of deliberative governance and to substitute canonical expertise for argument when they do engage with citizens. Finally, cultural inequalities may favor hegemonic discourses or styles of communication in deliberative decision making. 2.3 Citizens Jury The Citizens Jury process is designed to allow decision-makers to hear the people s voice. A Citizens Jury provides an unparalleled opportunity for citizens to learn about an issue and deliberate together to find a common ground solution. Decision-makers who watch a Citizens Jury project in action or listen to a jury s recommendations are able to learn what an informed public wants, and why. This information can be an invaluable resource for elected officials and other decision-makers at the local, state, and national levels. The great advantage of a Citizens Jury is that it yields citizen input from a group that is both informed and representative of the public. Involving citizens in a high quality dialogue about a key issue ultimately leads to increased public support for the resulting policy. The Citizens Jury process is an effective way to involve citizens in developing a thoughtful, well-informed solution to a public problem or issue. In a Citizens Jury project, a randomly selected and demographically representative panel of citizens meets for four or five days to carefully examine an issue of public significance. The jury of citizens, usually consisting of 18 to 24 individuals, serves as a microcosm of the public. Jurors are paid a stipend for their time. They hear from a variety of expert witnesses and are able to deliberate together on the issue. On the final day of their moderated hearings, the members of the Citizens Jury present their recommendations to the public. 6
7 Key elements of a citizens jury project include: advisory committee recruitment, jury and witness selections, charge setting and assignment, and hearings arrangement. 1) Advisory Committee The Advisory Committee is composed of approximately 4-10 individuals who are knowledgeable about the issue. Members of the Advisory Committee represent a variety of perspectives and opinions. The role of the Advisory Committee is to assist the organizer in identifying key aspects surrounding the issue. The Advisory Committee advises the project in such areas as the charge, agenda development, and witness selection. The interest of the Advisory Committee is in the integrity and fairness of the process as a whole, not in a specific outcome. They are also on alert for any bias throughout the entire project. The members of the Advisory Committee are important advisors to the project, but the project staff makes all final project decisions. By including individuals from a variety of perspectives in the planning stages of a Citizens Jury project, the final agenda and witness list cover a wide range of relevant opinions and perspectives. 2) Jury Selection Creating a jury that is truly representative of the given community (city, state, nation or whatever) is yet another element unique to the Citizens Jury process. In creating a jury that accurately reflects the public, a number of key steps are taken. These steps are essential to maintain the integrity of every Citizens Jury project. Five demographic variables and one attitudinal variable are usually used to create a representative jury. The traditional demographic categories used are age, gender, educational attainment, race, and geographic location within the community. In some projects, certain variables may not be relevant. In such cases, other applicable variables such as political party affiliation or number of children are employed. In addition, one variable that reflects the general attitude towards the issue is employed. 7
8 The project staff, with advice from the advisory committee, takes great care to determine the relevant variables to use in selecting jurors. Targets for each variable are established based on recent census data or other recent reputable surveys. All of the randomly selected survey respondents who receive information are placed into the jury pool. The members of the jury pool are categorized based on the identified variables. A grid containing the pre-determined variables is used to track the jury pool. Final jury selection consists of selecting identification numbers off the grid until all the targets are met in the best possible configuration. Great care is taken to ensure balance within categories in addition to meeting the established targets. 3) Witness Selection Expert witnesses include neutral resource people, stakeholders, and advocates from various sides. Witnesses are carefully selected to present a balanced yet complete picture of the issue. Neutral resource witnesses provide an overview of the issue on the opening day of the hearings. These witnesses help jurors learn new terms and can provide a brief history of the issue. They are essential in making jurors feel comfortable with the subject matter. Stakeholders and advocates present a specific perspective or opinion on either a certain aspect of the issue or on the issue as a whole. They often present informational material as well, but their main role is to explain their position. The project staff ensures that the jury hears from a diverse set of witnesses who represent the many different perspectives of the issue. 4) Charge The charge is the task facing the jury. It usually takes the form of a question or series of questions that the jurors will address and answer. The charge defines the scope of the project and will guide the work of the jurors and the testimony of the witnesses. The charge is one of the most critical pieces to a smooth Citizens Jury project. Great care is taken to ensure 8
9 that the charge is neither too broad nor too narrow. The questions of the charge may address separate and distinct issues or may be a series of connected questions. The charge can consist of main questions with sub-questions, but the more questions the jury must answer, the less in-depth their responses to each question. The jury may choose to go beyond the charge, but the charge questions are top priority. The jury may also choose not to answer a charge question or to answer it in a different way, but the jury must provide detailed reasons for altering the charge. The Advisory Committee provides advice and direction to NHCO project staff regarding the charge. 5) Hearings The agenda for the hearings is carefully planned by project staff. Setting the agenda for the hearings includes planning the order of witnesses, deliberation sessions, meals, breaks, and more. A Citizens Jury typically meets for five consecutive days, from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM. The first day of the hearings introduces the jury to the Citizens Jury process, provides a general overview of the issue, and allows the jurors to get to know each other. It is very important to create an atmosphere where all jurors feel comfortable participating. Establishing ground-rules and rules of procedure in the beginning are a critical part of the process. Over the next few days of the hearings, the jurors learn about the issue, the underlying topics, and the different perspectives. The agenda is set to allow time for juror discussion and deliberation throughout. Both small and large group discussions are included in deliberations. Witness presentations are structured to allow for questions from the jurors. In addition, witness panels are often used to illustrate both common ground and fundamental differences between witness perspectives. A team of two moderators professionally moderates the entire hearings. Presentations conclude by the afternoon of the second to last 9
