Scott Mainwaring
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199256372
- eISBN:
- 9780191602368
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199256373.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
This introductory chapter begins with a discussion on the challenges of democratic accountability in Latin America. It then presents the three main themes that run throughout the book. These are the ...
More
This introductory chapter begins with a discussion on the challenges of democratic accountability in Latin America. It then presents the three main themes that run throughout the book. These are the controversies about the definition of accountability, the relationship between electoral accountability and mechanisms of control and oversight of public agencies, and the shortcomings and advances of non-electoral forms of accountability in contemporary Latin America.Less
This introductory chapter begins with a discussion on the challenges of democratic accountability in Latin America. It then presents the three main themes that run throughout the book. These are the controversies about the definition of accountability, the relationship between electoral accountability and mechanisms of control and oversight of public agencies, and the shortcomings and advances of non-electoral forms of accountability in contemporary Latin America.
Craig T. Borowiak
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199778256
- eISBN:
- 9780199919086
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199778256.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory, International Relations and Politics
Situated at the intersection of democratic theory and international studies, Accountability and Democracy provides an in-depth critical analysis of the concept “democratic accountability.” The book ...
More
Situated at the intersection of democratic theory and international studies, Accountability and Democracy provides an in-depth critical analysis of the concept “democratic accountability.” The book proceeds with separate chapters on accountability as found in the U.S. Ratification debates, agency theory, ancient Athenian democracy, theories of deliberative democracy, capitalist markets, and cosmopolitan democracy. Through an engagement with these different traditions and contexts, the book paints a picture of democratic accountability as a multidimensional concept harboring competing imperatives and diverse instantiations. It both engages conventional electoral models of accountability and moves beyond them by situating democratic accountability within more deliberative, participatory and agonistic contexts. Contrary to dominant views that emphasize discipline and control, the book describes democratic accountability as a source of mutuality, community, and political transformation. The book also challenges deep-seated understandings of democratic accountability as an expression of popular sovereignty. It instead argues that accountable governance is incompatible with all claims to ultimate authority, regardless of whether they refer to the demos, the state, or cosmopolitan public law. Rather than conceiving of democratic accountability as a way to legitimize a secure and sovereign political order, the book contends that destabilization and democratic insurgence are indispensable and often neglected facets of democratic accountability practices.Less
Situated at the intersection of democratic theory and international studies, Accountability and Democracy provides an in-depth critical analysis of the concept “democratic accountability.” The book proceeds with separate chapters on accountability as found in the U.S. Ratification debates, agency theory, ancient Athenian democracy, theories of deliberative democracy, capitalist markets, and cosmopolitan democracy. Through an engagement with these different traditions and contexts, the book paints a picture of democratic accountability as a multidimensional concept harboring competing imperatives and diverse instantiations. It both engages conventional electoral models of accountability and moves beyond them by situating democratic accountability within more deliberative, participatory and agonistic contexts. Contrary to dominant views that emphasize discipline and control, the book describes democratic accountability as a source of mutuality, community, and political transformation. The book also challenges deep-seated understandings of democratic accountability as an expression of popular sovereignty. It instead argues that accountable governance is incompatible with all claims to ultimate authority, regardless of whether they refer to the demos, the state, or cosmopolitan public law. Rather than conceiving of democratic accountability as a way to legitimize a secure and sovereign political order, the book contends that destabilization and democratic insurgence are indispensable and often neglected facets of democratic accountability practices.
Scott Mainwaring and Christoper Welna (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- April 2005
- ISBN:
- 9780199256372
- eISBN:
- 9780191602368
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199256373.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
This book brings together studies on democratic accountability in Latin America by authors from different theoretical perspectives. It seeks to further understanding on the web of institutions that ...
More
This book brings together studies on democratic accountability in Latin America by authors from different theoretical perspectives. It seeks to further understanding on the web of institutions that form the mechanisms of accountability, the interaction between these institutions, and interaction between electoral accountability, intrastate accountability, and societal oversight. The book is divided into four parts. Part I discusses conceptual and theoretical issues on accountability. Part II presents three chapters on legislatures, executives, and oversight agencies. Part III has three chapters on the judiciary and related mechanisms of accountability. Part IV deals with innovations in oversight of public officials.Less
This book brings together studies on democratic accountability in Latin America by authors from different theoretical perspectives. It seeks to further understanding on the web of institutions that form the mechanisms of accountability, the interaction between these institutions, and interaction between electoral accountability, intrastate accountability, and societal oversight. The book is divided into four parts. Part I discusses conceptual and theoretical issues on accountability. Part II presents three chapters on legislatures, executives, and oversight agencies. Part III has three chapters on the judiciary and related mechanisms of accountability. Part IV deals with innovations in oversight of public officials.
