8. The Deliberation Process

1983 ◽  
pp. 151-174
Keyword(s):  
Deliberation Process

scholarly journals ENTRY-LEVEL ENTREPRENEURS AND THE CHOICE-OF-ENTITY CHALLENGE

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Ann Satterthwaite
Keyword(s):  
Real Option ◽  
Lower Income ◽  
Option Value ◽  
Entry Level ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
New Business ◽  
Tax Savings ◽  
First Time ◽  
Real Option Value ◽  
Future Growth

For first-time, lower-income and credit-constrained entrepreneurs (“entry-level entrepreneurs”), the employment tax savings proffered by a longstanding tax shelter known as the “Sub-S Shelter” can be particularly salient. Such hypersalience is problematic from a policy perspective. It not only increases the costs and complexity of the entry-level entrepreneur’s deliberation process concerning the appropriate entity for her business, but it distorts her incentives to choose the entity that best supports her business’s future growth. I argue that because the hypersalience of the Sub-Shelter is likely to be more pronounced for entry-level entrepreneurs than for entrepreneurs with more experience or better access to capital, the burdens of the shelter are distributionally regressive. As an alternative to full-scale reforms that would eliminate the demand for the Sub-S Shelter but may be politically infeasible, I suggest that the shelter’s regressive hypersalience can be addressed by government measures to provide choice-of-entity information tailored to the needs and concerns of entry-level entrepreneurs. Such targeted information can mitigate the hypersalience of the Sub-S Shelter by underscoring the risks of relying on it, while highlighting the real option value of choosing a more flexible business entity such as an LLC. By nudging entry-level entrepreneurs towards neutrality in regard to their choice-of-entity decisions, this approach has the potential to improve both the efficiency and the equity of a key step in formalizing a new business. 

Law-Making by and for the People: A Case for Pre-legislative Processes in India

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-206
Author(s):  
Dipika Jain
Keyword(s):  
Citizen Participation ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Marginalized Communities ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Societal Needs ◽  
The People ◽  
Transgender Persons ◽  
Law Making

Abstract Recent legislative trends in India reflect the need for a mandatory pre-legislative process. Pre-legislative consultation affords the benefit of legitimacy to laws arrived at through citizen participation. Furthermore, it informs decision-makers of the lived experiences of those most likely impacted by the legislation. Laws that receive pre-legislative consultation are attuned to realities, which increases the likelihood of their effectiveness. This article explores how several of India’s recent laws that received pre-legislative consultation have been rendered more robust and effective than others. As exemplified by current protests by transgender, intersex and gender non-conforming people in India, the Government’s most recent Transgender Bill, which neglected pre-legislative deliberation process, fails the people it purports to protect. As explored in this article, the Bill fails to uphold constitutionally protected principles, as recognized in the recent Supreme Court case that upheld transgender persons’ fundamental rights. As such, the Transgender Bill reflects a need to engage with the intrinsic and instrumental value of pre-legislative consultation and deliberation in India. In locating transnational trends towards employing such a process, this article argues that India would greatly benefit from mandatory pre-legislative consultation and deliberation. By creating a process that allows for citizen participation in law-making, particularly when such laws impact marginalized communities, legislation would reflect societal needs and eschew a top-down, majoritarian approach.

Why Should Public Hearings in the Brazilian Supreme Court be Understood as an Innovative Democratic Tool in Constitutional Adjudication?

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 657-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thiago Luis Sombra
Keyword(s):  
Social Issue ◽  
Civil Society ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Technical Aspect ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
Constitutional Adjudication

