论正确处理民主决策与科学决策的关系

在推进政府行政决策民主化与科学化的过程中,民主决策与科学决策经常发生矛盾,能否处理好两者的关系是衡量行政管理体制改革效果的重要标准。必须把握民主决策与科学决策的深刻内涵,把群众利益与科学精神结合起来,以民主决策作为基础,保证决策的合法性,以科学决策作为导向,保证决策的科学性。     

Preferences,loyalty and party choice

The paper analyses the electorate's voting intentions with respect to the Labour and Conservative parties in Great Britain. Almost all policy issues are found to be endogenous, i.e. to be influenced by party choice within a simultaneous relationship. Socio-economic factors which influence choice through the endogenous policy issues include education, geographical location, age, gender, income and wealth. Parental, particularly maternal, influence is also found to be important and not to decline with age or education. The paper also highlights the importance of competence, rather than policy, issues.     

American Democratic Practice,France, and Russia: Institutions,Values, and Alternative Democratic Experience

The US emphasis on democratic procedures and property rights profoundly distinguishes the American polity from nearly all consolidated and newly emergent democracies; democracies that place stress on more egalitarian notions of social justice. Interrelating institutional arrangements and democratic values through an application of George Tsebelis's veto players theory and Isaiah Berlin's notions of positive and negative liberty, we juxtapose the American and French democracies as we assess Russia's post-Soviet democratic consolidation. We focus on the policy-making proclivities of these three states, and a combined application of the veto players framework and positive-negative liberty dichotomy reveals a US policy bias toward the status quo as contrasted with a French and Russian system bias facilitating more substantial policy change. The 1993–1995 Clinton health-care initiative, the 1997–2002 Jospin-Left program, with attention to the 35-hour workweek and associated policies, and the 2000–2006 Putin policy agenda, with attention to health care and housing measures, serve as national case studies to illuminate our arguments.     

Industries, Occupations, and Trade Policy Preferences

The nature of one’s work, not just who one works for, is central to political and economic life. Yet models of trade policy preferences mostly ignore occupation, focusing exclusively on industries (perhaps because industries are the usual organizing dimension of economic policymaking). This article proposes new measures of how much risk trade imposes on different workers based on how diversified their occupation is across industries, thus considering both industry and occupation. Having a job specific to any sector appears to encourage protectionism, regardless of that sector’s comparative advantage, supporting the idea that public opinion may treat trade policy as insurance.     

Norms, Procedures, and Democratic Legitimacy

The overall thrust of the argument points in two opposite directions: it pleads for dimming the contrast commonly drawn between political philosophy and political science but calls for a more radical distinction between the activities of politics and of philosophy, and between its rationality and that of political mediation. Within the first strand of the argument, the fact-value problem is re-examined, whilst within the second strand - the central theme of the article - the operatively legitimizing source of political norms is viewed within a procedural locale that is recognizably democratic, in that its validation is a matter of opinion, of appraisal and reappraisal in and through civic activity itself, and not directly the work of extra-political doctrines that substantively predetermine it. Although not thus preconditioned, procedural democracy is portrayed as being governed by a cognitive and institutional 'space'in which the'conversion'of doctrinal'isms'issues in'performative principles, rather than a regime of pragmatic ad hocism .     

Democratic Order,Autonomy, and Accountability

Accountability is a principle for organizing relations between rulers and ruled, and making public officials accountable is a democratic achievement. There are, however, competing claims about what is involved in demanding, rendering, assessing, and responding to accounts; what are effective accountability institutions; and how accountability regimes emerge and change. This article provides a frame for thinking about institutional aspects of accountability regimes and their cognitive, normative, and power foundations. A distinction is made between accountability within an established regime with stable power relations and role expectations and accountability as (re)structuring processes in less institutionalized contexts and in transformation periods. A huge literature is concerned with the first issue. There is less attention to accountability as (re)structuring processes. The article, therefore, calls attention to how democracies search for, and struggle over, what are legitimate accountability regimes and political orders.     

Expert Opinion, Agency Characteristics, and Agency Preferences

David E. Lewis Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540 e-mail: delewis{at}princeton.edu e-mail: clinton{at}princeton.edu (corresponding author) The study of bureaucracies and their relationship to politicalactors is central to understanding the policy process in theUnited States. Studying this aspect of American politics isdifficult because theories of agency behavior, effectiveness,and control often require measures of administrative agencies'policy preferences, and appropriate measures are hard to findfor a broad spectrum of agencies. We propose a method for measuringagency preferences based upon an expert survey of agency preferencesfor 82 executive agencies in existence between 1988 and 2005.We use a multirater item response model to provide a principledstructure for combining subjective ratings based on scholarlyand journalistic expertise with objective data on agency characteristics.We compare the resulting agency preference estimates and standarderrors to existing alternative measures, discussing both theadvantages and limitations of the method. Authors' note: We thank Tom Hammond, George Krause, and JoshuaTucker for helpful comments. We are grateful to Simon Jackmanand Shawn Treier for generously providing their code and oursurvey respondents for their time and expertise.     