10 day. The remaining time is dedicated to final deliberations and answering the charge questions. The morning of the final day is spent finalizing the jurors recommendations and reviewing the initial report that is issued on the afternoon of the final day. On the afternoon of the final day, the jury issues its findings and recommendations in a public forum. An initial report is issued at this time. The recommendations appear in language that the jurors themselves develop and approve. The jury appoints representatives from the jury to present their recommendations at the public forum. Depending on the issue and the scope of the project, those in attendance at the forum range from sponsors and interested citizens to press and public officials. A final report of the project is completed within three weeks of the hearings. The final report includes additional information about the project, as well as the jury s recommendations. The recommendations remain in the approved language. All final reports are made available to the public. 3. Citizens Jury on Long-Term Care for Senior Citizens: Case Summary As a process that was emerged from the idea that concerns about deliberation, transparency, and openness to public input, Citizens Jury on Long-Term Care for Senior Citizens is an appropriate case study that enable to provide us a clear picture of what the democratic deliberation in the practical world is as well as how it links to the problems of administrative ethnics. Before moving to the discussion of such topics, it would be great to learn briefly about this case. The NHCO Citizen Jury Process can be divided into three stages. 10
11 3.1 The Preparation Stage The preparation for the NHCO citizens jury started in April As the jury was going to discuss problems concerning the long-term health care for senior citizens nationwide, the 12 jury members were selected by a multi-stage random sampling method from all Thai citizens between the age of 35-70, which has approximately 45 million residents (the total number of Thai citizens currently is about 67 million). All jurors were invited in person by the NHCO staff. The working group appointed by the NHCO selected witnesses/experts for the jury from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences in dealing with the long-term health care for senior citizens. Pre-meetings were held several times in order to prepare the witnesses/experts for the process. 3.2 The Jury Days The Citizens Jury took place in Bangkok on January 7th-11th, As one of the aims of a citizen jury is to increase awareness about the problem under consideration, not only among the citizens who participate in the Jury, but also among society as a whole, representatives from several related organizations and medias were invited to observe the process through a closed-circuit television. A professional moderator facilitated the event. Day 1 There was welcoming session from the NHCO executives. Introductory session was then held in order to prepare the Jurors to get familiar with the process and each other. In order to provide jurors with some necessary information for the discussion, one expert was invited to present a brief review of Thailand s health care system and situation while other two ordinary people who are living with senior citizens were invited to share their experiences. The final session of the first day ended up with a summary session. The issues to be answered (charge) on the last day were also reviewed and given to the jurors. 11
12 Day 2-3 During the next two days, 10 witnesses/experts presented their view on long-term health care for senior citizens. Among these witnesses/experts: 5 of them support the community-based approach to the long-term health care for senior citizens (community should provide and manage health care for its senior citizens);while the other 5 preferred the institution-based approach (health-care problems of the elderly should be solved through institutional care). On each day, the process ended up with a group discussion session in order to summarize what the jurors learned from each witnesses/experts and share their opinions with the groups. Day 4 On the afternoon of the final day, the jury issues its findings and recommendations in a public forum. The jurors decision was that health-care problems of the elderly should be solved through both community and institutional cares depended on which one is fit to individual citizen. However, due to a limitation of budget and human resource, the community-based care should be priority [ex: 70% of the government budget should spend for a development of the community-based care]. An initial report is issued at this time. The recommendations appear in language that the jurors themselves develop and approve. 3.3 Jury s Recommendations At the end of the event, all the witnesses and the Jurors could have their say. Many witnesses mentioned that this was the first experience for them to listen to opinions of ordinary people in the issues of long-term health care for senior citizens, and they were surprised that people could discuss on the issues informatively and suggest many useful ideas to solve health-care problems of the elderly. The Jurors said they were very pleased to receive an invitation to such an event and that they had an opportunity to express their opinion. They also highly expected that their 12
13 recommendations will be considered meaningfully by the NHCO and other policy making organizations. 4. Discussion and Conclusion A deliberative democratic process can be simply understood as a political process that engages the public in discussion with decision makers in open and transparent ways before decisions are finalized. A commitment to deliberation is, after all, a commitment to finding a way to address concerns, resolve disagreements, and overcome conflicts by offering arguments to our fellow citizens that are supported by reasons. In theory, the main benefits of democratic deliberation are: to promote the legitimacy of collective decisions; to encourage public-spirited perspectives on public issue; to promote mutually respectful decision making; and to enhance democracy. However, in practice, especially in Thai politics and perhaps other developing countries, challenges such as how more of the people who routinely speak less might take part and be heard and how those who typically dominate might be made to attend to the views of others still occur. The process of receiving public opinions used in this case study could be an evidence of true democracy, in which citizens are free and equal to engage in the public forums that provide them an opportunity to have a real influence on public policy decisions. The key success learned from this case study is that: The Citizen Jury process that was supported by the policy makers themselves (i.e., the NHCO) made participants trust in the process and having a confidence that their opinions might be an important part of a policy making process. In addition, in order to convince policy makers to buy ideas proposed by ordinary citizens, the deliberative process that can bring true representatives of involved citizens into the equal, transparent, and informative discussion is required. Throughout the process of the NHCO Citizens Jury, all stakeholders 13
14 were informed and invited to engage in. The process of witnesses selection was transparency and acceptable while all involves citizens have an equal chance to be selected as a juror through a random sampling method. Information given to jurors during the jury process was neutral, sufficiency, and easy for ordinary people to understand. However and for this reason, organizer should avoid the final decisions made by the NHCO that totally ignore or use only a small part of the public s opinions that emerged from the Citizen Jury process as it used to happen when they applied other deliberative democracy s practices in the past. In order to realize the ultimate goal of deliberative advocates, deliberative practitioners must avoid applying Citizen Jury process (and other public deliberation mechanisms) only as a mechanism aimed at getting some approvals on public policies that have already been set in the minds of policy makers. References Bessette, J. M. (1980). Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government. In Robert Goldwin and William Schambra (Eds.), How Democratic is the Constitution? (pp ). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Carcasson, M. & Sprain, L. (2010). Key Aspects of the Deliberative Democracy Movement. Public Sector Digest (July 2010), Center for Public Deliberation, Colorado State University. Chick, M. (2013). Deliberation and Civic Studies. Good Society Journal, 22(2), Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, eds. James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, Crosby, N. & Nethercut, D. (2005). Citizens Juries: Creating a Trustworthy Voice of the People. In Gastil J. & Levine P., (eds). The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in Twenty-First Century, San Francisco: Wiley J. & Sons, Inc. 14
15 Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dryzek, J. S. & Niemeyer, S. J. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press. Escobar, O. (2011). Public Dialogue and Deliberation: A communication perspective for public engagement practitioners. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Beltane, University of Edinburgh. Estlund, D.M. (2008). Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. New York: Oxford University Press. Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. New York: University Press. Fung, A. (2005). Deliberation before the Revolution: Toward an Ethics of Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory 33 (3): Gastil, J. & Dillard, J. P. Dillard. (1999). Increasing political sophistication through public deliberation. Political Communication, 16 (1), Goodin, R. (2003). Reflective Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodin, R. (2012). Innovative Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2003). Deliberative Democracy Beyond Process In Fishkin, J. & Laslett, P. (Eds.), Debating Deliberative Democracy (pp ). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Kolbert, E. (2006). The Calculator. In Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (Eds.), Ethics and Politics: Cases & Comments (pp ). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Le Duc, L. (2006). Referendums and Deliberative Democracy. Paper presented to the World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Fukuoka, Japan. 15
16 Lukensmeyer, C. J. (2005). Participatory Methods Toolkit: A Practitioner s Manual. Retrieved August 12, 2014, from FRB/Files/EN/PUB_1540_Toolkit_1_21stCenturyTownMeeting.pdf Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System. In Macedo, S. (Ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement (pp ). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mansbridge, J., Bohman J., Chambers s., Estlund D., Føllesdal A., Fung A., et al. (2010). The Place of Self-Interest and the Role of Power in Deliberative Democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 18 (1), Robert, N. (2004). Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation. The American Review of Public Administration, 34 (4), Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against Deliberation. Political Theory 25 (3): Schneiderhan, E. & Khan, S. (2008). Reasons and inclusion: The foundation of deliberation. Sociological Theory, 26 (1), Simon, W. A. (1999). Three Limitations of Deliberative Democracy: Identity Politics, Bad Faith, and Indeterminacy. In Macedo, S. (Ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement (pp ). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Young, I. M. (2001). Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. Political Theory 29 (5):
Facilitation and Inclusive Deliberation
22 Facilitation and Inclusive Deliberation MATTHIAS TRÉNEL 1 The Problem of Internal Exclusion While scholars of citizen deliberation frequently consider problems that participants face in accessing deliberative
More informationIs Face-to-Face Citizen Deliberation a Luxury or a Necessity?
Political Communication, 17:357 361, 2000 Copyright ã 2000 Taylor & Francis 1058-4609/00 $12.00 +.00 Is Face-to-Face Citizen Deliberation a Luxury or a Necessity? JOHN GASTIL Keywords deliberation, democratic
More informationDemocratic Theory 1 Trevor Latimer Office Hours: TBA Contact Info: Goals & Objectives. Office Hours. Midterm Course Evaluation
Democratic Theory 1 Trevor Latimer Office Hours: TBA Contact Info: tlatimer@uga.edu This course will explore the subject of democratic theory from ancient Athens to the present. What is democracy? What
More informationTopics in Political Thought I: Democratic Theory POL 484H (F) Fall 2006, University of Toronto
Time: M 10-12 Location: 2120 Sidney Smith Hall. Contact information: Topics in Political Thought I: Democratic Theory POL 484H (F) Fall 2006, University of Toronto Amit Ron Office Location: 242 Larkin
More informationThe Use of Deliberative Democracy in Public Policy Making Process
The Use of Deliberative Democracy in Public Policy Making Process Nabaz Nawzad Abdullah School of Law, Government and International Studies, Universiti Utara Malaysia 11J002, DPP Maybank, UUM, 06010 Sintok,
More informationDELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP. by Dorota Pietrzyk-Reeves
POLISH POLITICAL SCIENCE VOL XXXV 2006 DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP by Dorota Pietrzyk-Reeves ABSTRACT The model of deliberative democracy poses a number of difficult questions about individual
