Search

The legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) as institutions for social and environmental governance in the global economy has received much scholarly attention over the past years. To date, however, research has yet to focus on assessing the legitimacy of MSIs in their interactions with other actors within larger systems of deliberation. Drawing on the deliberative systems perspective developed within deliberative democracy theory, we theorise a normative framework to evaluate the roles of MSIs within the broader systems of governance they co-construct through their interactions with other initiatives, governments, non-governmental organisations, and other external actors. As we demonstrate in our evaluation of the illustrative case of the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety as a MSI in the context of the Bangladeshi garment industry, this framework can help researchers assess whether a MSI ultimately serves to enhance or undermine the deliberative legitimacy of the overall system of which it forms a part. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Biosimilars are highly similar, but not identical, versions of originator biologic medications. Switching patients to biosimilars presents an opportunity to mitigate rising drug costs and expand patient access to important biologic therapies. However, decreased patient acceptance and adherence to biosimilar medications have been reported, which can lead to loss of treatment response, adverse reactions, and inefficient resource utilization. Understanding patient perceptions of biosimilars and biosimilar switching is needed to inform patient-centered care strategies that promote efficient resource utilization. Methods: We used democratic deliberation methods to solicit the informed and considered opinions of patients regarding biosimilar switching. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; n = 29) from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) participated in 5-hour deliberation sessions over two days. Following educational presentations with experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions. Transcripts and facilitators’ notes were used to identify key themes. Participants completed surveys pre- and post-deliberation to collect sociodemographic and clinical features as well as to assess IBD treatment knowledge and attitudes toward care and approaches to biosimilar switching. Results: Five major themes emerged from the small group discussions in the context of biosimilar switching: 1) concerns about adverse consequences and unclear risk-benefit balance; (2) importance of communication and transparency; (3) desire for shared decision making and patient involvement in treatment decisions; (4) balancing cost-saving with competing priorities; and (5) advocating for individualized care and prioritization based on risk levels. These views led participants to favor approaches that prioritize switching the sickest patients last (i.e., those with poorly controlled disease) and that offer patients control and choices around biosimilar switching. Participants also expressed preferences for combining elements of different approaches to maximize fairness. Conclusions: Approaches to biosimilar switching should consider patients’ desires for transparency and effective communication about biosimilar switching and engagement in their medical decision-making as part of patient-centered care. Incorporating patient preferences around biosimilar switching is critical when navigating the quality and affordability of care in resource constrained settings, both within the VHA and in other healthcare systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This paper reports on a small-scale Citizens' Panel pilot project using deliberative democratic methods to produce policy ideas about inclusion in school education of young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEN/D) in England. The project had two aims: (i) to obtain information about modifying a Citizens' Panel process to enhance the effective participation of young people with SEN/D; and (ii) to generate more nuanced, grounded and integrated policy ideas about inclusion than can be found in recent English school education policy. Methods: The Citizens' Panel was a two phase deliberative process. Phase 1 involved working with six young people with SEN/D and their parents/carers to shape the Citizens' Panel agenda, and to obtain information about how they could participate and communicate their perspectives during the events. Phase 2 involved the delivery of the Citizens' Panel itself, which comprised 28 people: the six young people from phase 1, plus four young people without SEN/D, 13 parents/carers, and five education professionals. Results: The process evaluation revealed the need for and impact of meticulous planning using a differentiated and strengths-based approach to design. While participants reported that taking part in the Citizens' Panel was overall, a positive and worthwhile experience, the differentiated approach involved trade-offs that affected the experiences of some participants without SEN/D, though not detrimentally. The panel produced distinctive ideas about more inclusive schools, where almost all of the themes were about general school changes for everyone. Most general themes involved some specific SEN/D aspects, with only one theme being SEN/D specific. This paper illustrates how these ideas are more nuanced, grounded and integrated than those in current national policy. Discussion: This paper provides evidence of how deliberative approaches can be used within and between schools, groups of schools (e.g., multi academy trusts), local networks (including local authorities), as well as at the national level. Lessons drawn show how deliberative methods used by advocacy groups, protest movements and non-governmental organisations in support of more transformational change can be developed in ways that enable young people with SEN/D to participate and have their voices heard. