New Institutionalism and Minority Protection in the National Legislatures of Finland and Denmark

The individual camps within the new institutionalist paradigm generally argue that every political actor operates within a specific framework of opportunities and that the physical environment in which bargaining takes place is very important to understanding political outcomes. This article uses three of the new institutionalisms to answer two important questions concerning minority‐protecting institutions in the national constitutions of Denmark (Article 42) and Finland (Section 66). First, why were such institutions developed? Second, why were these institutions ultimately removed in Finland, but not in Denmark? For both countries, it is argued in this article that historical and discursive institutionalism are useful for understanding why such protections were originally considered necessary by particular political groups in society: the rise of socialism during the late twentieth and early twenty‐first centuries compelled non‐reformist parties to push strongly for constitutional change that would legalize powerful procedural tools that could delay and potentially reverse policy decisions passed in parliament. However, the article invokes rational choice institutionalism to explain why the outcomes in terms of the use of such institutions differed over time in the two countries: differences concerning the scope and timing of the relevant procedures compelled opposition parties to utilize them differently. As a result, the legislative process was often stalemated in Finland (and the procedures were subsequently removed in 1992), while in Denmark, the procedures contributed to a parliamentary culture based on consensus and pre‐legislative bargaining and hence, still remain.     

Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation

Two forum types have featured prominently in deliberative practice: (1) forums involving partisans (such as key 'stakeholders') and (2) forums involving non-partisans (such as 'lay citizens'). Drawing on deliberative theory and cases from Germany, we explore the relative merits of these forum types in terms of deliberative capacity, legitimacy and political impact. The two types offer deliberative governance something different. Non-partisan forums such as citizens' juries or consensus conferences rate favorably in deliberative capacity, but can fall short when it comes to external legitimacy and policy impact. Contrary to expectations, partisan forums can also encounter substantial legitimation and impact problems. How can designed forums contribute to deliberative democratization, given that partisanship is an inevitable fact of politics? We offer some suggestions about how deliberative theory and practice might better accommodate the reality of partisanship, while securing benefits revealed in non-partisan forums.     

The Role of Religion in the Transition to Adulthood for Young Emerging Adults

Recent research has highlighted the role of culture in emerging adulthood (age between 18 and 25 years). However, most studies have examined majority cultures (e.g., China) as well as subcultures (e.g., American ethnic minorities). Thus, work on other aspects of culture such as religion is needed given the emerging evidence that it may have an impact on development. This study explored the role of religious culture in the emerging adulthood of college students. Participants were 445 undergraduates (ages 18–20 years) from institutions that were Catholic (31 males, 89 females), Mormon (48 males, 200 females), and public (21 males, 56 females). Results found religious differences in (a) the criteria young people deemed necessary for adulthood, (b) the extent to which emerging adults felt they had achieved these criteria, (c) various aspects of spirituality including practices and beliefs, and (d) the behaviors in which emerging adults engage.Portions of this study were presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Adolescence, Baltimore, Maryland, in March 2004.Assistant Professor of Psychology at Loyola College in Maryland. She received her PhD in 2001 from the University of Maryland, College Park. Her major research interests are in social-and self-development during adolescence and emerging adulthood.Assistant Professor of Marriage, Family, and Human Development in the School of Family Life at Brigham Young University. He received his PhD in 2000 from the University of Maryland, College Park. His major research interests are in social-and self-development during early childhood and emerging adulthood.     

Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums

For all the recent discussion on the virtues and vices of public deliberation, surprisingly little attention has been given to how deliberative procedures actually operate in different policy contexts. This article takes up this task with a specific focus on how deliberative designs such as citizens' juries and consensus conferences interface with their participatory context. The concept of the participatory storyline is developed to describe the competing narratives associated with a policy issue on who constitutes the public” and how “they” should be represented and involved in the policy process. An analysis of two Australian cases reveals how existing participatory storylines can productively or destructively influence deliberative forums. The empirical research suggests that a more productive deliberative procedure is one that supports or “speaks to” existing narratives on what constitutes public participation. Under these conditions key policy actors are more likely to engage in the deliberative process and endorse its outcomes. Some suggestions are provided for how practitioners can better anticipate the way a deliberative forum might interface with its participatory context.