More informationReflections on Citizens Juries: the case of the Citizens Jury on genetic testing for common disorders
Iredale R, Longley MJ (2000) Reflections on Citizens' Juries: the case of the Citizens' Jury on genetic testing for common disorders. Journal of Consumer Studies and Home Economics 24(1): 41-47. ISSN 0309-3891
More informationAPPLICATION FORM FOR PROSPECTIVE WORKSHOP DIRECTORS
APPLICATION FORM FOR PROSPECTIVE WORKSHOP DIRECTORS If you wish to apply to direct a workshop at the Joint Sessions in Helsinki, Finland in Spring 2007, please first see the explanatory notes, then complete
More informationA New Proposal on Special Majority Voting 1 Christian List
C. List A New Proposal on Special Majority Voting Christian List Abstract. Special majority voting is usually defined in terms of the proportion of the electorate required for a positive decision. This
More informationEpistemic approaches to deliberative democracy
Received: 15 March 2017 Revised: 20 November 2017 Accepted: 15 December 2017 DOI: 10.1111/phc3.12497 ARTICLE Epistemic approaches to deliberative democracy John B. Min 1 James K. Wong 2 1 College of Southern
More informationDebating Deliberative Democracy
Philosophy, Politics and Society 7 Debating Deliberative Democracy Edited by JAMES S. FISHKIN AND PETER LASLETT Debating Deliberative Democracy Dedicated to the memory of Peter Laslett, 1915 2001, who
More informationThe State of Our Field: Introduction to the Special Issue
Journal of Public Deliberation Volume 10 Issue 1 Special Issue: State of the Field Article 1 7-1-2014 The State of Our Field: Introduction to the Special Issue Laura W. Black Ohio University, laura.black.1@ohio.edu
More informationPh.D. Politics, September 2005 Princeton University Fields: Political Theory, Public Law, Comparative Politics
Alex Zakaras Department of Political Science 525 Old Mill 94 University Place Burlington, VT 05405 azakaras@uvm.edu EDUCATION Ph.D. Politics, September 2005 Princeton University Fields: Political Theory,
More informationScenario 1: Municipal Decision-Making
Scenario 1: Municipal Decision-Making Facilitator: Judith Innes Panelists: Josh Cohen, Archon Fung, David Laws, Carolyn Lukensmeyer, Jane Mansbridge, Nancy Roberts, Jay Rothman Scenario: A local government
More informationTowards a deliberative democracy based on deliberative polling practices
Name of the author: Rocío Zamora Medina Institution: Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM)- Spain Country: Spain Email address: rzamora@pdi.ucam.edu Keywords: deliberative polling, deliberative democracy,
More informationDemocracy and Common Valuations
Democracy and Common Valuations Philip Pettit Three views of the ideal of democracy dominate contemporary thinking. The first conceptualizes democracy as a system for empowering public will, the second
More informationProceduralism and Epistemic Value of Democracy
1 Paper to be presented at the symposium on Democracy and Authority by David Estlund in Oslo, December 7-9 2009 (Draft) Proceduralism and Epistemic Value of Democracy Some reflections and questions on
More informationThe Role of the Local Community in Promoting Discursive Participation: A Reflection on Elderly People s Meetings in a Small Rural Community in Finland
Journal of Public Deliberation Volume 14 Issue 1 Article 9 6-3-2018 The Role of the Local Community in Promoting Discursive Participation: A Reflection on Elderly People s Meetings in a Small Rural Community
More informationCalifornia Ballot Reform Panel Survey Page 1
CALIFORNIA BALLOT RE FORM PANEL SURVEY 2011-2012 Interview Dates: Wave One: June 14-July 1, 2011 Wave Two: December 15-January 2, 2012 Sample size Wave One: (N=1555) Wave Two: (N=1064) Margin of error
More information2018 Annual Council Meeting REFERENCE COMMITTEE HANDBOOK. For Committee Chair & Members
2018 Annual Council Meeting REFERENCE COMMITTEE HANDBOOK For Committee Chair & Members REFERENCE COMMITTEES In accordance with ACR bylaws, Reference Committees are groups of not less than four (4) Councilors.
More informationWhy Majority Rule Cannot Be Based only on Procedural Equality*raju_
446 113..122113..122 Ratio Juris. Vol. 23 No. 1 March 2010 (113 22) Why Majority Rule Cannot Be Based only on Procedural Equality*raju_ BEN SAUNDERS Sadurski (2008) takes the value of political equality
More informationDemocracy. Lecture 4 John Filling
Democracy Lecture 4 John Filling jf582@cam.ac.uk Aggregative (Majority rule) Extraaggregative (Deliberative) Indirect (Representative) 1 2 Direct (Participatory) 3 4 Overview 1. Aggregation a) Sortition
More informationTheories of Social Justice
Theories of Social Justice Political Science 331/5331 Professor: Frank Lovett Assistant: William O Brochta Fall 2017 flovett@wustl.edu Monday/Wednesday Office Hours: Mondays and Time: 2:30 4:00 pm Wednesdays,
More informationTOWARDS POLITICAL EQUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF PARTICIPATORY AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRATIC THEORY
* TOWARDS POLITICAL EQUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OF PARTICIPATORY AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRATIC THEORY 112 Abstract. This article aims to contribute to our understanding of the concept of political equality in
More informationGuidelines for Statements and Best Practices of the American Meteorological Society. Approved by Council: 09/21/2017 (In force for at most ten years)
Guidelines for Statements and Best Practices of the American Meteorological Society Approved by Council: 09/21/2017 (In force for at most ten years) Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. Types of statements
More informationThis is a post-print version of the following article: Journal information: hamburg review of social sciences (hrss), Vol. 4, Issue 3 (May 2010)
This is a post-print version of the following article: Title: Deliberation, Voting, and Truth Author: Claudia Landwehr Journal information: hamburg review of social sciences (hrss), Vol. 4, Issue 3 (May
More informationNAGC BOARD POLICY. POLICY TITLE: Association Editor RESPONSIBILITY OF: APPROVED ON: 03/18/12 PREPARED BY: Paula O-K, Nick C., NEXT REVIEW: 00/00/00
NAGC BOARD POLICY Policy Manual 11.1.1 Last Modified: 03/18/12 POLICY TITLE: Association Editor RESPONSIBILITY OF: APPROVED ON: 03/18/12 PREPARED BY: Paula O-K, Nick C., NEXT REVIEW: 00/00/00 Nancy Green
More informationFrom Participation to Deliberation
From Participation to Deliberation A Critical Genealogy of Deliberative Democracy Antonio Floridia Antonio Floridia 2017 First published by the ECPR Press in 2017 Translated by Sarah De Sanctis from the
More informationRawls and Deliberative Democracy. Michael Saward
Rawls and Deliberative Democracy Michael Saward Published as chapter 5 in Maurizio Passerin D Entreves (ed) Democracy as Public Deliberation: new perspectives (Manchester and New York: Manchester University
More informationIn The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy eds. A. Bächtinger, J. Dryzek, J.