Robert E. Goodin
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199256174
- eISBN:
- 9780191599354
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199256179.003.0003
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This is the second of two chapters on preference democracy. It points out that theories of liberal democracy necessarily require systematic responsiveness to popular wishes, in ways that make them ...
More
This is the second of two chapters on preference democracy. It points out that theories of liberal democracy necessarily require systematic responsiveness to popular wishes, in ways that make them fundamentally ‘preference‐respecting’, but that there are many different kinds of preferences and correspondingly many different ways of respecting them. Different models of democracy are better at providing certain sorts of respect for certain sorts of preferences than others, and which model of democracy liberal democrats want to adopt therefore depends on which sorts of preferences they want to accord which sort of respect. The central claim of this chapter is that the author's preferred model of ‘democratic deliberation within’ is preference‐respecting in the right way, and that it therefore deserves a key role in any larger system of democratic accountability. The different sections of the chapter are: Respecting Preferences, Not Just Recording Them; Permissible Paternalism; Assessing Alternative Models of Preference‐Respecting Democracy; The Virtues of Sporadic Assessments: Preference‐Respecting Arguments for Indirect Democracy; and Combining ‘Democratic Deliberation Within’ and Trustee‐style Representative Democracy.Less
This is the second of two chapters on preference democracy. It points out that theories of liberal democracy necessarily require systematic responsiveness to popular wishes, in ways that make them fundamentally ‘preference‐respecting’, but that there are many different kinds of preferences and correspondingly many different ways of respecting them. Different models of democracy are better at providing certain sorts of respect for certain sorts of preferences than others, and which model of democracy liberal democrats want to adopt therefore depends on which sorts of preferences they want to accord which sort of respect. The central claim of this chapter is that the author's preferred model of ‘democratic deliberation within’ is preference‐respecting in the right way, and that it therefore deserves a key role in any larger system of democratic accountability. The different sections of the chapter are: Respecting Preferences, Not Just Recording Them; Permissible Paternalism; Assessing Alternative Models of Preference‐Respecting Democracy; The Virtues of Sporadic Assessments: Preference‐Respecting Arguments for Indirect Democracy; and Combining ‘Democratic Deliberation Within’ and Trustee‐style Representative Democracy.
Richard S. Katz and Bernhard Wessels
- Published in print:
- 1999
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198296607
- eISBN:
- 9780191599620
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198296606.003.0012
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union
The idea of basing further progress towards European integration on a permissive consensus has been substantially challenged since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, primarily because of its ...
More
The idea of basing further progress towards European integration on a permissive consensus has been substantially challenged since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, primarily because of its objective of establishing a single European currency. The Euro has strong implications for increasing the visibility of the lack of democratic accountability, and of the lack of a European demos. In the light of these developments, the chapter brings together a number of conclusions suggested throughout this volume.Less
The idea of basing further progress towards European integration on a permissive consensus has been substantially challenged since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, primarily because of its objective of establishing a single European currency. The Euro has strong implications for increasing the visibility of the lack of democratic accountability, and of the lack of a European demos. In the light of these developments, the chapter brings together a number of conclusions suggested throughout this volume.
Adrian Vermeule
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195333466
- eISBN:
- 9780199855384
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333466.003.0005
- Subject:
- Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law
This chapter introduces another voting mechanism — the absolute majority rule. Absolute majority voting rules, which require a majority of all eligible members or voters to take institutional action, ...
More
This chapter introduces another voting mechanism — the absolute majority rule. Absolute majority voting rules, which require a majority of all eligible members or voters to take institutional action, can promote accountability by insuring legislative and democratic majorities against strategic behavior by minorities. Moreover, such rules simultaneously promote the accountability of legislators and other officials to broad electorates and minimize the accountability of officials to narrow interest groups and other democratically suspect third parties. These two effects are complementary — the first promotes accountability where it is desirable, the second dilutes it where it is undesirable. Absolute majority rules, which can be used in conjunction with submajority rules, thus provide a tool for optimizing accountability.Less
This chapter introduces another voting mechanism — the absolute majority rule. Absolute majority voting rules, which require a majority of all eligible members or voters to take institutional action, can promote accountability by insuring legislative and democratic majorities against strategic behavior by minorities. Moreover, such rules simultaneously promote the accountability of legislators and other officials to broad electorates and minimize the accountability of officials to narrow interest groups and other democratically suspect third parties. These two effects are complementary — the first promotes accountability where it is desirable, the second dilutes it where it is undesirable. Absolute majority rules, which can be used in conjunction with submajority rules, thus provide a tool for optimizing accountability.
