Search

Political theorists have been framing the problems of unfreedom and domination at work as inconsistent with the requirements of political democracy, undermining the democratic potential of the workplace and inducing psychological and status harm. Although these are important insights, political theorists are often unwilling to frame the hierarchical workplace as an issue of distributive justice. This paper, by bringing in the empirical literature on work autonomy, offers a framework to explicate the relationship between freedom at work and the distribution of essential goods at paid work. Through such framework, the paper argues that procedural and substantive freedom at work are essential to the fair distribution of the goods of work. By examining the empirical literature, the paper further argues that there exists a polarization of the goods of work between high-skilled and low-skilled labor, and the polarization offers a pro-tanto justification of workplace democracy for the least advantaged workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses why on the one hand William Edmundson thinks that market socialism is superior to property-owning democracy, while on the other hand Alan Thomas thinks that an egalitarian version of property-owning democracy is superior to market socialism. For the purpose of this discussion, the concepts of property-owning democracy and market socialism are systematized and it is argued that those concepts, as understood by Rawls, do not exhaust the list of possible alternatives to capitalism and state socialism. Economic democracy, understood as mandatory workplace democracy, will be introduced as a middle ground, somewhat closer to market socialism than property-owning democracy. Against this background, it is argued that questions of transition and stability are important for deciding between these regimes and the importance of two realistic constraints in making this choice, namely egoism of powerful agents and path-dependency in institutional design, is highlighted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political theorists are familiar with the proposition that social capital in the form of trust, membership in voluntary organizations, and community engagement, is conducive to democracy. Corroborating empirical evidence exists but it is patchy and inconclusive because it is usually based on aggregate, often country-level data or isolated case studies, and the identified relationship is associative rather than causal. In this paper, I use some of the most recent large-scale micro-level datasets to establish that the relationship between social capital and democracy is indeed strong and causal as predicted by theory. I find that citizens who have more trust in others, attend community meetings, and belong to voluntary organizations tend to prefer democracy to any other kind of governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper clarifies the usage of Albert Hirschman's categories of market behaviour as of exit and voice in debates about workplace democracy by taking seriously his critique of the neoclassical analysis of competition. Pro-market liberals are generally hostile to the idea of workplace democracy and tend to favour top-down hierarchies as a way of organising labour. This hostility is generally inspired by the neoclassical analysis of exploitation and efficiency, which leads them to defend distributions achieved through exit-based competitive equilibria. Following Hirschman, I propose to consider a hypothetical alternative: a democratic equilibrium, reached through the use of voice. I show that it would present the same appealing characteristics than its competitive counterpart while also accounting for the non-ideal conditions in which markets operate. Support for free markets should entail support for workplace democracy minimally understood as a strengthening of voice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the International Panel on Social Progress and expounds key ideas from its first report, Rethinking Society for the 21st Century (Cambridge University Press, 2018). It emphasizes the importance of three dimensions of progress on which serious challenges need to be addressed: equity, freedom and sustainability. Addressing these challenges primarily requires reforming power and governance structures in the economy, society, and politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores what South African township youth presented as significant elements in their identity shaping. The youth participants were invited to take photographs and engage in reflective writing to explain the significance of what they had photographed. The theoretical framework is post modern and post apartheid views of identity, where language is the medium for expressing experiences, feelings and identity. We used a methodological framework of participatory research, in which participants engage in the process of research actively by reflecting on the lives of their own or their communities. Thirteen previously disadvantaged Grade 11 students took photos every day for a week. After which the students selected their most significant photos to write their narratives. This paper focuses on the texts that the students wrote to explain their photographs. The students' photos and texts showed that democracy, family, present context and culture, have most influence on young people's lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2007, when Mexico City decriminalized abortion during the first trimester, a debate has been taking place regarding abortion and the right to conscientious objection (CO). Many people argue that, since the provision of abortions (or "legal terminations of pregnancy" as they are called under Mexico City's law) is now a statutory duty of healthcare personnel there can be no place for "conscientious objection." Others claim that, even if such an objection were to be allowed, it should not be seen as a right, since talk about a right to CO may lead to a slippery slope where we may end up recognizing a right to disobey the law. In this paper, I argue that there is a right to CO and that this may be justified through the notions of autonomy and integrity, which a liberal democracy should respect. However, it cannot be an absolute right, and in the case of abortion, it conflicts with women's reproductive rights. Therefore, CO should be carefully regulated so that it does not obstruct the exercise of women's reproductive rights. Regulation should address questions about who is entitled to object, how such objection should take place, and what can legitimately be objected to. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dewey was perhaps the foremost theorist and advocate of participatory democracy as an ethical ideal based on a belief and faith in human experience as a general theory of education that would generate the requisite aims and methods for what he called ‘organized intelligence’ and what we might call today ‘collective intelligence’ – that is, as he says, ‘faith in democracy is all one with faith in experience and education’. In this paper we revisit Dewey’sDemocracy and Education. An introduction to the philosophy of education(1916/2001) in order to evaluate the growth and development of democracy against the decline of social democracy in the West. We identify the three turns which separate democracy of Dewey’s times and democracy of today – the global, the ecological, and the digital turn – and relate them to changing notions of citizenship. We analyse complex interplay between the turns, and show that they cannot be understood and / or analysed in separation. While the identified turns have indeed significantly changed circumstances in which Dewey produced his understanding of democracy, we conclude that his work still carries a lot of value and call for its reinvention in and for the age of digital reason. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I sustain that the discourse of economics has become one of the most substantial contributors to the erosion of the democratic ideal. The first argument used in this case against economics concerns its attempt to be considered a neo-naturalistic science; the second, the fact that economics considers democracy contradictory to the expression of its scientific rationality and; the third, the fact that economics crowds out people from decision-making processes by pushing them into the hands of experts. Because partisan political programmes have essentially become economic programmes, economics should contribute to substantive democracy. In order to do so, an alternative discourse to mainstream economics must be proposed. An economics favourable to substantive democracy should, thereby, be political rather than naturalistic, pluralist rather than monist and, instead of crowding out people from decisions processes, should aim at the co-production of economic knowledge with those concerned by the outcome of economic decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]