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nexus between democracy and peace in Africa is examined by applying data to 42 sub‐Saharan African (SSA) countries between 2008 and 2020. The study used panel regression techniques that include Ordinary Least Squares, the Tobit regression to account for the limited range of the dependent variable, and the System Generalized Method of Moments to account for endogeneity bias. Using seven indicators of democracy, which include electoral democracy, liberal democracy, participatory democracy, deliberative democracy, egalitarian democracy, a total democracy index derived from principal component analysis, and the Polity2 score, and using the global peace index as a proxy for peace, our findings show that all the indicators of democracy, irrespective of the model, have a positive and significant influence on peace in SSA. The result has underscored the importance of advancing democratic practices and values to promote sustainable peace and stability in the region. Related Articles: Antwi‐Boateng, Osman. 2015. "No Spring in Africa: How Sub‐Saharan Africa Has Avoided the Arab Spring Phenomenon." Politics & Policy 43(5): 754–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12129. Asongu, Simplice A., Cheikh T. Ndour, and Judith C. M. Ngoungou. 2024. "The Effects of Gender Political Inclusion and Democracy on Environmental Performance: Evidence from the Method of Moments by Quantile Regression." Politics & Policy, 52(1), 118–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12576. Ryan, Susannah. 2015. "White Gold and Troubled Waters in Southern Africa: Hydropolitical Policy's Effect on Peace in Lesotho and South Africa." Politics & Policy 4(2): 239–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12114. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper, in a nutshell, is a plea for community participation in research along with an adapted idea for how such participation should be shaped and understood. I will give varied examples of the ways in which scientists viewing a perceived problem solely from an external perspective has led to mistakes. If we do not properly take into account the knowledge and values of people with a condition, we are liable to pursue the wrong sorts of treatments. In particular, I provide examples of three ways (exemplified in the cases of "female hysteria", autism, and chronic fatigue syndrome) scientists are liable to pursue treatment of what they perceive to be at least partially mental illnesses that they/we shouldn't. I present the idea of deliberative research —the concept is based on that of deliberative democracy. The idea of deliberative democracy is that decisions should be made on the basis of reasons that would be acceptable to the target population. I similarly argue that research decisions should be made on the basis of reasons that would be acceptable to the target population, even if it requires other experts to determine how those reasons are best to be respected in the context of a particular project. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper advances the understanding of the linkages between trust in government and citizen participation in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) using machine learning techniques and Latinobarómetro 2023 data. Empirically, we predict citizen participation based on trust levels, characteristics and circumstances of citizens. Proponents of the concept of stealth democracy argue that an inverse relationship exists between political trust and citizen participation, while deliberative democracy theorists claim the opposite. Based on our estimates, trust in national governments and other governmental institutions play neither a dominant nor consistent role in driving political participation. Interest in politics, personal circumstances such as experience of crime, and socioeconomic characteristics appear to drive citizen participation much more strongly in LAC. This is true across models imposing simple linear trends (Logit and Lasso) and those allowing for complex relations (decision trees). Results vary across types of participation—signing a petition, participation in demonstrations, or involvement in community issues. Ultimately, political trust can only influence political participation when certain other drivers are combined in some specific ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on deliberative democracy that contains a detailed discussion of its relationship to justice in Indigenous territory is limited. Through a case study of the controversy over a solar energy project on Kanaluvang tribal land in Taiwan, this article explores how issues of energy justice are constructed in multiple communication and deliberative sites of the governance system and the role of Indigenous activism and deliberation in addressing energy injustice. The research methods used are documentary analysis and in-depth interviews. The study presents a discursive narrative on the interconnected nature of the climate–energy–biodiversity nexus and how Indigenous activism creates deliberative spaces which reinforce Indigenous empowered space and oriented toward social learning and respect for tribal sovereignty. Indigenous activism and deliberation illuminate the emancipatory elements of Indigenous energy justice. It is crucial to connect multiple forms of tribal communication to the wider democratic system in the pursuit of energy justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dados - Revista de Ciências Sociais is the property of DADOS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This study focuses on digital platforms, such as Google or Meta, that function as "gatekeepers" that dominate their respective markets. They face serious moral legitimacy issues, due to their power to act as private rule-makers in underregulated digital spheres. Such legitimacy issues have remained underexplored thus far, as have gatekeepers' options for addressing them. Yet moral legitimacy represents a vital resource for organizations, as a justification of their essential right to exist. Drawing on recent advances