Vital Democracy: A Theory of Democracy in Action

Scottish citizens benefit from 19 per cent more public spending per head than English citizens. The ‘Barnett formula’ is slowly reducing the gap, but very little is known about the countries' relative needs and hence about how far the present gap is defensible: the aim of this paper is to throw some light on the countries' relative needs. We begin with the complex formulae that the Westminster government uses to assess the spending needs of English local authorities, and we use these English formulae to assess the needs of Scottish local authorities for three major blocks of local services. These formulae suggest that Scotland needs 6.4 per cent more per head than England for environmental, protective and cultural services, 8.1 per cent more for highway maintenance, and between 24.3 per cent and 35.3 per cent more for fire services. We also combine these results with those of two other papers concerned with local education and social services to show that these English formulae put Scotland's per capita needs for local government services as a whole at about 6 per cent above England's. However, we then compare the relative needs of Scottish local authorities as assessed by the English formulae with their relative needs as assessed by the Scottish needs formulae that are currently used by Holyrood, and we find major differences. This suggests either that at least one country uses seriously flawed formulae to assess needs, or that the two countries have different conceptions of need.     

Democracy and Empowerment

The article argues that institutions of parliamentary democracy are currently being undermined and calls for the development of new means of democratic empowerment. The meaning of 'democratic empowerment' differs sharply depending on whether one refers to a predominantly aggregative, or a predominantly integrative strategy of empowerment. The article seeks to clarify the phrase. For a predominantly aggregative strategy of empowerment, as proposed by Paul Hirst, the primary means of empowerment is exist. For a predominantly integrative strategy of empowerment, proposed by David Burns, Robin Hambleton and Paul Hoggett the primary means of empowerment is voice. The article concludes that a democratic strategy of empowerment must aim to balance exit and voice options. An example of how balance could be institutionalized is found in Denmark.     

Democracy and bureaucracy

The issue in bureaucracy and democracy is one of control. This paper calls for greater control resources for elected officials whereby they can overcome the abundant power resources of bureaucrats. A process of exchange as against a process of authority is suggested as a strategic means of democratic control over bureaucracy.

Successfully meeting the challenge of reconciling deeply cherished norms of popular control with dependence on appointed administrators requires acknowledgement not only of the rights of the controllers but also of the powers of the controlled.⁽¹⁾ It requires thinking strategically about creating and marshaling alternative resources to counteract the abundant resources bureaucrats have, to circumvent control for both selfish and public spirited reasons. Such a focus on resources suggests the fruitfulness of conceptualizing democratic control more as a process of exchange than as an exercise of authority.     

阿拉法特:依然举足轻重

他有过辉煌的往事风流,他为民族解放作出了不屈探索,他也为和平呕心沥血。虽然目前他被不断孤立和边缘化,但他的影响力仍无人能够忽视。     

Corruption and Democracy

Most models and empirical tests of the relationship between corruption and democracy assume corruption falls as democracy matures. Yet recent theoretical developments and case evidence suggest an inverted U relationship between the two, although so far no one has tested for this relationship. By drawing on a panel data set covering a large number of countries between 1982–1997, substantial empirical support is found for an inverted U relationship between the durability (age) of democracy and corruption. Fortunately, the turning point in corruption occurs rather early in the life of new democracies – between 10–12 years.     

Democracy and economic development

This discussion explains why democracy as is generally understood may not be suitable to meet the challenges of a developing economy and how democratic institutions generally fail to respond to the immediate demands of a population impatient to raise its level of living. It defines the terms economic development and democracy, reviews some theoretical models of democracy which have been proposed in economic theory, proposes an approach to the process of economic development, and considers problems of development. Economic development is a process which calls for huge investments in personnel and material. Such investment programs imply cuts in current consumption that would be painful at the low levels of living that exist in almost all developing societies. Governments need to resort to strong measures, and they must enforce them vigorously in order to marshal the surpluses required for investment. If such measures were put to a popular vote, they would certainly be defeated. Mainstream economic theory assumes the virtues of a market system and the decisions arrived at by the interaction of market forces. This is the economic equivalent of democracy. Yet, mainstream economic theory devotes little attention to the conditions under which a market system generates a just solution. The democratic developing countries have all inherited a class society, with a highly skewed distribution of income. The wealthy minority often seeks to preserve its privileged position and to enjoy the benefits of development. It even seeks the help of the judiciary to preserve the sanctity of private property and to assure that its patterns of conspicuous consumption can continue. This is done in the name of democratic rights. Many developing societies are burdened with outmoded traditions and value systems that are incompatible with the production relations of the new society they hope to achieve. The international exchange of resources is believed by some to be an attempt to control the pace and character of development so that the economic colonization will survive. To end such unfavorable conditions for development, 3rd world governments must demand greater sacrifices from their citizens, and this cannot be achieved by normal democratic means. Recent events in several developing nations illustrate this point.