Linda L. Fowler
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780691151618
- eISBN:
- 9781400866465
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691151618.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
This chapter examines partisan calculations about party reputations as influences on routine and event-driven public hearings, using the classic typology of police patrols and fire alarms. It ...
More
This chapter examines partisan calculations about party reputations as influences on routine and event-driven public hearings, using the classic typology of police patrols and fire alarms. It considers committee choices regarding the content of national security oversight hearings by comparing routine inquiries to reviews of major crises and scandals. The chapter uses the unique characteristics of fine-grained coding of hearings to develop measures for police patrol and fire alarm oversight of national security. It also discusses expectations about committee behavior as well as the distribution of patrols and alarms for the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, particularly as they relate to changes in military casualties from 1947 to 2008. Finally, it explores crisis oversight as a form of committee review that is particularly important to democratic accountability.Less
This chapter examines partisan calculations about party reputations as influences on routine and event-driven public hearings, using the classic typology of police patrols and fire alarms. It considers committee choices regarding the content of national security oversight hearings by comparing routine inquiries to reviews of major crises and scandals. The chapter uses the unique characteristics of fine-grained coding of hearings to develop measures for police patrol and fire alarm oversight of national security. It also discusses expectations about committee behavior as well as the distribution of patrols and alarms for the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, particularly as they relate to changes in military casualties from 1947 to 2008. Finally, it explores crisis oversight as a form of committee review that is particularly important to democratic accountability.
Linda L. Fowler
- Published in print:
- 2015
- Published Online:
- October 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780691151618
- eISBN:
- 9781400866465
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Princeton University Press
- DOI:
- 10.23943/princeton/9780691151618.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, American Politics
An essential responsibility of the U.S. Congress is holding the president accountable for the conduct of foreign policy. This book evaluates how the legislature's most visible and important watchdogs ...
More
An essential responsibility of the U.S. Congress is holding the president accountable for the conduct of foreign policy. This book evaluates how the legislature's most visible and important watchdogs performed from the mid-twentieth century to the present. The book finds a noticeable reduction in public and secret hearings since the mid-1990s and establishes that U.S. foreign policy frequently violated basic conditions for democratic accountability. Committee scrutiny of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the book notes, fell below levels of oversight in prior major conflicts. It attributes the drop in watchdog activity to growing disinterest among senators in committee work, biases among members who join the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, and motives that shield presidents, particularly Republicans, from public inquiry. The book's detailed case studies of the Truman Doctrine, Vietnam War, Panama Canal Treaty, humanitarian mission in Somalia, and Iraq War illustrate the importance of oversight in generating the information citizens need to judge the president's national security policies. It argues for a reassessment of congressional war powers and proposes reforms to encourage Senate watchdogs to improve public deliberation about decisions of war and peace. It investigates America's oversight of national security and its critical place in the review of congressional and presidential powers in foreign policy.Less
An essential responsibility of the U.S. Congress is holding the president accountable for the conduct of foreign policy. This book evaluates how the legislature's most visible and important watchdogs performed from the mid-twentieth century to the present. The book finds a noticeable reduction in public and secret hearings since the mid-1990s and establishes that U.S. foreign policy frequently violated basic conditions for democratic accountability. Committee scrutiny of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the book notes, fell below levels of oversight in prior major conflicts. It attributes the drop in watchdog activity to growing disinterest among senators in committee work, biases among members who join the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, and motives that shield presidents, particularly Republicans, from public inquiry. The book's detailed case studies of the Truman Doctrine, Vietnam War, Panama Canal Treaty, humanitarian mission in Somalia, and Iraq War illustrate the importance of oversight in generating the information citizens need to judge the president's national security policies. It argues for a reassessment of congressional war powers and proposes reforms to encourage Senate watchdogs to improve public deliberation about decisions of war and peace. It investigates America's oversight of national security and its critical place in the review of congressional and presidential powers in foreign policy.
Adrian Vermeule
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780195333466
- eISBN:
- 9780199855384
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333466.003.0006
- Subject:
- Law, Constitutional and Administrative Law
This chapter addresses the question: In a democratic polity, how (if at all) can judges promote accountability and allied democratic virtues? It suggests a supermajority voting rule that weights law ...