AbstractThis Article engages in an empirical analysis of the counter-majoritarian role of the Brazilian Supreme Court, the Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), in terms of its sharp contrast with the aim of attracting wider participation from civil society in public hearings. Public hearings are an important judicial tool that have recently been introduced and that may influence foreign constitutional courts. A public hearing is a procedure in which the STF can hear experts, scientists, professors, civil servants, and even ordinary citizens when a Justice Rapporteur seeks to elucidate a specific technical aspect of a case, a controversial social issue, or an issue in a field that is generally unfamiliar to the presiding judge or judges. This research aims to address the influence of these public hearings on the deliberation process of the STF based on the democratic theory of representation. First, Section B outlines the main premises of the debate, elucidated the purposes and findings of public hearings. Next, Section C presents a theoretical approach addressing deliberation and representation to explain how information obtained in public hearings might improve the STF's adjudicative process. Section D outlines the chosen criteria and methods for the empirical research; this will demonstrate that public hearings in the STF are not working as envisioned. Lastly, to offer qualitative insight, Section E carefully examines two of the eighteen public hearings analyzed. The Article concludes that the STF has much work to do in terms of rethinking and improving the functionality of public hearings.

Game Theoretical Approach to Model Decision Making for Merging Maneuvers at Freeway On-Ramps

2017 ◽  
Vol 2623 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyungwon Kang ◽  
Hesham A. Rakha
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Theoretical Approach ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Optimization Approach ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Game Theoretical Approach ◽  
The Subject

Drivers of merging vehicles decide when to merge by considering surrounding vehicles in adjacent lanes in their deliberation process. Conflicts between drivers of the subject vehicles (i.e., merging vehicles) in an auxiliary lane and lag vehicles in the adjacent lane are typical near freeway on-ramps. This paper models a decision-making process for merging maneuvers that uses a game theoretical approach. The proposed model is based on the noncooperative decision making of two players, that is, drivers of the subject and lag vehicles, without consideration of advanced communication technologies. In the decision-making process, the drivers of the subject vehicles elect to accept gaps, and drivers of lag vehicles either yield or block the action of the subject vehicle. Corresponding payoff functions for two players were formulated to describe their respective maneuvers. To estimate model parameters, a bi-level optimization approach was used. The next generation simulation data set was used for model calibration and validation. The data set defined the moment the game started and was modeled as a continuous sequence of games until a decision is made. The defined merging decision-making model was then validated with an independent data set. The validation results reveal that the proposed model provides considerable prediction accuracy with correct predictions 84% of the time.

scholarly journals Embedding explained jury verdicts in the English criminal trial

Legal Studies ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 786-806
Author(s):  
Mark Coen ◽  
Jonathan Doak
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
Jury Verdicts ◽  
Fundamental Value

English juries do not provide reasons for their verdicts. This paper argues that transparency is a fundamental value in modern decision making, and that reform is needed to trial by jury so that verdicts are routinely accompanied by explanations. It examines the options that exist to incorporate explained verdicts in the English criminal trial and concludes that accountability and legitimacy would be enhanced through the use of a trained, independent lay facilitator to chair the deliberation process and draft an explained verdict.

Health zones in Oregon: Exploring an ethical deliberation process in county public health

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 35-42 ◽  
Author(s):  
K.M. Dirksen ◽  
S.D. Present ◽  
P. Mason ◽  
D. Emerick
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
County Public Health

scholarly journals La consolidación del Estado evaluador a través de políticas de rendición de cuentas: Trayectoria, producción y tensiones en el sistema educativo

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lluís Parcerisa ◽  
Alejandra Falabella
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Interesting Case ◽  
Adoption Process ◽  
Window Of Opportunity ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Deliberation Process ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
The Right

Chile is a particularly interesting case to study the introduction of accountability policies. During the 2000s decade, Chile intensified these measures to try to address the failures of a highly deregulated school market system. This article examines the adoption process of accountability policies and the consolidation of the Evaluative State through the construction of the National System of Quality Assurance of Education during the period 2006-2011. Theoretically, the article is based on the “politics and semiotics of policy adoption” approach. Methodologically, it examines documents associated with the policy (official speeches, laws, parliamentary discussions, reports, governmental documents), and draws on 27 semi-structured interviews with those involved in the production of the policy (policy-makers, Ministry officials, parliamentarians, advisers and technicians). The article examines the development of the policy process, the factors that opened a “window of opportunity” to consolidate the accountability model, the discursive disputes that emerged during the deliberation process, and the emergence of accountability policies as a policy approach that seduced both the right and the center-left. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document