Deliberative Democracy and Multiculturalism Monique Deveaux In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy eds. A. Bächtinger, J. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, and M. Warren (OUP, forthcoming 2017), Abstract
More informationCitizenship Education and Inclusion: A Multidimensional Approach
Citizenship Education and Inclusion: A Multidimensional Approach David Grossman School of Foundations in Education The Hong Kong Institute of Education My task in this paper is to link my own field of
More informationThe Next Form of Democracy
Journal of Public Deliberation Volume 3 Volume 2, Issue 1, 2007 Issue 1 Article 2 5-12-2007 The Next Form of Democracy David M. Ryfe University of Nevada Reno, david-ryfe@uiowa.edu Follow this and additional
More informationExcerpts of the interview follow: Question: What is the primary purpose of Deliberative Polling? 3/11 Disaster in Japan GLO. Behind the News.
Register Behind the News Economy Cool Japan Views Asia Sports 3/11 Disaster in Japan GLO Opinion Editorial Vox Populi, Vox Dei The Column February 24, 2012 Tweet 0 0 Like By MASAHIRO TSURUOKA It was 24
More informationSTRENGTHENING POLICY INSTITUTES IN MYANMAR
STRENGTHENING POLICY INSTITUTES IN MYANMAR February 2016 This note considers how policy institutes can systematically and effectively support policy processes in Myanmar. Opportunities for improved policymaking
More informationMULTICULTURALISM AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY. Maurizio Passerin d'entrèves. University of Manchester
MULTICULTURALISM AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY Maurizio Passerin d'entrèves University of Manchester WP núm. 163 Institut de Ciències Polítiques i Socials Barcelona 1999 The Institut de Ciències Polítiques
More informationThe equality paradox of deliberative democracy: Evidence from a national Deliberative Poll
April 4, 2006 The equality paradox of deliberative democracy: Evidence from a national Deliberative Poll Assistant professor Kasper M. Hansen, Ph.D. University of Copenhagen Department of Political Science
More informationWhen Two Worlds Collide: Rational Choice Insights into Deliberative Democratic Theory A Q investigation into framing and team-reasoning
When Two Worlds Collide: Rational Choice Insights into Deliberative Democratic Theory A Q investigation into framing and team-reasoning 1. Overview The phrase 'deliberative democracy', coined originally
More informationGoing Beyond Deliberation: The Democratic Need to Reduce Social Inequality. Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts, University of Chicago
Going Beyond Deliberation: The Democratic Need to Reduce Social Inequality By Jeff Jackson Email: jcjackson@uchicago.edu Society of Fellows in the Liberal Arts, University of Chicago (*Please do not cite
More informationDeliberative Democracy and the Deliberative Poll on the Euro
Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 27 No. 3, 2004 ISSN 0080 6757 Nordic Political Science Association Deliberative Democracy and the Deliberative Poll on the Euro Kasper M. Hansen and Vibeke Normann
More informationWhen is Deliberation Democratic?
Journal of Public Deliberation Volume 12 Issue 2 Special Issue: Equality, Equity, and Deliberation Article 4 10-13-2016 When is Deliberation Democratic? David RH Moscrop University of British Columbia,
More informationIntroduction 478 U.S. 186 (1986) U.S. 558 (2003). 3
Introduction In 2003 the Supreme Court of the United States overturned its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick and struck down a Texas law that prohibited homosexual sodomy. 1 Writing for the Court in Lawrence
More informationPhilosophy 267 Fall, 2010 Professor Richard Arneson Introductory Handout revised 11/09 Texts: Course requirements: Week 1. September 28.
