公民参与式民主理论的拓展——异体问责的视角

公民参与式民主能够完善异体问责的理论和发展路径,而异体问责作为公民参与式民主的重要体现,能够为公民参与式民主的发展提供新视角。公民参与式民主理论强调公民与政府的双向互动,公民可以通过制度保证对政府管理进行监督问责,政府必须对公民监督问责做出积极回应并改善行政管理。民主模式从古希腊城邦的直接民主发展到近现代的代议制民主,20世纪中后期,随着时代的发展和科技的进步,参与式民主理论在对代议制民主的批判和重构中逐渐发展成熟。在该理论指导下的参与式民主实践逐步深入,从而加强了公民作为政府异体问责主体的地位,在具体实践中体现为宏观领域的行政民主、中观领域的电子民主、微观领域的工业民主。     

Can participation be induced? Some evidence from developing countries 1

Influenced by Amartya Sen, over the last decade, The World Bank has allocated nearly US$80 billion to local participatory development projects targeting poverty, improved public service delivery, and strengthened social cohesion and government accountability. But the success of these programs is hindered by both endogenous local factors and flawed program design and implementation. Two especially important local obstacles are (1) entrenched interests of political agents, civil bureaucrats, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with either incentives to resist or capabilities to appropriate program resources, and (2) poverty and illiteracy, as the poor and illiterate participate less and benefit less from participatory projects than do the wealthier, more educated, and more connected. After reviewing hundreds of participatory projects, three lessons are clear for program planning. First, contextual factors like inequality, history, geography, and political systems (among others) are important. Second, communities do not necessarily have a ready stock of ‘social capital’ to mobilize. Third, induced participatory interventions work best when supported by a responsive state – donors cannot substitute for a non-functional state, and successful programs combine enlightened state action from above with social mobilization from below. Future participatory development projects would benefit substantially from revised planning and considerably more attention paid to evaluation and monitoring. Project managers have historically paid little attention to context, monitoring, or evaluation, in part because The World Bank’s operational policies did not provide incentives to do so. Donor agencies should also exercise greater patience and allow for flexible, long-term engagement to facilitate contextual and programmatic learning, including learning from failure.     

Which decision‐making arrangements generate the strongest legitimacy beliefs? Evidence from a randomised field experiment

How can democracies satisfy citizens' demands for legitimate decision making? This article reports findings from a randomised field experiment designed to mimic decision making in large‐scale democracies. Natural collectives of individuals with a shared history and future (high school classes) were studied. They were asked to make a decision about how to spend a sum of money under arrangements imposed by the researchers and distributed randomly across classes. Within this setting, empirical support for three ideas about legitimacy enhancing decision‐making arrangements is tested: participatory constitution‐making; personal involvement in the decision‐making process; and fairness in the implementation of arrangements. Throughout the analyses it was found that personal involvement is the main factor generating legitimacy beliefs.     

Participatory Budgeting in Australian Local Government: An Initial Assessment and Critical Issues

Participatory budgeting (PB), a process whereby governments seek direct input from citizens into financial decisions, is gaining a foothold in the community engagement practices of Australian local governments. Following questions of definition, we survey the theoretical terrain, locating PB within several components of local democracy. We then provide details of six PB processes in New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. We identify several questions for the future of PB in Australian local governments, including the role of deliberative practices as part of the broader work of councils, the issue of the adaptability of councils and leaders, the impacts upon state and local governments, and the role of third parties. The article concludes by reflecting on how PB sits with democratic practices at the local level if it continues to be implemented.     

People and Power: Democracy after Brexit

The result of the 2016 European Union (EU) referendum revealed a disconnect between policy makers and the public, particularly those who could be considered part of Britain’s contemporary working class. Whilst there has been significant attention paid to the parliamentary activity to agree the terms under which Britain will leave the EU, there has been comparatively less attention paid to the causes of the vote, and what can be done to improve public trust in democracy. This article proposes a new public attitudes‐led policy‐making model, using democratic innovations and design thinking, to reconnect policy making to the public and improve political equality.     