Nonseparable Preferences, Measurement Error, and Unstable Survey Responses

A person has nonseparable preferences when her preference onan issue depends on the outcome of other issues. A model ofsurvey responses in which preferences are measured with errorimplies that responses will change depending on the order ofquestions and vary over time when respondents have nonseparablepreferences. Results from two survey experiments confirm thatchanges in survey responses due to question order are explainedby nonseparable preferences but not by the respondent's levelof political information, partisanship, or ideology.     

Heat Waves,Droughts, and Preferences for Environmental Policy

Using data from a new household survey on environmental attitudes, behaviors, and policy preferences, we find that current weather conditions affect preferences for environmental regulation. Individuals who have recently experienced extreme weather (heat waves or droughts) are more likely to support laws to protect the environment. We find evidence that the channel through which weather conditions affect policy preference is via perceptions of the importance of the issue of global warming. Furthermore, environmentalists and individuals who consult more sources of news are less likely to have their attitudes toward global warming changed by current weather conditions. These findings suggest that communication and education emphasizing consequences of climate change salient to the individual's circumstances may be the most effective in changing attitudes of those least likely to support proenvironment policy. In addition, the timing of policy introduction could influence its success.     

Critical Theory,Democratic Justice and Globalisation

Abstract

One way of providing a focus for critical theory today is to articulate those substantive and robust norms of egalitarian justice that would appear to be presupposed by the idea of a republican and democratic constitutional order. It is suggested here that democratic justice requires the equalisation of effective communicative freedom among all structurally constituted social groups (SCSGs) and that this will have far-reaching implications that entail the deconstruction of all social hierarchies in both domestic and global orders. This argument is presented in three sections. The first defends the focus on groups rather than individuals in theorising democratic justice. The second intervenes critically in contemporary debates surrounding the theoretical relation between various aspects of justice including the demands of redistribution, recognition and political empowerment. The third turns to the challenges for critical theory presented by a complex and multifaceted process of globalisation and it defends a qualified form of cosmopolitanism and high lights the need for a radical democratisation of the international order.     

People,Territory, and Legitimacy in Democratic States

Who are the people who should govern themselves in a democracy? This is the famous boundary problem to which this article offers a new approach. Most democrats, even nationalists and cosmopolitans, delimit the demos by relying on territorial jurisdictions. However, territory is not explicit in their arguments. This article urges democrats to recognize territory's normative importance rather than overlook the role it already plays in their theories. Acknowledging territory is a risky, yet promising, strategy. Risky, because it may lead to a vicious circle: one needs well‐defined territorial borders to delimit the people, yet one needs a well‐defined people to establish legitimate territorial borders. Promising, because it forces democrats to scrutinize implicit assumptions and find new resources for dealing with the vicious circle. The article describes four possible tacks by which theorists could navigate the waters of people, territory, and legitimacy in democracies: asserting, circumventing, solving, and dissolving the circle.     

Public Administration as Pragmatic, Democratic, and Objective

In the foregoing essay, Patricia M. Shields argues that public administration and administrators should support a much greater incorporation of classical pragmatism than has been the case to date. This paper supports that conclusion by focusing on classical pragmatism's central benefit to public administration: its ability to provide the field with a claim to objectivity that it badly needs, but which Shields barely mentions. It shows how objectivity is closely connected to a pragmatic conception of democracy, and how this conception of democracy is diametrically opposed to one built on a fact/value (or administration/politics) dichotomy.     

Median Voter Preferences,Central Bank Independence and Conservatism

This paper studies how the independence and theconservatism of a central bank relate to the structureand stability of the median voter preferences. This isdone by means of a model of endogenous delegationwhere an opportunistic policy maker chooses themonetary regime (independence and conservatism) tomaximise the welfare of the median voter. The resultsshow that a high degree of inflation aversion ofmonetary policy is not necessarily associated with ahigh degree of central bank independence. A high andstable degree of inflation aversion of society (i.e.of the median voter) may lead to establish a dependentcentral bank which is highly inflation averse. This suggests that the negativecorrelation between inflation and central bankindependence indices detected by several empiricalstudies may reflect a link between inflation and somedeep features of social preferences.     

Deliberation,Democratic Decision-Making and Internal Political Efficacy

Empirical research into the possible positive consequences of deliberation increasingly reveals that there is a complex relationship between deliberation and its effects on citizens. In this experimental study I examine the relationship between internal political efficacy and one type of deliberation: deliberative decision-making. I also test whether different structures of decision-making mediate between deliberation and internal political efficacy. The data suggest that deliberative decision-making had no direct effect on a global measure of internal political efficacy. Participants in face-to-face deliberative decision-making, though, had higher scores on a situation-specific measure of internal political efficacy than participants who only voted. The structures of decision-making had no effect on either measure of internal political efficacy. These results support claims that deliberation will not necessarily lead to direct, positive effects on citizens internal political efficacy, but they also highlight the likelihood that face-to-face deliberation can lead citizens to feel more competent in their deliberative abilities.