More
This chapter addresses the question: In a democratic polity, how (if at all) can judges promote accountability and allied democratic virtues? It suggests a supermajority voting rule that weights law in favor of the exercise of delegated lawmaking authority by government officials. Legal doctrine already requires this, but does not enforce the requirement with a voting rule. The suggestion here is that a small-scale institutional mechanism can better enforce the current law, promoting the democratic accountability of administrative law and policy at lower cost than the current regime. The chapter thus connects delegation with voting rules geared to promoting accountability, the theme of Chapters 3 and 4.Less
This chapter addresses the question: In a democratic polity, how (if at all) can judges promote accountability and allied democratic virtues? It suggests a supermajority voting rule that weights law in favor of the exercise of delegated lawmaking authority by government officials. Legal doctrine already requires this, but does not enforce the requirement with a voting rule. The suggestion here is that a small-scale institutional mechanism can better enforce the current law, promoting the democratic accountability of administrative law and policy at lower cost than the current regime. The chapter thus connects delegation with voting rules geared to promoting accountability, the theme of Chapters 3 and 4.
Johan P. Olsen
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- April 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780198800606
- eISBN:
- 9780191840081
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198800606.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, European Union
In representative democracies accountability is seen as an ideal and an achievement and also as partially constitutive of democratic government. Democratic accountability implies governance based on ...
More
In representative democracies accountability is seen as an ideal and an achievement and also as partially constitutive of democratic government. Democratic accountability implies governance based on feedback, learning from experience, and the informed consent of the governed. Citizens are neither the initial authors of laws and budgets nor the designers of the political order under which they live. But they are not powerless. Although most decisions are made by elected representatives, appointed officials, and other power holders, rulers still have an obligation to be appropriately accountable to the ruled. However, a rising number of demands for explanations and justifications indicate the limits of popular acceptance, allegiance, and support. This chapter outlines elements of an analytical framework for thinking about the interrelations between democratic accountability, political order, and orderly change, that is, how democratic accountability processes are affected by an existing political order and how they, in turn, affect that order.Less
In representative democracies accountability is seen as an ideal and an achievement and also as partially constitutive of democratic government. Democratic accountability implies governance based on feedback, learning from experience, and the informed consent of the governed. Citizens are neither the initial authors of laws and budgets nor the designers of the political order under which they live. But they are not powerless. Although most decisions are made by elected representatives, appointed officials, and other power holders, rulers still have an obligation to be appropriately accountable to the ruled. However, a rising number of demands for explanations and justifications indicate the limits of popular acceptance, allegiance, and support. This chapter outlines elements of an analytical framework for thinking about the interrelations between democratic accountability, political order, and orderly change, that is, how democratic accountability processes are affected by an existing political order and how they, in turn, affect that order.
George A. Bermann
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199245000
- eISBN:
- 9780191599996
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199245002.003.0008
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union
Federal systems are about the distribution of legal and political power, but law is not only one of the currencies of federalism, it is also one of federalism's most important supports; this chapter ...
More
Federal systems are about the distribution of legal and political power, but law is not only one of the currencies of federalism, it is also one of federalism's most important supports; this chapter considers the role that law plays in establishing and enforcing the system by which both legal and political power are distributed within the USA and the EU. Bermann explores the various ways in which the courts can, and choose to, enforce the principles of federalism beyond the classical ‘political’ and ‘procedural’ safeguards provided by the institutional structures themselves and the constraints on the deliberative process. He describes the reluctance on the part of courts on both sides to police the borders of enumerated competences, assess the ‘necessity’ of federal action, or carve out the ‘core’ of state sovereignty, all of which are ways of ‘second‐guessing’ the political process; he then points to the recent emphasis of the USA Supreme Court on what he calls the ‘relational’ aspects of federalism, whereby courts can identify ‘forbidden interfaces’ between State and federal governments, even without specific constitutional grounds. Bermann uses the examples of sovereign immunity and of anti‐commandeering to illustrate the manner in which court‐enforced constraints on the manner in which different levels of government interact can protect and promote democratic accountability in the USA. In contrast, European Union law offers no protection against risks to democracy from commandeering, but more broadly relies almost exclusively on the representation of member states and sub‐national units in the Council as structural political safeguards.Less
Federal systems are about the distribution of legal and political power, but law is not only one of the currencies of federalism, it is also one of federalism's most important supports; this chapter considers the role that law plays in establishing and enforcing the system by which both legal and political power are distributed within the USA and the EU. Bermann explores the various ways in which the courts can, and choose to, enforce the principles of federalism beyond the classical ‘political’ and ‘procedural’ safeguards provided by the institutional structures themselves and the constraints on the deliberative process. He describes the reluctance on the part of courts on both sides to police the borders of enumerated competences, assess the ‘necessity’ of federal action, or carve out the ‘core’ of state sovereignty, all of which are ways of ‘second‐guessing’ the political process; he then points to the recent emphasis of the USA Supreme Court on what he calls the ‘relational’ aspects of federalism, whereby courts can identify ‘forbidden interfaces’ between State and federal governments, even without specific constitutional grounds. Bermann uses the examples of sovereign immunity and of anti‐commandeering to illustrate the manner in which court‐enforced constraints on the manner in which different levels of government interact can protect and promote democratic accountability in the USA. In contrast, European Union law offers no protection against risks to democracy from commandeering, but more broadly relies almost exclusively on the representation of member states and sub‐national units in the Council as structural political safeguards.