in political corporate social responsibility theory, this study offers a systematic conceptualization of how gatekeepers can exhibit ethical responsibility in their efforts to gain, maintain, and sustain their moral legitimacy. This systematic conceptualization encompasses different agreement-seeking procedures, online deliberation, a hybrid governance approach that combines regulation and self-regulation, and the provision of public goods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Political Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), based on ideas about deliberative democracy, have been criticised for increasing corporate power and democratic deficits. Yet, deliberative ideals are flourishing in the corporate world in the form of dialogues with a broad set of stakeholders and engagement in wider societal issues. Extractive industry areas, with extensive corporate interventions in weak regulatory environments, are particularly vulnerable to asymmetrical power relations when businesses engage with society. This paper aims to illustrate in what way deliberative CSR practices in such contexts risk enhancing corporate power at the expense of community interests. Design/methodology/approach: This paper is based on a retrospective qualitative study of a Canadian oil company, operating in an Albanian oilfield between 2009 and 2016. Through a study of three different deliberative CSR practices – market-based land acquisition, a grievance redress mechanism and dialogue groups – it highlights how these practices in various ways enforced corporate interests and prevented further community mobilisation. Findings: By applying Laclau and Mouffe's theory of hegemony, the analysis highlights how deliberative CSR activities isolated and silenced community demands, moved some community members into the corporate alliance and prevented alternative visions of the area to be articulated. In particular, the close connection between deliberative practices and monetary compensation flows is underlined in this dynamic. Originality/value: The paper contributes to critical scholarship on political CSR by highlighting in what way deliberative practices, linked to monetary compensation schemes, enforce corporate hegemony by moving community members over to the corporate alliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the relationship between Australia's Indigenous and settler colonial systems of democracy through the lens of deliberative systems theory. It suggests that the ongoing effects of colonialism have rendered Indigenous democracy largely invisible causing a harmful divide in Australia's democracies. A pluralist conception of democracy is necessary to understand the disconnect between the two systems, evidenced by a striking absence of literature on Australian Indigenous democracy. In response, this paper first theorizes a conceptual framework of a concurrent deliberative system, then describes the Indigenous deliberative system and the colonial system's efforts to eliminate Indigenous democracy. Against this theoretical and empirical background, it considers whether the recent referendum for an Indigenous Voice to Parliament was just a colonial legacy or represented a pathway towards a shared postcolonial democratic future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article aims to explore how Brazilian city-level public officials have used citizens' assemblies to implement climate policies effectively in communities where other emergencies require political action. We analyze the implementation of citizens' assemblies on climate change in three Brazilian cities in different regions, with distinct demographic densities, social development rates, and mayors' political affiliations. Cities are where people experience the most consequences of climate change. In the Brazilian context, the Bolsonaro federal administration has weakened both environmental and citizen participation policies. This adds to previously known challenges for policy making in the issue, including countering the interests of some industries and the construction sector. Citizens' assemblies are a democratic innovation that promotes the inclusion of the population in the development of public policies, particularly in times of democratic crisis. In this study, we examine the implementation process of citizens' assemblies in Brazil through interviews and documentary analysis of experiences implemented by the Brazilian NGO Delibera Brasil. This research offers valuable insights into the role of citizens' assemblies as catalysts for informed and participatory climate policymaking in Brazilian municipalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In times of crisis it is even more important to ensure that political decisions have broad, popular and trusted support from a wide range of people than in normal, non-crisis times. We argue that the best way to achieve this is through the use of deliberative mini-publics, as leaving a crisis response only to our political leaders presents them with almost irresistible opportunities for the arrogation of power, possible corruption, and the use (or abuse) of emergency measures for partisan political point scoring. Having demonstrated the theoretical basis for our argument, which builds on the foundation of deliberative democratic theory, we then address the practical aspects of using informed deliberation within a mini-public during a crisis, when efficacy and speed are the most urgent and challenging aspects of decision making. The obvious solution, to us, is to institutionalize deliberative mini-publics in our democratic structures so that they are ready and able to rapidly address any crisis as it arises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deliberation is typically employed to address difficult issues in society. Since 2021, Thailand has implemented Thailand Talks, an adaptation of the European-initiated My Country Talks platform, to encourage individuals to exchange their different viewpoints on public issues, with the aim of countering polarization in society. This