Closely related, the sites of collective decision making are increasingly differentiated. In the developed democracies, markets and market-oriented entities are likely to continue to function as the dynamic sources of change. Governments are increasingly agile
at channeling market forces and incentives, as are civil society organizations. In many cases, these developments dramatically shift the locus of collective decisions away from state- centric models of planning—those that can gather, as it were, sovereignty from the people in order to act in their name—and toward governance models. These issue-based and policy-driven networks of government actors and stakeholders are often more effective than bureaucracies accountable to legislatures, but they lack formal legitimacy and clear representative accountability to those affected by decisions.The landscape of democratic representation is also clouded by the growing complexity of issues, which increasingly strains the powers of representative agents, and thus their capacities to stand for and act on the interests of those they represent. There is the familiar technical and scientific complexity that comes with the vast amounts of information and high levels of technology involved in most pub- lic decisions (Zolo 1992, Brown 2006, Beck 1997), which is often compounded by the political complexity that comes with multiple and overlapping constituencies (Andeweg 2003).
As a consequence of these developments, the standard account has been stretched to the breaking point. Among the most fundamental of problems, ironically, is the very element that ushered in democratic representation— residency-based electoral representation. The claim of any state to represent its citizens— its claim to sovereignty on behalf of the people—is contestable, not because states do not encompass peoples, but because collective issues only partially admit of this kind of constituency definition. Electoral representation continues to provide an ultimate reference for state power. But whereas Burke (1968, cf. Manin 1997) imagined that representatives could monopolize considered opinion about public purpose through the use of deliberative judgment, representative assemblies to- day must reach ever further to gather political legitimacy for their decisions. Judging by
Closely related, the sites of collective decision making are increasingly differentiated. In the developed democracies, markets and market-oriented entities are likely to continue to function as the dynamic sources of change. Governments are increasingly agileat channeling market forces and incentives, as are civil society organizations. In many cases, these developments dramatically shift the locus of collective decisions away from state- centric models of planning—those that can gather, as it were, sovereignty from the people in order to act in their name—and toward governance models. These issue-based and policy-driven networks of government actors and stakeholders are often more effective than bureaucracies accountable to legislatures, but they lack formal legitimacy and clear representative accountability to those affected by decisions.The landscape of democratic representation is also clouded by the growing complexity of issues, which increasingly strains the powers of representative agents, and thus their capacities to stand for and act on the interests of those they represent. There is the familiar technical and scientific complexity that comes with the vast amounts of information and high levels of technology involved in most pub- lic decisions (Zolo 1992, Brown 2006, Beck 1997), which is often compounded by the political complexity that comes with multiple and overlapping constituencies (Andeweg 2003).As a consequence of these developments, the standard account has been stretched to the breaking point. Among the most fundamental of problems, ironically, is the very element that ushered in democratic representation— residency-based electoral representation. The claim of any state to represent its citizens— its claim to sovereignty on behalf of the people—is contestable, not because states do not encompass peoples, but because collective issues only partially admit of this kind of constituency definition. Electoral representation continues to provide an ultimate reference for state power. But whereas Burke (1968, cf. Manin 1997) imagined that representatives could monopolize considered opinion about public purpose through the use of deliberative judgment, representative assemblies to- day must reach ever further to gather political legitimacy for their decisions. Judging by
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""
Closely related, the sites of collective decision making are increasingly differentiated. In the developed democracies, markets and market-oriented entities are likely to continue to function as the dynamic sources of change. Governments are increasingly agile
at channeling market forces and incentives, as are civil society organizations. In many cases, these developments dramatically shift the locus of collective decisions away from state- centric models of planning—those that can gather, as it were, sovereignty from the people in order to act in their name—and toward governance models. These issue-based and policy-driven networks of government actors and stakeholders are often more effective than bureaucracies accountable to legislatures, but they lack formal legitimacy and clear representative accountability to those affected by decisions.The landscape of democratic representation is also clouded by the growing complexity of issues, which increasingly strains the powers of representative agents, and thus their capacities to stand for and act on the interests of those they represent. There is the familiar technical and scientific complexity that comes with the vast amounts of information and high levels of technology involved in most pub- lic decisions (Zolo 1992, Brown 2006, Beck 1997), which is often compounded by the political complexity that comes with multiple and overlapping constituencies (Andeweg 2003).
As a consequence of these developments, the standard account has been stretched to the breaking point. Among the most fundamental of problems, ironically, is the very element that ushered in democratic representation— residency-based electoral representation. The claim of any state to represent its citizens— its claim to sovereignty on behalf of the people—is contestable, not because states do not encompass peoples, but because collective issues only partially admit of this kind of constituency definition. Electoral representation continues to provide an ultimate reference for state power. But whereas Burke (1968, cf. Manin 1997) imagined that representatives could monopolize considered opinion about public purpose through the use of deliberative judgment, representative assemblies to- day must reach ever further to gather political legitimacy for their decisions. Judging by
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98aba/98abadb1435b0cfbe63f2dabdddc22693678da81" alt=""