1 Philosophy 267 Fall, 2010 Professor Richard Arneson Introductory Handout revised 11/09 Class meets Tuesdays 1-4 in the Department seminar room. My email: rarneson@ucsd.edu This course considers some
More informationConsulting the People Thoughtfully
Consulting the People Thoughtfully James Fishkin There are many ways to consult the public. In this overview, I will consider a simple classification of the most common approaches and argue that certain
More informationThe public vs. private value of health, and their relationship. (Review of Daniel Hausman s Valuing Health: Well-Being, Freedom, and Suffering)
The public vs. private value of health, and their relationship (Review of Daniel Hausman s Valuing Health: Well-Being, Freedom, and Suffering) S. Andrew Schroeder Department of Philosophy, Claremont McKenna
More informationPolitical Science 423 DEMOCRATIC THEORY. Thursdays, 3:30 6:30 pm, Foster 305. Patchen Markell University of Chicago Spring 2000
Political Science 423 DEMOCRATIC THEORY Thursdays, 3:30 6:30 pm, Foster 305 Patchen Markell University of Chicago Spring 2000 Office: Pick 519 Phone: 773-702-8057 Email: p-markell@uchicago.edu Web: http://home.uchicago.edu/~pmarkell/
More informationWe the Stakeholders: The Power of Representation beyond Borders? Clara Brandi
REVIEW Clara Brandi We the Stakeholders: The Power of Representation beyond Borders? Terry Macdonald, Global Stakeholder Democracy. Power and Representation Beyond Liberal States, Oxford, Oxford University
More informationInstructor: Margaret Kohn. Fall, Thursday, Office Hours: Thursday 1:00-2:00 (SS3118)
POL 2001: 20 th Century Political Thought Instructor: Margaret Kohn Fall, Thursday, 10-12 Office Hours: Thursday 1:00-2:00 (SS3118) Email: kohn@utsc.utoronto.ca This course is a survey of leading texts
More informationRawls versus the Anarchist: Justice and Legitimacy
Rawls versus the Anarchist: Justice and Legitimacy Walter E. Schaller Texas Tech University APA Central Division April 2005 Section 1: The Anarchist s Argument In a recent article, Justification and Legitimacy,
More informationPOL 10a: Introduction to Political Theory Spring 2017 Room: Golding 101 T, Th 2:00 3:20 PM
POL 10a: Introduction to Political Theory Spring 2017 Room: Golding 101 T, Th 2:00 3:20 PM Professor Jeffrey Lenowitz Lenowitz@brandeis.edu Olin-Sang 206 Office Hours: Thursday, 3:30 5 [please schedule
More informationDeliberation and Civic Virtue -
Deliberation and Civic Virtue - Lessons from a Citizen Deliberation Experiment Kimmo Grönlund, Maija Setälä and Kaisa Herne Prepared for the CPSA 2008 Workshop on Experiments & Political Science, Vancouver
More informationDiscourse Quality in Deliberative Citizen Forums A Comparison of Four Deliberative Mini-publics
Journal of Public Deliberation Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 3 4-20-2017 Discourse Quality in Deliberative Citizen Forums A Comparison of Four Deliberative Mini-publics Staffan Himmelroos Åbo Akademi University,
More informationDeliberative Capacity of Societies: A Critical Discussion
Deliberative Capacity of Societies: A Critical Discussion Krister Lundell Åbo Akademi University Paper presented at the general research seminar, Department of Political Science, Åbo Akademi University,
More informationExecutive Summary... i. Introduction...1. Methods...2. Results and Discussion...4. Conclusion...8. Tables...10
University of Nebraska Public Policy Center Focusing on Nebraska Security and Prosperity: A Preliminary Report on the January 2004 By the People Citizen Deliberations February 4, 2004 Prepared by: University
More informationDELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC REASON
6 DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY AND PUBLIC REASON Kenneth Baynes* ABSTRACT The article reexamines Habermas s conceptions of deliberative politics and procedural democracy in light of other deliberative theories,
More informationTHE LOUISIANA SURVEY 2017
THE LOUISIANA SURVEY 2017 Public Approves of Medicaid Expansion, But Remains Divided on Affordable Care Act Opinion of the ACA Improves Among Democrats and Independents Since 2014 The fifth in a series
More informationEthics of Global Citizenship in Education for Creating a Better World
American Journal of Applied Psychology 2017; 6(5): 118-122 http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ajap doi: 10.11648/j.ajap.20170605.16 ISSN: 2328-5664 (Print); ISSN: 2328-5672 (Online) Ethics of Global
More informationRawls, Islam, and political constructivism: Some questions for Tampio
Rawls, Islam, and political constructivism: Some questions for Tampio Contemporary Political Theory advance online publication, 25 October 2011; doi:10.1057/cpt.2011.34 This Critical Exchange is a response
More informationInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) Committee Guide
International Court of Justice (ICJ) Committee Guide Committee Roles President (Moderator) The President is the Presiding Justice of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), who is elected every three
More informationElstub S. The Third Generation of Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies Review 2010, 8(3),
Elstub S. The Third Generation of Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies Review 2010, 8(3), 291-307. Copyright: The definitive version is available at www.wileyonlinelibrary.com DOI link to article:
More informationTHE POLICYMAKING PROCESS
THE POLICYMAKING PROCESS Roles and Responsibilities of Committees, Committee Chairpersons, Staff, and the Board of Directors U.S. Chamber of Commerce The Policymaking Process Roles and Responsibilities
More informationTackling Wicked Problems through Deliberative Engagement
Feature By Martín Carcasson, Colorado State University Center for Public Deliberation Tackling Wicked Problems through Deliberative Engagement A revolution is beginning to occur in public engagement, fueled
More informationIs the Ideal of a Deliberative Democracy Coherent?