study aims to examine the idea and process utilized in the Thailand Talks 2022. Additionally, it seeks to investigate how Thailand Talks contributes to the development of a deliberative thinking environment across four important aspects: normative, interpretive, affective, and physical. Methodologically, the research conducted in-depth interviews with both platform participants and organizers. The findings indicate that Thailand Talks embodies the idea of listening, connecting with strangers, and conversing with differing opinions. Creating an environment for deliberation in Thailand is difficult since conversation, particularly including differing opinions, is not ingrained in Thai society. However, Thailand Talks has successfully developed aspects of a deliberative thinking environment which enable conversation between individuals, a circumstance that would be unattainable otherwise and in which social hierarchy is disregarded. This study also shows that Thailand Talks can serve as a lesson for other societies on how to promote dialogue and deliberative initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Politica: Tidsskrift for Politisk Videnskab is the property of Politica: Tidsskrift for Politisk Videnskab and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The last decades have witnessed the flourishing of consultative democracy (xieshang minzhu, a concept similar to deliberative democracy) in China, with ambitions for implementing consultative politics and governance. In the West, mainstream deliberative democracy studies largely overlook the fact that deliberation is an elusive and polysemic notion, which develops into various practices in different social and cultural contexts. Therefore, a non-Western-centred approach needs to be adopted to further investigate deliberative experimentation in rural China. Based on the four months of fieldwork conducted in several villages in rural China, this paper argues that China's rural villages have inherited a strong Confucianism-based idea of deliberation and consultation. With case studies from the sociological–political perspective, this paper also aims to shed some new light on the compatibilities between modern democratic governance approaches and the informal, hierarchical and highly moralised forms of public order in the rural Chinese acquaintance society. Incorporating these empirical observations could bridge the gap between Western and Chinese perspectives on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This qualitative research draws on language and social interaction (LSI) approaches to consider how speech culture shapes the practice of deliberation in a country presumed to be a challenging environment for deliberative practices: Israel. Our analysis examines structured deliberative forums conducted by communication students in Israel, to demonstrate how participants reference, use, and orient to both deliberative democracy discourse and Israeli speech culture in ways that enable them to overcome cultural challenges to doing deliberation. We found that participants utilize metadiscourse to take stances that frame cultural challenges of deliberation, negotiate the tensions between deliberative principles and local speech culture, and creatively integrate local speech norms with deliberation. This research contributes to LSI and Political Communication scholarship, by enhancing practical theory of deliberative democracy. The explication of the role of metadiscourse reframes the relationship between culture and deliberation thereby providing new directions for scholars, practitioners, and educators of deliberative democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public administration is the largest part of the democratic state and a key consideration in understanding its legitimacy. Despite this, democratic theory is notoriously quiet about public administration. One exception is deliberative systems theories, which have recognized the importance of public administration and attempted to incorporate it within their orbit. This article examines how deliberative systems approaches have represented (a) the actors and institutions of public administration, (b) its mode of coordination, (c) its key legitimacy functions, (d) its legitimacy relationships, and (e) the possibilities for deliberative intervention. It argues that constructing public administration through the pre-existing conceptual categories of deliberative democracy, largely developed to explain the legitimacy of law-making, has led to some significant omissions and misunderstandings. The article redresses these issues by providing an expanded conceptualization of public administration, connected to the core concerns of deliberative and other democratic theories with democratic legitimacy and democratic reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social inequalities fuel a debate about the meaning of political equality. Formal procedural equality is criticised for reproducing discriminatory outcomes against disadvantaged groups but affirmative action, particularly in the form of group quotas, is also contested. When opposing conceptions of substantive equality support divergent views about which procedural rule genuinely respects political equality, democracies cannot identify a standard or rule of procedural fairness to be widely accepted as fair. This dispute over procedural fairness can carry on indefinitely and could challenge democracy's legitimacy claim. I argue that democracies can renew their legitimacy claim by embracing this debate and by accommodating it through constitutional deliberation that must be as impartial and meaningful as possible. Impartiality ideally requires the presence of every citizen in this process because each of them has a unique and evolving experience of inequality. Meaningful deliberation is about offering periodic opportunities for constitutional reform, allowing for continuous feedback, reflection, and learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We develop an account of societal democratization that synthesizes