The Interactive State: Democratisation from Above?

The work of Robert Putnam has provoked a lively debate on the democratic importance of a robust civil society. Criticism of his work concentrates on the fact that his concept of social capital conceives of the relationship between civil society and government predominantly as a one-way affair – a strong civil society is good for politics. Taking up this line of argument, an appreciation of political factors is promoted to explain varying patterns of civic engagement. Now that Western governments increasingly initiate and stimulate citizens' participation in policy-making, it is becoming even more important to assess the role of the state. Drawing on recent empirical research on local practices in the Netherlands, we examine a Dutch variant of such top-down participatory arrangements – so-called 'interactive policy-making'. We ask whether, and under what conditions, democratic advances can be expected from top-down state initiatives. And we develop a theoretical framework for assessing the democratic effects of top-down participatory initiatives. Squaring the main theoretical criteria with the empirical reality of interactive policy-making, we conclude that an active state does not necessarily corrode civil society.     

Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort?

It is widely argued that increased community participation in government decision making produces many important benefits. Dissent is rare: It is difficult to envision anything but positive outcomes from citizens joining the policy process, collaborating with others and reaching consensus to bring about positive social and environmental change. This article, motivated by contextual problems encountered in a participatory watershed management initiative, reviews the citizen-participation literature and analyzes key considerations in determining whether community participation is an effective policy-making tool. We list conditions under which community participation may be costly and ineffective and when it can thrive and produce the greatest gains in effective citizen governance. From the detritus of an unsuccessful citizen-participation effort, we arrive at a more informed approach to guide policy makers in choosing a decision-making process that is appropriate for a community's particular needs.     

Accepting Authoritative Decisions: Humans as Wary Cooperators

Why are people more willing to accept some governmental decisions than others? In this article, we present results from a series of original experiments showing that people's reactions to a given outcome are heavily influenced by the procedure employed to produce the outcome. We find that subjects react much less favorably when a decision maker intentionally keeps a large payoff, thereby leaving the subject with a small payoff, than when that same payoff results from a procedure based on chance or on desert. Moreover, subjects react less favorably to outcomes rendered by decision makers who want to be decision makers than they do to identical outcomes selected by reluctant decision makers. Our results are consistent with increasingly prominent theories of behavior emphasizing people's aversion to being played for a “sucker,” an attitude that makes perfect sense if people's main goal is not to acquire as many tangible goods as possible but to make sure they are a valued part of a viable group composed of cooperative individuals.     

Social networks and non‐market strategy

To date, the field of non‐market strategy has little to offer in the way of an integrated perspective on the simultaneous management of strategic issues and corporate stakeholders. This paper employs social network analysis to make a number of theoretically grounded conjectures about the delicate relationships between stakeholder behaviour and issue evolution. It is found that social network analysis has the potential to enrich and integrate theoretical perspectives in the field of non‐market strategy, offering solutions to a set of previously unresolved puzzles. Copyright © 2004 Henry Stewart Publications     

When winners are losers: The stalemate of Australian politics

The 1998 federal election emphasizes the fact that in Australian politics the power of the major parties remains strong both in terms of voter identification and in terms of setting the policy agenda on which political contests are fought, say Professors John Wanna and Patrick Weller from the Department of Public Policy at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia. The results of the election nevertheless illustrate a substantial level of discontent in the community, and the term of the next government promises frequent stalemates, as the clash between the House of Representatives and the Senate makes the passing of controversial legislation difficult.     

Developments in European political science journal and electronic literature during 1997

Abstract. This article continues the annual review of developments in European political science periodical literature. The review covers not just traditional print media but also electronic publishing, and therefore begins with an overview of a pilot project in integrated electronic publishing, the lsquo;SuperJournal' project, which links a range of British–published political science journals in an electronic cluster that facilitates ease of access by individual users. We continue with a summary of developments in political science journal publishing in central and eastern Europe in the aftermath of the political upheavals after 1989. The article concludes with a listing of the contents of the 1997 issues of selected European political science journals from a range of European countries (normally, those published by national political science associations) and comments on their content.     

Clinton,Europe and Economic Diplomacy: What Makes the EU Different?

The Clinton administration's economic diplomacy has been more aggressive, politicized and controversial than that of any recent US administration. We examine its application to the European Union (EU) and seek to answer the question: what makes Europe different? Put another way, why has the US pursued cooperation on “behind-the-border” issues such as competition policy, standards and investment rules, and eschewed export promotion? We offer three explanations. First, the EU's market is unique: it is a mature, but lucrative one for large US-owned firms concerned more with behind-the-border issues than with market access issues. Second, American companies who have invested heavily in Europe have developed their own political links to the EU, particularly through the EU Committee of the American Chamber of Commerce. Third, these same companies have a powerful influence over US policy towards Europe as well as EU policymaking. Our analysis develops these three hypotheses, and also offers an assessment of the progress and meaning of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue.