A Discussion of Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels' Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 148-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antje Schwennicke
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Folk Theory ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rational Voter ◽  
Rational Preferences ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
The U.S

Liberal democracy is often viewed by its supporters as a system of government that responds to the informed and rational preferences of the public organized as voters. And liberal democracy is often viewed by its critics as a system that fails to respond to the informed and rational preferences of its citizens. In this book Larry Bartels and Chris Achen draw on decades of research to argue that a “realistic” conception of democracy cannot be centered on the idea of a “rational voter,” and that the ills of contemporary democracies, and especially democracy in the U.S., must be sought in the dynamics that link voters, political parties and public policy in ways that reproduce inequality. “We believe,” write the authors, “that abandoning the folk theory of democracy is a prerequisite to both greater intellectual clarity and real political change. Too many democratic reformers have squandered their energy on misguided or quixotic ideas.”

A Discussion of Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels' Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 157-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Sabl
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Folk Theory ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rational Voter ◽  
Rational Preferences ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
The U.S

Liberal democracy is often viewed by its supporters as a system of government that responds to the informed and rational preferences of the public organized as voters. And liberal democracy is often viewed by its critics as a system that fails to respond to the informed and rational preferences of its citizens. In this book Larry Bartels and Chris Achen draw on decades of research to argue that a “realistic” conception of democracy cannot be centered on the idea of a “rational voter,” and that the ills of contemporary democracies, and especially democracy in the U.S., must be sought in the dynamics that link voters, political parties and public policy in ways that reproduce inequality. “We believe,” write the authors, “that abandoning the folk theory of democracy is a prerequisite to both greater intellectual clarity and real political change. Too many democratic reformers have squandered their energy on misguided or quixotic ideas.”

A Discussion of Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels' Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-160
Author(s):  
Isabela Mares
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Folk Theory ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rational Voter ◽  
Rational Preferences ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
The U.S

Liberal democracy is often viewed by its supporters as a system of government that responds to the informed and rational preferences of the public organized as voters. And liberal democracy is often viewed by its critics as a system that fails to respond to the informed and rational preferences of its citizens. In this book Larry Bartels and Chris Achen draw on decades of research to argue that a “realistic” conception of democracy cannot be centered on the idea of a “rational voter,” and that the ills of contemporary democracies, and especially democracy in the U.S., must be sought in the dynamics that link voters, political parties and public policy in ways that reproduce inequality. “We believe,” write the authors, “that abandoning the folk theory of democracy is a prerequisite to both greater intellectual clarity and real political change. Too many democratic reformers have squandered their energy on misguided or quixotic ideas.”

A Discussion of Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels'Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-156
Author(s):  
Neil Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Folk Theory ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rational Voter ◽  
Rational Preferences ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
The U.S

Liberal democracy is often viewed by its supporters as a system of government that responds to the informed and rational preferences of the public organized as voters. And liberal democracy is often viewed by its critics as a system that fails to respond to the informed and rational preferences of its citizens. In this book Larry Bartels and Chris Achen draw on decades of research to argue that a “realistic” conception of democracy cannot be centered on the idea of a “rational voter,” and that the ills of contemporary democracies, and especially democracy in the U.S., must be sought in the dynamics that link voters, political parties and public policy in ways that reproduce inequality. “We believe,” write the authors, “that abandoning the folk theory of democracy is a prerequisite to both greater intellectual clarity and real political change. Too many democratic reformers have squandered their energy on misguided or quixotic ideas.”

A Discussion of Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 152-153
Author(s):  
Elizabeth F. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Folk Theory ◽  
The Public ◽  
Rational Voter ◽  
Rational Preferences ◽  
Theory Of Democracy ◽  
The U.S

Liberal democracy is often viewed by its supporters as a system of government that responds to the informed and rational preferences of the public organized as voters. And liberal democracy is often viewed by its critics as a system that fails to respond to the informed and rational preferences of its citizens. In this book Larry Bartels and Chris Achen draw on decades of research to argue that a “realistic” conception of democracy cannot be centered on the idea of a “rational voter,” and that the ills of contemporary democracies, and especially democracy in the U.S., must be sought in the dynamics that link voters, political parties and public policy in ways that reproduce inequality. “We believe,” write the authors, “that abandoning the folk theory of democracy is a prerequisite to both greater intellectual clarity and real political change. Too many democratic reformers have squandered their energy on misguided or quixotic ideas.”

scholarly journals Agenda-setting and Public Policy in Private Foundations

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Kate Williamson ◽  
Belinda Luke
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Agenda Setting ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Philanthropic Foundations ◽  
Policy Influence ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Foundations ◽  
Social Causes ◽  
The U.S