cultural sociology and deliberative democracy. Cultural sociologists emphasize the symbolic inclusion of marginalized groups into the civil sphere. Deliberative democrats stress growth in the deliberative capacity of society. We argue that democratization entails the co-evolution of culture and reason. The basis of co-evolution is the performative construction of an inclusive demos, which requires a deliberative background but is also a source of the moral emotions that motivate deliberation. Since moral emotions can also sweep people up and make them do reckless things, they must in turn be redeemable in inclusive deliberation. This synthesis sharpens a normative position for the evaluation of episodes of inclusion, extends current accounts of the place of emotion in cultural sociology and deliberative democracy, and provides a frame for comparative analyses of democratization. We illustrate with an examination of the exclusion and inclusion of Indigenous Australians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under conditions of high social and political polarization, expressing political anger online toward systemic injustice faces an apparent trilemma: Express none but lose anger's valuable goods; express anger to heterogeneous audiences but risk aggravating inter-group polarization; or express anger to like-minded people but succumb to the epistemic pitfalls and extremist tendencies inherent to homogeneous groups. Solving the trilemma requires cultivating an online environment as a deliberative system composed of four kinds of groups—each with distinct purposes and norms. I argue that applying empirically-guided design principles to this systems framework provides political anger a place where its powers can serve justice without damaging the epistemic, ethical, emotional, and community resources required for a democratic path to correcting systemic injustice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often claimed that political disinformation is more abundant than ever, that populists are particularly prone to lying, and that we live in an era of post-truth or epistemic relativism. Contrary to these views, we interpret this historical trend as a shift from objective to authentic forms of political truth claims. We develop a diagnostic framework that captures different types of political truth claims and their distinct elements. This framework enables interrogation and understanding of the current state of epistemic contestation and change. The rise of both populist and deliberative approaches to democracy, which we use as key examples, are indicators of a gradual shift towards a greater importance of authenticity in the public sphere. We nuance this proposition by distinguishing between different forms of authenticity employed by populist and deliberative politics: communicative authenticity in deliberative politics and original and personal authenticity in populist politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely assumed that severe mental disabilities prevent relevant deliberative capacities from developing or persisting. Accordingly, excluding many people with mental disabilities from discourse practices seems justified. Against this common assumption I wish to show that the general exclusion is not justified and amounts to a form of epistemic injustice, as theorised by Miranda Fricker. The received norm of capable deliberators is connected to a specific model of deliberation. I introduce an alternative model of deliberation, which I dub the joint effort model. According to this model, people with minority minds (as I call them) add valuable cognitive diversity to the process of deliberation, which is a relevant element of epistemic improvement. In this part of the argument I rely on empirically informed theoretical work by Hélène Landemore. I scrutinise the minimal requirements of capable deliberators from the perspective of a joint effort model of deliberation, and I highlight specific beneficial contributions people with minority minds can make to discourse practices. I will argue that people with minority minds can be presumptively deemed capable deliberators and that therefore their general exclusion is unjustified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we are interested in how ethnographic research can contribute to the promotion of public deliberation. We do not use ethnography only to study deliberative processes but rather we intend to interpret ethnographic research as a social practice, and we research conditions under which ethnographic research might have deliberative consequences. The paper summarizes the results of the multidisciplinary research project Stories of Drought, which combines natural and social sciences in its approach. The project aims to understand how people in Czech rural areas respond to localized effects of climate change, especially drought. Following a systemic approach to deliberative democracy, we study how ethnography contributes to fulfilling three deliberative functions: (1) the epistemic function; (2) the ethical function and (3) the democratic function. In the context of irrigation disputes in South Moravia, we map the arguments of main actors and critical tensions in local discourses. We conclude that ethnographic research, due to its hybrid position between different sources of knowledge, its institutionally recognized expertise and its ability to establish an ethnographer as a trustworthy actor, can outweigh local critical power imbalances blocking deliberative capacity in local policy systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper advocates a move beyond the systemic approach in the field of Deliberative Democracy. It argues that the notion of deliberative ecology can deliver the necessary conceptual elements that deliberative democrats seek in deliberative systems without some of the problems they either overlook or embrace. To advocate the advantages of an ecological perspective to deliberation, the article focuses on six axes of comparison: (i) performances of actants (instead of functions of