Chapter 1 Is the Ideal of a Deliberative Democracy Coherent? Cristina Lafont Introduction In what follows, I would like to contribute to a defense of deliberative democracy by giving an affirmative answer
More informationRunning head: CRITICAL-EMPIRICIST POLITICAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 1 - WORKING PAPER - PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM AUTHOR
Running head: CRITICAL-EMPIRICIST POLITICAL COMMUNICATION RESEARCH 1 - WORKING PAPER - PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM AUTHOR A Framework for Critical-Empiricist Research in Political Communication
More informationWorld Health Assembly on WHO Reform Simulation
GHP 548, Sessions 5-7 February 25, 2014 World Health Assembly on WHO Reform Simulation OVERVIEW WHAT: The simulation will decide on two key issues on World Health Organization (WHO) reform via debate and
More informationThe Ethics of Political Participation: Engagement and Democracy in the 21st Century
Res Publica (2018) 24:3 8 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9389-7 The Ethics of Political Participation: Engagement and Democracy in the 21st Century Phil Parvin 1 Ben Saunders 2 Published online: 9
More informationReflections from the Association for Progressive Communications on the IGF 2013 and recommendations for the IGF 2014.
Reflections from the Association for Progressive Communications on the IGF 2013 and recommendations for the IGF 2014 1. Preamble 18 February 2014 The Bali Internet Governance Forum (IGF) will be remembered
More informationThe Missing Link Fostering Positive Citizen- State Relations in Post-Conflict Environments
Brief for Policymakers The Missing Link Fostering Positive Citizen- State Relations in Post-Conflict Environments The conflict trap is a widely discussed concept in political and development fields alike.
More informationMPP- E1078: Democratic Innovations and Participatory Governance Thamy Pogrebinschi
Master of Public Policy Spring Semester 2014 Course Syllabus MPP- E1078: Democratic Innovations and Participatory Governance Thamy Pogrebinschi 1. General Information Class hours Class room R 2.32 Instructor
More informationTHE QUEST FOR DEMOCRATIC CONSENSUS. Michael Fuerstein Department of Philosophy, St. Olaf College
THE QUEST FOR DEMOCRATIC CONSENSUS Michael Fuerstein Department of Philosophy, St. Olaf College fuerstei@stolaf.edu DRAFT: Aug. 31, 2012 (Please do note cite without permission) 1. Introduction One common
More informationDemocracy, Plurality, and Education: Deliberating Practices of and for Civic Participation
338 Democracy, Plurality, and Education Democracy, Plurality, and Education: Deliberating Practices of and for Civic Participation Stacy Smith Bates College DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY IN THE FACE OF PLURALITY
More information1 L. Pratchett, «Local Autonomy, Local Democracy and the «New Localism», Political. Studies, Vol. 52, 2004, p. 361.
:... 352 ( ) 1.,,.,, (,, -, ) 1. ( ), -,, ( -,, - )., :?, ( - ),.., -, 1 L. Pratchett, «Local Autonomy, Local Democracy and the «New Localism», Political Studies, Vol. 52, 2004, p. 361. 257 «-». 2 -, -.,,.,,.
More informationTowards the United States of Africa Issues, Problems and Challenges
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR AFRICA Governance and Public Administration Division Theme: Towards the United States of Africa Issues, Problems and Challenges Report of the Roundtable on United
More informationThe Habibie Center, Jakarta January 21, 2016
THE HABIBIE CENTER DISCUSSION REPORT No. 19/January 2015 th 30 TALKING ASEAN The Role of the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR) in Promoting Human Rights in ASEAN: Past Achievements
More informationCall for Submissions. Business Ethics Quarterly Special Issue on:
Special Issue on: The Challenges and Prospects of Deliberative Democracy for Corporate Sustainability and Responsibility Guest Editors: Dirk Ulrich Gilbert, University of Hamburg Andreas Rasche, Copenhagen
More informationJune 20, Dear Senator McConnell:
June 20, 2011 Dear Senator McConnell: We are writing to call your attention to an unfortunate aspect of S. 679 a bill with the otherwise commendable intent of streamlining presidential appointments. Along
More informationGLOBAL DEMOCRACY THE PROBLEM OF A WRONG PERSPECTIVE
GLOBAL DEMOCRACY THE PROBLEM OF A WRONG PERSPECTIVE XIth Conference European Culture (Lecture Paper) Ander Errasti Lopez PhD in Ethics and Political Philosophy UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA GLOBAL DEMOCRACY
More informationPower, Participation and Political Renewal: theoretical perspectives on public
Power, Participation and Political Renewal: theoretical perspectives on public participation under New Labour Marian Barnes, Janet Newman and Helen Sullivan Revised paper to Social Politics,: 2004, 11,
More informationSocial Media Consumption and Social engagement: a study on PG students of Manipur
International Journal of Research in Social Sciences Vol. 8 Issue 0, October 08, ISSN: 49-496 Impact Factor: 7.08 Journal Homepage: Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal
More informationViktória Babicová 1. mail:
Sethi, Harsh (ed.): State of Democracy in South Asia. A Report by the CDSA Team. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2008, 302 pages, ISBN: 0195689372. Viktória Babicová 1 Presented book has the format
More informationTHE AGONISTIC CONSOCIATION. Mohammed Ben Jelloun. (EHESS, Paris)
University of Essex Department of Government Wivenhoe Park Golchester GO4 3S0 United Kingdom Telephone: 01206 873333 Facsimile: 01206 873598 URL: http://www.essex.ac.uk/ THE AGONISTIC CONSOCIATION Mohammed
More informationDiscussion Paper. Participatory Policy Analysis and Social Justice i
Discussion Paper Prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage September 2001 Participatory Policy Analysis and Social Justice i Reva Joshee with assistance from Michelle Goldberg OISE/UT Several researchers
More informationNational Institute for Civil Discourse Research Brief No. 10: Deliberative Democracy and Civil Discourse 1
National Institute for Civil Discourse Research Brief No. 10: Deliberative Democracy and Civil Discourse 1 Key Issues What is deliberative democracy and why do its proponents believe it is so important?