David C. Barker and Christopher Jan Carman
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199796564
- eISBN:
- 9780199979714
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199796564.003.0006
- Subject:
- Psychology, Social Psychology
This chapter explores other ways that trustee-style representation preferences within constituencies could ultimately translate into trustee-style governing styles on the part of elected ...
More
This chapter explores other ways that trustee-style representation preferences within constituencies could ultimately translate into trustee-style governing styles on the part of elected representatives (and vice versa). Using the same data from previous chapters, the chapter demonstrates that citizens who are represented by Republicans are more likely to say that their representative is a trustee, regardless of their own preferences regarding one or the other style. The chapter also explores matters of democratic accountability: does disappointment in a legislator's representation style translate into lower job-approval ratings (and thus job insecurity) for that representative? And is it worse for those representatives who are deemed not responsive enough, as opposed to those who are considered too responsive? Democratic theory answers both of these questions in the affirmative, and so do our empirical tests. However, Christian traditionalists (and Republicans) are much less likely to express disapproval toward a legislator who is perceived as nonresponsive than are secular progressives (and Democrats). This pattern suggests that trustee-style representatives are much less likely to suffer electoral defeat if they represent culturally Red districts than if they represent culturally Blue ones.Less
This chapter explores other ways that trustee-style representation preferences within constituencies could ultimately translate into trustee-style governing styles on the part of elected representatives (and vice versa). Using the same data from previous chapters, the chapter demonstrates that citizens who are represented by Republicans are more likely to say that their representative is a trustee, regardless of their own preferences regarding one or the other style. The chapter also explores matters of democratic accountability: does disappointment in a legislator's representation style translate into lower job-approval ratings (and thus job insecurity) for that representative? And is it worse for those representatives who are deemed not responsive enough, as opposed to those who are considered too responsive? Democratic theory answers both of these questions in the affirmative, and so do our empirical tests. However, Christian traditionalists (and Republicans) are much less likely to express disapproval toward a legislator who is perceived as nonresponsive than are secular progressives (and Democrats). This pattern suggests that trustee-style representatives are much less likely to suffer electoral defeat if they represent culturally Red districts than if they represent culturally Blue ones.
EWAN FERLIE, LYNN ASHBURNER, LOUISE FITZGERALD, and ANDREW PETTIGREW
- Published in print:
- 1996
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198289029
- eISBN:
- 9780191684661
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198289029.003.0005
- Subject:
- Business and Management, Public Management, Organization Studies
Emphasis is given to the new board model that excludes authority and democratic accountability. This chapter will examine the effects of increasing the non-elected bodies in the public sector on ...
More
Emphasis is given to the new board model that excludes authority and democratic accountability. This chapter will examine the effects of increasing the non-elected bodies in the public sector on local democratic control. One of the features of New Public Management involves the increasing power of both executive and non-executive directors. Hence this chapter will also discuss how the growth of managerialism in the public sector board model has influenced the creation of the new NHS boards. The summary of this chapter mainly makes use of the structure and composition of health authorities and boards to further illustrate the impact of a different management and board composition on the organization's processes; changing the structure and composition of the board alone does not ensure improved effectivity.Less
Emphasis is given to the new board model that excludes authority and democratic accountability. This chapter will examine the effects of increasing the non-elected bodies in the public sector on local democratic control. One of the features of New Public Management involves the increasing power of both executive and non-executive directors. Hence this chapter will also discuss how the growth of managerialism in the public sector board model has influenced the creation of the new NHS boards. The summary of this chapter mainly makes use of the structure and composition of health authorities and boards to further illustrate the impact of a different management and board composition on the organization's processes; changing the structure and composition of the board alone does not ensure improved effectivity.
Simone Abram and Sarah Blandy
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- May 2019
- ISBN:
- 9780197266380
- eISBN:
- 9780191879579
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- British Academy
- DOI:
- 10.5871/bacad/9780197266380.003.0009
- Subject:
- Law, Environmental and Energy Law
This chapter examines publicly accessible urban green spaces, from both anthropological and socio-legal perspectives. It explores the concept of communal property through a case study of Heeley ...
More
This chapter examines publicly accessible urban green spaces, from both anthropological and socio-legal perspectives. It explores the concept of communal property through a case study of Heeley People’s Park and two other urban parks in Sheffield, UK. It draws on a range of sources, including evidence of individual and collective practices which have changed the land over time. Tensions between the social understandings of ownership and belonging, and the legal definition of property, are highlighted through a bundle of rights analysis. The chapter considers different ownership structures and governance frameworks for urban green spaces, concluding that there is a mismatch between these legal arrangements and experiences of belonging and ownership, in the non-legal sense. The consequent difficulty in articulating a discourse of communal property undermines efforts to secure the funding needed to protect and maintain these important community resources.Less
This chapter examines publicly accessible urban green spaces, from both anthropological and socio-legal perspectives. It explores the concept of communal property through a case study of Heeley People’s Park and two other urban parks in Sheffield, UK. It draws on a range of sources, including evidence of individual and collective practices which have changed the land over time. Tensions between the social understandings of ownership and belonging, and the legal definition of property, are highlighted through a bundle of rights analysis. The chapter considers different ownership structures and governance frameworks for urban green spaces, concluding that there is a mismatch between these legal arrangements and experiences of belonging and ownership, in the non-legal sense. The consequent difficulty in articulating a discourse of communal property undermines efforts to secure the funding needed to protect and maintain these important community resources.
Johan P. Olsen
- Published in print:
- 2017
- Published Online:
- April 2017
- ISBN:
- 9780198800606
- eISBN:
- 9780191840081
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198800606.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, European Union
Ongoing transformations of the political organization of Europe, where both the nation-state and the European Union are challenged, make it possible to explore phenomena that are difficult to see in ...
More
Ongoing transformations of the political organization of Europe, where both the nation-state and the European Union are challenged, make it possible to explore phenomena that are difficult to see in stable periods. An upsurge in accountability demands, where political leaders are required to explain and justify what they are doing, is one such phenomenon. Mainstream approaches to democratic accountability, assuming settled principal–agent relations, may give insight into the routines of institutional accountability. But this book argues that it is not enough to analyze how accountability processes contribute to routinized maintenance of an established order within relatively stable, simple, and well-known situations. We need to understand accountability in eras of institutional confusion and contestation and in dynamic, complex, and unknown situations. First, variations in the relations between democratic accountability and political association, organization, and agency are endogenous to politics. Second, accountability processes take place within both settled and unsettled orders. They can be both order maintaining and order transforming. Third, accountability involves sense making as well as decision making. Fourth, accountability may involve mass mobilization or go on largely unnoticed by the public. Fifth, accountability processes may or may not foster new ideas about political order, government, and the role of rank-and-file citizens in political life. They may or may not affect what democracy will mean and imply in the future. The aim of this book is twofold: To contribute to the theorization of democratic accountability and to discuss what accountability processes tell us about political order and orderly change in general.Less
Ongoing transformations of the political organization of Europe, where both the nation-state and the European Union are challenged, make it possible to explore phenomena that are difficult to see in stable periods. An upsurge in accountability demands, where political leaders are required to explain and justify what they are doing, is one such phenomenon. Mainstream approaches to democratic accountability, assuming settled principal–agent relations, may give insight into the routines of institutional accountability. But this book argues that it is not enough to analyze how accountability processes contribute to routinized maintenance of an established order within relatively stable, simple, and well-known situations. We need to understand accountability in eras of institutional confusion and contestation and in dynamic, complex, and unknown situations. First, variations in the relations between democratic accountability and political association, organization, and agency are endogenous to politics. Second, accountability processes take place within both settled and unsettled orders. They can be both order maintaining and order transforming. Third, accountability involves sense making as well as decision making. Fourth, accountability may involve mass mobilization or go on largely unnoticed by the public. Fifth, accountability processes may or may not foster new ideas about political order, government, and the role of rank-and-file citizens in political life. They may or may not affect what democracy will mean and imply in the future. The aim of this book is twofold: To contribute to the theorization of democratic accountability and to discuss what accountability processes tell us about political order and orderly change in general.