arenas and players); (ii) articulations and translations (instead of transmission); (iii) vulnerabilities (instead of pathologies and dysfunctions); (iv) practice (instead of institutionally-oriented design); (v) diverse temporalities (instead of linear temporality) and; (vi) hologram-based analysis (instead of systemic analysis). In a nutshell, the article claims that the ecological approach to deliberation has the advantage of conceptualizing an ever-changing web of relations of interdependency, which connects diverse entities that are either relevant to a public discussion or that hinder its enactment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Biosimilars are highly similar, but not identical, versions of originator biologic medications. Switching patients to biosimilars presents an opportunity to mitigate rising drug costs and expand patient access to important biologic therapies. However, decreased patient acceptance and adherence to biosimilar medications have been reported, which can lead to loss of treatment response, adverse reactions, and inefficient resource utilization. Understanding patient perceptions of biosimilars and biosimilar switching is needed to inform patient-centered care strategies that promote efficient resource utilization. Methods We used democratic deliberation methods to solicit the informed and considered opinions of patients regarding biosimilar switching. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD; n = 29) from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) participated in 5-hour deliberation sessions over two days. Following educational presentations with experts, participants engaged in facilitated small group discussions. Transcripts and facilitators’ notes were used to identify key themes. Participants completed surveys pre- and post-deliberation to collect sociodemographic and clinical features as well as to assess IBD treatment knowledge and attitudes toward care and approaches to biosimilar switching. Results Five major themes emerged from the small group discussions in the context of biosimilar switching: 1) concerns about adverse consequences and unclear risk-benefit balance; (2) importance of communication and transparency; (3) desire for shared decision making and patient involvement in treatment decisions; (4) balancing cost-saving with competing priorities; and (5) advocating for individualized care and prioritization based on risk levels. These views led participants to favor approaches that prioritize switching the sickest patients last (i.e., those with poorly controlled disease) and that offer patients control and choices around biosimilar switching. Participants also expressed preferences for combining elements of different approaches to maximize fairness. Conclusions Approaches to biosimilar switching should consider patients’ desires for transparency and effective communication about biosimilar switching and engagement in their medical decision-making as part of patient-centered care. Incorporating patient preferences around biosimilar switching is critical when navigating the quality and affordability of care in resource constrained settings, both within the VHA and in other healthcare systems.

Current transformations of the public sphere are changing the perception of forms of participation in democracy by citizens. Apart from institutional forms, non-insti- tutional forms should also be noticed, which are undergoing dynamic changes. The constant tension between the trust arising from the representativeness of democracy and the need of citizens to control those in power is reflected in the needs of vigilance, notification and evaluation. The public sphere thus becomes the theatre of citizens’ actions on different planes – from participating in rallies and initiating legislative procedure to manifesting views in street protests. The proposed study deals with the distinction between institutional and non-institu- tional forms of participation by citizens in democratic processes.

The article substantiates the presence of correlation dependence of such processes as the growth of digital literacy and legal awareness, and also reveals other factors of legal capacity in the era of digital transformation. It has been proven that understanding this essential interdependence provides answers to a number of questions regarding the priority ways of developing the legal system of Ukraine. Increasing digital and legal awareness is depicted as a logical step towards active participation in the management of public affairs. Online deliberation is depicted as a means of positive influence on the perception of the relevant tools of democracy. In this context, political crowdsourcing is defined as a way of finding effective solutions and a positive impact on civic cohesion. It has been demonstrated that the era of digital technologies provides wider opportunities for the realization of human and citizen rights and freedoms, but at the same time creates new challenges and threats to ensure these rights and freedoms. Legislation regulating relations in the field of digitization is also becoming less transparent. It is noted that virtual space opens up new opportunities for manipulating public opinion, and deliberate functioning in the conditions of new threats of instrumentalization of virtual communication depends on the appropriate configuration of communication platforms. With this in mind, priority issues of scientific discourse and regulatory improvement are highlighted, namely: political crowdsourcing and participatory democracy, online deliberation and principles of cooperation with stakeholders, dissemination and support of fact-checking initiatives to verify the reliability of information, legal status of bloggers, fixers and other media participants as opinion leaders. It is concluded that a certain level of legal literacy, together with digital competence, is a prerequisite for effective participation in modern democratic practices, but this participation can also increase the level of legal awareness of citizens, in particular due to the fact