Direct Government Investment: Perverse Privatization or New Tool of Government?

In recent years, public administration scholars have called attention to a blurring of the boundaries between the public and private sectors. However, little attention has been focused on the administration of public programs that seek to impact private markets through direct government investment in private firms. The direct government investment approach is a new tool of government that has been applied in several countries and at multiple levels of government. Through an analytic mix of theory and attention to practice, this article leverages a deep case analysis of the U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program to propose and utilize criteria for examining justifiable rationales for direct government investment, areas of administrative capacity necessary to manage such investments, and potential pitfalls of this new tool of government.     

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.     

Towards Robust Hybrid Democracy in Scandinavian Municipalities?

This article calls for the development of democratic hybrids that combine elements of representative democracy with elements of participatory and deliberative democracy. It presents and evaluates an empirical model of hybrid democracy from a Danish municipality and tests whether the positive Danish experiences can be transferred to a Norwegian municipality with less favorable local conditions. The finding is that the hybrid model of democracy is relatively robust in the face of context variation, not least due to conducive local dynamics in the Norwegian case. The relative robustness of the so‐called ‘Gentofte model’ may stimulate its diffusion in countries sharing key elements of the Scandinavian model and inspire municipalities in other countries to experiment with the development of hybrid democracy. The diffusion of hybrid democracy helps to enhance the overall performance of local democracy and reduce the inherent tension between democratic leadership and democratic equality.