Darren Halpin
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- July 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780719076527
- eISBN:
- 9781781701690
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Manchester University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7228/manchester/9780719076527.003.0010
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
This chapter asks whether there is cause for pessimism or optimism regarding groups as democratic agents. It rehearses the main findings from the book and suggests areas where further work may be ...
More
This chapter asks whether there is cause for pessimism or optimism regarding groups as democratic agents. It rehearses the main findings from the book and suggests areas where further work may be carried out. It also ponders how we might explain and then deal with the finding that most groups do not wholly fulfil representative potential. It argues that the paradox of representation — claiming to speak for what is absent — means that all groups confront a ‘gap’ in terms of demonstrating democratic accountability and authorization. The key question is how this gap is assessed. The discussion argues that modes of representation are institutions, and, as such, the appropriateness of a form of representation will change over time and be contested.Less
This chapter asks whether there is cause for pessimism or optimism regarding groups as democratic agents. It rehearses the main findings from the book and suggests areas where further work may be carried out. It also ponders how we might explain and then deal with the finding that most groups do not wholly fulfil representative potential. It argues that the paradox of representation — claiming to speak for what is absent — means that all groups confront a ‘gap’ in terms of demonstrating democratic accountability and authorization. The key question is how this gap is assessed. The discussion argues that modes of representation are institutions, and, as such, the appropriateness of a form of representation will change over time and be contested.
Helen McCarthy
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- July 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780719086168
- eISBN:
- 9781781702659
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Manchester University Press
- DOI:
- 10.7228/manchester/9780719086168.001.0001
- Subject:
- History, Political History
In the decades following Europe's first total war, millions of British men and women looked to the League of Nations as the symbol and guardian of a new world order based on international ...
More
In the decades following Europe's first total war, millions of British men and women looked to the League of Nations as the symbol and guardian of a new world order based on international co-operation. Founded in 1919 to preserve peace between its member-states, the League inspired a rich, participatory culture of political protest, popular education and civic ritual that found expression in the establishment of voluntary societies in dozens of countries across Europe and beyond. Through the hugely popular League of Nations Union (LNU), this pro-League movement touched Britain in profound ways. Foremost amongst the League societies, the LNU became a pioneering advocate of democratic accountability and popular engagement in the making of foreign policy. This book offers an account of this popular League consciousness, revealing the extraordinarily vibrant character of associational life between the wars. It explores the complex constituencies making up the popular League movement and shows how internationalism intersected with class, gender, religion and party politics during a period of profound social, cultural and political change.Less
In the decades following Europe's first total war, millions of British men and women looked to the League of Nations as the symbol and guardian of a new world order based on international co-operation. Founded in 1919 to preserve peace between its member-states, the League inspired a rich, participatory culture of political protest, popular education and civic ritual that found expression in the establishment of voluntary societies in dozens of countries across Europe and beyond. Through the hugely popular League of Nations Union (LNU), this pro-League movement touched Britain in profound ways. Foremost amongst the League societies, the LNU became a pioneering advocate of democratic accountability and popular engagement in the making of foreign policy. This book offers an account of this popular League consciousness, revealing the extraordinarily vibrant character of associational life between the wars. It explores the complex constituencies making up the popular League movement and shows how internationalism intersected with class, gender, religion and party politics during a period of profound social, cultural and political change.
Lisa L. Miller
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- April 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780190228705
- eISBN:
- 9780190228729
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190228705.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics
Scholars and laypersons alike routinely express doubt about the ability of democratic publics to adequately assess risk and to respond rationally when emotionally charged issues like crime are on the ...
More
Scholars and laypersons alike routinely express doubt about the ability of democratic publics to adequately assess risk and to respond rationally when emotionally charged issues like crime are on the political agenda, particularly when race and class biases are invoked. In the United States, which has the highest imprisonment rate in the developed world, many scholars have concluded that there are simply too many opportunities for elected officials to be responsive to public opinion. Democratic accountability, in this view, should be limited because too much democracy encourages impulsive, irrational, and even murderous demands, independent of actual risk. These claims about the panic-prone masses—about the dangers of “mob rule”— are widespread and form the central focus of this book. Are democratic majorities easily drawn to crime as a political issue, even when risk of violence is low? Can they support “rational alternatives” to wholly repressive practices, even when the issue triggers racial biases and stereotypes? Drawing on a comparative analysis of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, this book explores when and with what consequences crime becomes a politically salient issue. Reversing much of the conventional wisdom, the analysis finds that serious violence and public and political attention to it are highly correlated and that the United States has high levels of both crime and punishment, in part, because it suffers from a democratic deficit, rather than a surplus, in the production of fundamental collective goods, including risk of violence.Less
Scholars and laypersons alike routinely express doubt about the ability of democratic publics to adequately assess risk and to respond rationally when emotionally charged issues like crime are on the political agenda, particularly when race and class biases are invoked. In the United States, which has the highest imprisonment rate in the developed world, many scholars have concluded that there are simply too many opportunities for elected officials to be responsive to public opinion. Democratic accountability, in this view, should be limited because too much democracy encourages impulsive, irrational, and even murderous demands, independent of actual risk. These claims about the panic-prone masses—about the dangers of “mob rule”— are widespread and form the central focus of this book. Are democratic majorities easily drawn to crime as a political issue, even when risk of violence is low? Can they support “rational alternatives” to wholly repressive practices, even when the issue triggers racial biases and stereotypes? Drawing on a comparative analysis of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, this book explores when and with what consequences crime becomes a politically salient issue. Reversing much of the conventional wisdom, the analysis finds that serious violence and public and political attention to it are highly correlated and that the United States has high levels of both crime and punishment, in part, because it suffers from a democratic deficit, rather than a surplus, in the production of fundamental collective goods, including risk of violence.