that the Internet plays an important role in shaping the agenda and developing the critical potential of the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper comparatively investigates variations in journalistic role performances in politicized media systems. Poland and Hungary are included in the quantitative content analysis as illustrative cases of Central and Eastern European countries featuring democratic erosion, political polarization, and media systems with a high level of political parallelism. Our study identifies whether the fall of liberal and deliberative democracy and increasing political pressure on the media have been accompanied by modifications in the manifestation of journalistic roles and, if so, what those changes have been. We employ Mellado's (2015) concept of journalistic roles by focusing on democracy-related domains, namely journalistic voice and power relations, and four roles: interventionist, watchdog, loyal facilitator, and civic. We compare data from national newspapers from two periods, namely 2012 and 2020. Despite experiencing similar changes in political context, journalists in Poland and Hungary have differed in their performance of the watchdog and civic roles. However, they have been alike in relation to the steady rise of journalistic interventionism. Surprisingly, we found no evidence of the elevation of the loyal facilitator model in newspapers. This study indicates that systemic politicization and political pressure on the media go alongside with diminishing objectivity and detachment in professional role performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An analysis of 40,000 tweets that trended after the Tarun Tejpal acquittal in India showed that the nature of the debate around issues of molestation and rape exhibited attributes of deliberation and demonstrated that Twitter in India, in certain cases, has strong potential to emerge as a space for deliberative feminist activism. Discussions gave impetus to advocacy around sexual molestation. While the word "victim" was used in more instances rather than the human rights–based term "survivor," Twitter debates were supportive toward survivors of assault. There was minimum trolling and patriarchy was called out as was a legal system that sided with the influential man of power. Although city-bred English-speaking voices dominated, conversations were intersectional in nature acknowledging how the horror of physical assault was perceived by different women belonging to disparate socio-economic strata and how legal systems exacerbated gender related crimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs), such as citizens' assemblies, is becoming more common in climate policy-making across many countries. The upsurge of these methods reflects an acknowledgement of the need to engage the publics in policy choices that significantly impact their lives. Many DMPs to date have focused on the general challenge of decarbonization, across a range of policy areas. In this article, we first situate DMPs within the wider field of public engagement methods. We then draw from deliberative democratic theory and practice to argue that the next step for climate DMPs is to focus them on specific climate policy challenges and to embed and routinize their use in existing policy-making institutions. We present a case study of the targeted use of a climate DMP, which we designed and ran in partnership with the UK Climate Change Committee, focused on home energy decarbonization. We use this case study to explore barriers and challenges to embedding such an approach in climate policy-making institutions. Finally, we suggest ways that such challenges can be overcome and identify a number of tensions that must be navigated as DMPs become embedded in climate policy-making. Deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) can facilitate two-way dialogue between the publics and policy-makers, overcoming weaknesses in existing forms of communication between these two groups of actors. The decision to use DMPs in climate policy and the design of such DMPs, should be informed by an analysis of the type of policy challenge being faced. Existing climate policy institutions, such as advisory bodies, provide potential venues where the use of DMPs can become routinized as a way of gathering insights on public policy preferences. Future targeted climate DMPs will need to find ways to overcome limitations to participants' familiarity with different technologies and capacities, in order to better predict the impacts of different policy options. Tensions exist between the use of DMPs as a research tool within policy contexts and as a tool for opening political possibilities for more thoroughgoing reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Recerca is the property of Universitat Jaume I and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Deliberative democracy theory highlighted democratic deliberation as a modus operandi for facilitating group decision-making. In 2023, members of Romanian labor unions in several sectors took to the streets in strikes and protests, demanding higher revenues and better work conditions. Nevertheless, misunderstandings and internal ruptures shadowed their noble ends and fueled mistrust amongst unionists. This dynamic reminds rather of interest party politics as it employs vertical power relations, influenced by social and professional background segmentation. One question that reasonably arises in this context is how deliberative the decisionmaking process is within the unions in Romania. We specifically analyze elements of deliberative organizational leadership and the power relations within labor unions through a qualitative study in the form of interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is now a growing consensus among democratic theorists that we should incorporate both "democratic deliberation" and "aggregative voting" into our democratic processes. But how should the two democratic mechanisms of deliberation and voting interact? In this article, we introduce a new