AbstractThis paper examines advocacy, agenda-setting and the public policy focus of private philanthropic foundations in Australia. While concerns have been raised regarding advocacy and public policy influence of foundations in countries such as the U.S., less is understood on this issue in other contexts. Interviews were conducted with 11 managers and trustees of 10 Private Ancillary Funds (PAFs) in late 2014. Analysis of publicly available data on the participating PAFs was then undertaken comparing PAF information available at the time of the interviews with that available approximately five years later, to consider any changes in the public communication of their agendas. Findings reveal PAFs’ agendas were largely consistent with public policy but may vary in the approaches to address social causes. Further, a preference for privacy indicates the PAF sector may be characterised as ‘quiet philanthropy’ rather than having a visible public presence. As such, PAFs’ advocacy focused on promoting philanthropy, rather than altering or influencing public policy. Our main contention is that the conceptions of advocacy in structured philanthropy are dominated by the obvious, the outliers and the noisy. Our contribution to the philanthropic literature is a more nuanced and broader discussion of how advocacy and agenda-setting occurs and is understood in the mainstream.

The People and the Constitution

2018 ◽  
pp. 46-74
Author(s):  
Roman David ◽  
Ian Holliday
Keyword(s):  
Survey Data ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
Majority Rule ◽  
Political Change ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Survey Experiment ◽  
Military Rule ◽  
The Public ◽  
The People ◽  
Constitutional System

Myanmar’s transition is taking place within a constitutional setting devised by the preceding junta and reflecting a military reading of rule by the people, termed discipline-flourishing democracy. This chapter examines the extent to which the country’s constitutional system is an obstacle to greater democratization, the degree to which its institutions are viewed by the public as legitimate, and the intensity with which the public demands deeper political change. First, it traces the roots of constitutionalism in Myanmar. Second, it evaluates fundamental aspects of the current constitution, focusing on provisions for majority rule and a separation of powers. Third, it draws on survey data to investigate popular assessments of the transitional political system and aspirations for democracy. Fourth, it assesses prescribed methods for forming the legislature, and uses a survey experiment to isolate popular preferences for generating an assembly fitting standards of liberal democracy, hybridity, and military rule. Finally, it turns to the executive and explores perceptions of constitutional restrictions imposed on the presidency.

Patronage and Public Administration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Panizza ◽  
B. Guy Peters ◽  
Conrado Ramos Larraburu
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Appointees ◽  
Public Resources

The concept of patronage refers to the power of political actors to appoint trusted individuals by discretion to nonelective positions in the public sector. This proposed new definition avoids an exclusive association with less developed countries and recognizes the presence of patronage in modern democracies, drawing a distinction with broader terms such as clientelism and politicization. Patronage differs from clientelism because the reasons for providing patronage include a list of other motives beyond the classic particularistic allocation of public resources. At the same time, patronage is not strictly equal to politicization, as this definition reduces the influence that politicians exert on the administrative machinery to a distribution of posts. In specifying what patronage is in narrower terms, this definition merges two different literatures, one associated with institutions and political parties, and another with bureaucracies, public policy, and governance issues. Even though the meritocratic civil service is a hallmark of modern democracies, the presence of political appointees in these societies is universal. Patronage provides some benefits for governance, and any normative assessment of this type of appointment should consider the costs and benefits of this practice within each particular political and cultural context.

Who is Afraid of the Total Constitution? Constitutional Rights as Principles and the Constitutionalization of Private Law

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Kumm
Keyword(s):  
Political Parties ◽  
Liberal Democracy ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
Political Mobilization ◽  
Carl Schmitt ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Public ◽  
Total Prevalence ◽  
Total State

In 1931 Carl Schmitt published an article titled “the turn to the total state.” The total state that Schmitt describes is not yet a totalitarian state. Germany is still a liberal democracy and the Weimar Constitution is still the supreme law of the land. But the total state Schmitt describes is a state in which the traditional lines between the sphere in which the private law society governs itself and the sphere of state intervention, or the public domain, have been undermined. According to Schmitt, the pluralistic forces of civil society have captured the state and made it an instrument to serve their purposes. Everything is up for grabs politically. It is a state of political mobilization and deep ideological conflict, reflected in the plurality of deeply divided political parties in parliament. It is possible to distinguish between three features, which together illustrate the total prevalence of politics over law underlying “the turn to the total state.”

scholarly journals Weapons of the Meek

2015 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna GrzyMala-Busse
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
Common Good ◽  
National Interest ◽  
Moral Authority ◽  
Colonial Power ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common Good ◽  
Electoral Support ◽  
The Common

How do churches influence public policy and why does their influence vary across similarly religious societies? Prevalent accounts focus on the mobilization of voter demand and coalitions with political parties that offer policy concessions in exchange for electoral support. This article argues, by contrast, that such strategies are both risky and costly, and it demonstrates instead the power of direct institutional access for writing legislation, vetting officials, and even running sectors of the state. Such institutional access is available only to churches with high moral authority: those perceived by the public as representing the common good and the national interest. Churches in Christian democracies have gained such moral authority by defending the nation against a foreign regime, state, or colonial power. In short, churches are most influential when they have the high moral authority to obtain direct institutional access—thus avoiding popular backlash against overt and partisan church politicking.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document