Darryl K. Brown
- Published in print:
- 2016
- Published Online:
- January 2016
- ISBN:
- 9780190457877
- eISBN:
- 9780190457907
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190457877.003.0002
- Subject:
- Law, Criminal Law and Criminology, Company and Commercial Law
Democratic accountability and political supervision play an outsized role in American criminal justice, and this chapter describes some of the effects of this unique democratic commitment. Most U.S. ...
More
Democratic accountability and political supervision play an outsized role in American criminal justice, and this chapter describes some of the effects of this unique democratic commitment. Most U.S. chief prosecutors—and nearly as many judges—are directly elected by local constituencies; the rest are politically appointed. The political legitimacy prosecutors gained from this practice has played a critical role in transforming central components of the adjudication system. It helped public prosecutors secure their monopoly and wholly replace private prosecutors, who were important players in many states well into the mid nineteenth century. Additionally, democratic legitimacy helped prosecutors to marginalize the jury, a rival means of democratic input on law enforcement. It was critical to reducing judicial authority to supervise prosecutors, in fending off bureaucratic organization of prosecution agencies, and in making the American conception of the prosecutor as “minister of justice” a more partisan one.Less
Democratic accountability and political supervision play an outsized role in American criminal justice, and this chapter describes some of the effects of this unique democratic commitment. Most U.S. chief prosecutors—and nearly as many judges—are directly elected by local constituencies; the rest are politically appointed. The political legitimacy prosecutors gained from this practice has played a critical role in transforming central components of the adjudication system. It helped public prosecutors secure their monopoly and wholly replace private prosecutors, who were important players in many states well into the mid nineteenth century. Additionally, democratic legitimacy helped prosecutors to marginalize the jury, a rival means of democratic input on law enforcement. It was critical to reducing judicial authority to supervise prosecutors, in fending off bureaucratic organization of prosecution agencies, and in making the American conception of the prosecutor as “minister of justice” a more partisan one.
Joel R. Paul
- Published in print:
- 2001
- Published Online:
- March 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780198298922
- eISBN:
- 9780191685545
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298922.003.0023
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law
This chapter considers a second major structural feature of the American system potentially affected by transatlantic regulatory cooperation: the separation of powers. It focuses on the central role ...
More
This chapter considers a second major structural feature of the American system potentially affected by transatlantic regulatory cooperation: the separation of powers. It focuses on the central role that the US President has historically played in advancing forms of international cooperation via the use of executive agreements, i.e. international compacts signed by the President without the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, as is constitutionally required for treaties. Nearly all trade-related agreements entered into by the United States in fact take the form of executive agreements. This chapter questions the ‘discourse of executive expediency’ that has been used to justify deviation from constitutionally mandated treaty procedures, and concludes that executive agreements, in light of serious questions as to their legal effect, are in fact a poor instrument for implementing regulatory cooperation.Less
This chapter considers a second major structural feature of the American system potentially affected by transatlantic regulatory cooperation: the separation of powers. It focuses on the central role that the US President has historically played in advancing forms of international cooperation via the use of executive agreements, i.e. international compacts signed by the President without the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, as is constitutionally required for treaties. Nearly all trade-related agreements entered into by the United States in fact take the form of executive agreements. This chapter questions the ‘discourse of executive expediency’ that has been used to justify deviation from constitutionally mandated treaty procedures, and concludes that executive agreements, in light of serious questions as to their legal effect, are in fact a poor instrument for implementing regulatory cooperation.