More informationThe Morality of Conflict
The Morality of Conflict Reasonable Disagreement and the Law Samantha Besson HART- PUBLISHING OXFORD AND PORTLAND, OREGON 2005 '"; : Contents Acknowledgements vii Introduction 1 I. The issue 1 II. The
More informationSUMMARY REPORT KEY POINTS
SUMMARY REPORT The Citizens Assembly on Brexit was held over two weekends in September 17. It brought together randomly selected citizens who reflected the diversity of the UK electorate. The Citizens
More informationThe character of public reason in Rawls s theory of justice
A.L. Mohamed Riyal (1) The character of public reason in Rawls s theory of justice (1) Faculty of Arts and Culture, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, Oluvil, Sri Lanka. Abstract: The objective of
More informationWho influences the formation of political attitudes and decisions in young people? Evidence from the referendum on Scottish independence
Who influences the formation of political attitudes and decisions in young people? Evidence from the referendum on Scottish independence 04.03.2014 d part - Think Tank for political participation Dr Jan
More informationNorth Carolina Association of County Commissioners
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Legislative Goals Handbook Fall 2016 NCACC Legislative Goals Process Mission Statement The Association s Legislative Goals process is thoughtful, deliberative,
More informationICTs ICTs. ICTs. ICTs 2004/10/ /11/ /11/29 ( ) : 1-34 *
(2004 12 ) : 1-34 1 * * 2004 9 2 2004/10/20 2004/11/10 2004/11/29 ISSN 1726-9350 print / 1811-3109 online 2004 by Taiwan Foundation for Democracy / Vol. 1, No. 4 / December 2004 2 (2004 12 ) information
More informationSudanese Civil Society Engagement in the Forthcoming Constitution Making Process
Sudanese Civil Society Engagement in the Forthcoming Constitution Making Process With the end of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement s interim period and the secession of South Sudan, Sudanese officials
More informationPOLI 359 Public Policy Making
POLI 359 Public Policy Making Session 10-Policy Change Lecturer: Dr. Kuyini Abdulai Mohammed, Dept. of Political Science Contact Information: akmohammed@ug.edu.gh College of Education School of Continuing
More information24 Criteria for the Recognition of Inventors and the Procedure to Settle Disputes about the Recognition of Inventors
24 Criteria for the Recognition of Inventors and the Procedure to Settle Disputes about the Recognition of Inventors Research Fellow: Toshitaka Kudo Under the existing Japanese laws, the indication of
More informationRATIONALITY AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY
THEORIA 3 UDK 321.7:141.7 ; 172.1:141.7 BIBLID 0351 2274 : (2010) : 53 : p. 71 88 Originalni naučni rad Original Scientific Paper Miljana Milojević RATIONALITY AND DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY ABSTRACT: In this
More informationRawls and Gaus on the Idea of Public Reason
IWM Junior Visiting Fellows Conferences, Vol. IX/9 2000 by the author Readers may redistribute this article to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text and this note remain intact.
More informationInternet Economics and Politics II: Collaborative Business Models and Collective Decision-making. Spring 2007 April 10
Internet Economics and Politics II: Collaborative Business Models and Collective Decision-making Spring 2007 April 10 Today Individuals vs. crowds Economic production Politics and governance Collective
More informationGuide to State-level Advocacy for NAADAC Affiliates
Guide to State-level Advocacy for NAADAC Affiliates A Publication of NAADAC, the Association for Addiction Professionals Department of Government Relations 1001 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 201 Alexandria,
More informationHOW CONGRESS WORKS. The key to deciphering the legislative process is in understanding that legislation is grouped into three main categories:
HOW CONGRESS WORKS INTRODUCTION Our representative system of government places a special responsibility on each of us to make ourselves heard in Washington. In fact, no more important source of information
More informationCarleton University Winter 2014 Department of Political Science
Carleton University Winter 2014 Department of Political Science PSCI 5302 A Democratic Theories Tuesdays 11:35 14:25 (Please confirm location on Carleton Central) Instructor: Marc Hanvelt Office: Loeb
More informationPromoting Merit in Merit Selection. A Best Practices Guide to Commission-Based Judicial Selection. Second Edition
Promoting Merit in Merit Selection A Best Practices Guide to Commission-Based Judicial Selection Second Edition MAY 2016 U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, May 2016. All rights reserved. This publication,
More informationUTS:IPPG Project Team. Project Director: Associate Professor Roberta Ryan, Director IPPG. Project Manager: Catherine Hastings, Research Officer
IPPG Project Team Project Director: Associate Professor Roberta Ryan, Director IPPG Project Manager: Catherine Hastings, Research Officer Research Assistance: Theresa Alvarez, Research Assistant Acknowledgements
More informationPolitical equality, wealth and democracy
1 Political equality, wealth and democracy Wealth, power and influence are often mentioned together as symbols of status and prestige. Yet in a democracy, they can make an unhappy combination. If a democratic
More information