Reply to Miller on agendas and sincerity

Contrary to Miller, Farquharson’s agenda trees do omit real parliamentary information. And the assumptions he uses to justify Farquharson’s definition of sincere (or naive) voting justify too little (e.g., he drops maximax) and rule out too much (e.g., non-pre-set agendas and principled sincere voting).     

Frame the Consolidation Debate with a Sound Argument: A Reply to a Response

The most persuasive argument in favor of city–county consolidation has been—and remains—economic development through the formation of a strong and attractive regional community identity. Empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that appeals to voters based on reducing inner-city/suburban socioeconomic inequity and enhancing administrative efficiency are a recipe for failed consolidation campaigns.     

A Belated Debate

The three televised leaders’ debates dominated the 2010 general election campaign. The House of Lords Communications Committee report on Broadcast General Election Debates is the product of a welcome but belated public inquiry into their organisation and conduct. The report is supportive of the view that ‘broadcast general election debates should take place during future campaigns’ and makes a number of cautious recommendations to the broadcasters. At the time of writing it was unclear whether the format proposed by the broadcasters for 2015 would be an improvement on that for 2010—or even if there would be any debates at all.     

Utopias Re-imagined: A Reply to Panizza

This article is a reply to Panizza's recent article, 'Unarmed Utopia Revisited: The Resurgence of Left-of-Centre Politics in Latin America'. It contests the claims that there are no alternatives to market economies and liberal democracy in contemporary Latin America. It does this by disentangling the conceptual assumptions that underlie the analysis presented, which, it argues, construct a loaded dice that makes the conclusions of the arguments seemingly inevitable and objective. It also explores the internal contradictions within the alternative presented. This analysis is developed through the use of critical social theory and with reference to the 'movements from below' engaged in the struggle to re-imagine and reconstruct utopias. This involves bringing to the heart of analysis a theoretical orientation in which structures become a series of concrete social relations, not objects, and power is mediated at a variety of spatial levels. It necessitates a conceptualisation of politics, structure and the agents and nature of structural change that expand the boundaries of traditional political science categories. Such conceptual expansion and theoretical repositioning make visible, and politically central, the movements from below normally categorised as marginal in political analysis.     

Epistemic Communities: A Reply to Toke

This article contests the understanding of Peter M. Haas's 'epistemic communities' approach, forwarded by David Toke in his article in Politics of May 1999. It is argued that while Toke diagnoses the approach's failing correctly, the cause he identifies is off the mark. This particularly concerns his assertion of a positivist dogma underscoring the thesis, which is rejected as a misinterpretation of Haas. Rather, it is contended that the framework's inability to engage with the real world of politics, and the other groups therein, is a product of its lack of theoretical refinement and rigorous empirical examination.     

Political Scepticism: A Reply to the Critics

In a previous article in this journal ( Bufacchi, 2001 ) I argued that political scepticism is a defining characteristic of liberal democracy. I have been criticised for inadequately distinguishing political scepticism from fallibilism (Festenstein, 2001) and for failing to appreciate the role of moral autonomy within liberal democracy (Hyland, this issue). In this article I respond to my critics, first by clarifying the difference between political scepticism and fallibilism, and secondly by suggesting that political scepticism is a necessary condition for moral autonomy.     

Reply to critics

Abstract

This article provides a response to the contributors of this symposium. Notably, I respond to challenges pertaining to whether my account can: accommodate collective goods and collective choice and the complexities pertaining to intergenerational justice; be reconciled with the insights of relational egalitarianism and non-ideal theory; meet the requirement that it provides political action guidance instead of being practically irrelevant; be grounded in Rawls’ considerations about luck and justice; avoid implausible implications regarding ‘concern monsters’ and offensive preferences.     

Reply to Lowe

The concept 'community' is underspecified in the political theory literature — it must have a more specific reference than just some collectivity or some network of social relations. But attempts to specify what is specific about the relation of community are unsatisfactory. And references to 'actual physical' communities overlook the symbolic and imagined aspects of community, which furthermore destabilise putative communities as much as they stabilise them. Analysis of social relations and networks, and theories of what patterns of relations are conducive to human flourishing should deploy more precise sociological categories.     

Structuring the Debate on Consolidation: A Response to Leland and Thurmaier

In their essay "When Efficiency Is Unbelievable: Normative Lessons from 30 Years of City–County Consolidations," published in the July/August 2005 issue of PAR , Leland and Thurmaier make an important contribution to understanding how city–county consolidation occurs. They revise the widely accepted Rosenbaum and Kammerer model of consolidation and posit that "strong arguments" based on economic development, especially in the absence of organized opposition, led to victory for consolidation advocates. In this response, we argue that efforts to identify a set of arguments or charter provisions that will lead to successful consolidation are misguided. The real story in consolidation campaigns is how participants use heresthetical arguments in an effort to turn their opponents into political losers. What makes arguments strong or weak is not their substantive policy focus, but how they are structured.     

Obligation by Association? A Reply to John Horton

In a recent two-part article in this journal, John Horton offers reasons to reject 'philosophical anarchism', and claims that rejecting that view should lead us to an 'associative' account of political obligations. This article argues for a different conclusion. The claim that local obligations are irreducible or independent is vulnerable to critique, and does not provide a compelling account of moral conflict. Rejecting philosophical anarchism should lead us to a version of moral universalism that can find a place for local attachment.