Legislating deliberative engagement: Is local government in Victoria willing and able?

Growing dissatisfaction with representative democracy and concomitantly, the increasing expectation that citizens assert more influence over public policy have seen the emergence of more participatory and deliberative forms of governance in public management practice. This article explores the attempt of the state government of Victoria, Australia to legislate for mandatory deliberative engagement as part of its local government strategic planning instruments. The ambition of the reform was significant; however, it was almost unanimously rejected by the local government sector. Based on analysis of the key themes that emerged from the submissions made during the 3-year Victorian Local Government Act Review process, we explore the limitations and barriers to implementing deliberative engagement practice at a local government level. We demonstrate that whilst the promise of participatory democracy might have been compelling, in the case of Victoria there were a series of contextual and capacity considerations that needed to be taken into account before the implementation of such reforms were pursued.     

间接民主、代议制与精英统治

直接民主与间接民主的问题是当代政治哲学的一个热点.文章回顾了围绕直接民主和代议制进行的争论,直接民主由于容易导致暴民政治而被视作洪水猛兽,代议制民主则把人民分为普通大众和精英,认为只有精英才能代表人民更好地治理国家.但把代议制民主简单理解为选择代议员的过程会不可避免地滑向寡头统治,只有多元主义民主才能避免寡头统治铁律,尽管这种民主内部存在着民主必需的同一性和多元主义需要的差异性这两种逻辑之间的张力.     

Why are highly informed citizens sceptical of referenda?

Past work on attitudes toward the use of referenda finds that the most politically informed citizens are more sceptical of its use than their less informed counterparts. An intriguing tension presents itself in that those citizens who may be best equipped for referendum voting, the highly informed and politically sophisticated, are the least likely to support the use of this tool of direct democracy. Using data from Canadian Election Studies, we consider three explanations for relative referenda scepticism among political sophisticates. Our analyses provide evidence to support a confidence in government explanation and a concern for minority rights explanation, but not an incompetent public explanation – a curious finding considering the centrality of citizen competence in the theoretical literature on referenda.     

政治文化视角下儒家宽容精神对民主政治的消极影响

儒家思想中富含宽容精神。宽容是对异己价值和权利的尊重,这与西方现代民主价值是一致的,但儒家因宽容精神而形成“无对、不争、礼让”的政治文化,显然与“民主政治其实也是一种‘对立冲突’的文化”不符,不利于民主政治的建设。     

Democracy and the demand for government redistribution: A survey analysis

This article uses survey data to study the impact of democracy on the demand by poor citizens for government redistribution. Taking the well‐known Meltzer‐Richard theory as the point of departure, three arguments are presented as to why such a demand should be stronger in democracies than in autocracies: in democracies low‐income groups are: (1) exposed to elections that can make a policy difference: (2) better informed about the income distribution; and (3) better equipped to process such information. The argument receives empirical support in a Bayesian multilevel analysis which combines 188 World Values Surveys with cross‐sectional and longitudinal macro data from 80 countries.     

IDENTIFYING MECHANISMS BEHIND POLICY INTERVENTIONS VIA CAUSAL MEDIATION ANALYSIS

Causal analysis in program evaluation has primarily focused on the question about whether or not a program, or package of policies, has an impact on the targeted outcome of interest. However, it is often of scientific and practical importance to also explain why such impacts occur. In this paper, we introduce causal mediation analysis, a statistical framework for analyzing causal mechanisms that has become increasingly popular in social and medical sciences in recent years. The framework enables us to show exactly what assumptions are sufficient for identifying causal mediation effects for the mechanisms of interest, derive a general algorithm for estimating such mechanism‐specific effects, and formulate a sensitivity analysis for the violation of those identification assumptions. We also discuss an extension of the framework to analyze causal mechanisms in the presence of treatment noncompliance, a common problem in randomized evaluation studies. The methods are illustrated via applications to two intervention studies on pre‐school classes and job‐training workshops.