axiom, which we call "Nonnegative Response toward Successful Deliberation" (NNRD). The basic idea is that if some individuals change their preferences toward other individuals' preferences through democratic deliberation, then the social choice rule should not make everybody who has successfully persuaded others through reasoned deliberation worse off than what they would have achieved without deliberation. We prove an impossibility theorem that shows that there exists no aggregation rule that can simultaneously satisfy NNRD along with other mild axioms that reflect deliberative democracy's core commitment to unanimous consensus and political equality. We offer potential escape routes; however, each escape route can succeed only by compromising some core value of deliberative democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Filosofija, Sociologija is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The decline of democracy in the US entails the surge of authoritarianism, ascendency of demagoguery, dispersal of the democratic majority, and weakening of public reason. Dissent, envisioned as a rhetorical practice of democratic deliberation, resists authoritarianism by advancing democratic values. Accordingly, this paper examines democracy as a minority voice, explores the deliberative capacity of dissent, and identifies the rhetorical properties of deliberation. The paper argues that dissent, in its fugitive aspect, is dispersed across an array of modest sites, guided by a deliberative ideal partially realised, and framed by democratic values. Dissent functions in this capacity as an itinerant, recurring source of democratic renewal on occasions of political crisis. It is an adaptation to structural constraints that provides a nurturing aspiration to prompt political agency, establish realistic expectations, and sustain vigilance. While the immediacy of the authoritarian threat and corresponding questions about the role of democratic communication are addressed in terms of the 2024 general election in the US, the democratic challenge in the US is indicative of the abiding immediacy of the authoritarian threat to other democracies and suggestive of deliberative adaptations for restoring the vitality of democratic communication and culture. Complacency in democratic theory and practice is counter-indicated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ota Weinberger was a Czech-Austrian jurist, whose core academic work on issues of democracy was mostly published in the 1990s. In his writings, he focused primarily on legal philosophy from a positivist perspective. However, there are also significant overlaps with the field of political theory as Weinberger examined the conditions for the functioning of contemporary democracies. In this paper, some of the main features of his conception of the so-called "structured democracy" are clarified. The conception opposed several other democratic theories, especially the elitist (Schumpeterian), the majoritarian, but also the discursive one, as represented by Jürgen Habermas, with whom Weinberger fundamentally disagreed. The paper focuses on several key elements of his theory, such as the leading ideas, the role of institutions, open society, and his critique of marketing methods in politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical literature regarding which actors support the most participatory democracy is surprisingly scarce. Discussing the core ideological features of populist and post-materialist-centred parties, we expect that these parties emphasise participatory democracy more than their competitors. Additionally, populist parties should embody a monist demand for greater participatory democracy, while post-materialist-centred (PMC) parties should advocate a pluralist understanding of it. Drawing on party electoral manifestos, we verify these assumptions in several national elections across Europe. Our findings show mixed support for the theoretical expectations. Both post-materialist and populist parties support participatory democracy more than other parties, and their principles diverge. More precisely, our data confirm that PMC parties advocate a pluralist understanding of participatory democracy. Yet populist parties show a fuzzier picture. While populist radical right parties exhibit a monist profile, radical left populist parties are much more in line with post-materialist arguments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What makes politically dissatisfied citizens enthusiastic about deliberation? And what makes them hate it instead? Based on a picture task embedded in a series of focus groups conducted in Belgium, we argue that differences in sense-making help to explain why dissatisfied citizens (do not) support deliberation. We focus on two groups of dissatisfied citizens: non-partisan activists and politically disadvantaged citizens. For both groups, we find that when they thought of deliberation as low-key, informal discussion, they linked it to respectful communication and beneficial outcomes; when they thought of it as formalized, structured discussion, their appraisals became much more negative. For researchers of deliberation, our results make clear that we should be careful in asking citizens what they think about 'deliberation' without inquiring into the way they interpret it. For deliberation practitioners, our findings underline the relevance of integrating informal interactions into the design of deliberative institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Policy & Internet is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Algorithms are used to calculate and govern varying aspects of public life for efficient use of the vast data available about citizens. Assuming that algorithms are neutral and efficient in data-based decision making, algorithms are used in areas such as criminal justice and welfare. This has ramifications on the ideal of democratic self-government as algorithmic decisions are made without democratic deliberation, scrutiny or justification. In the book Democracy without Shortcuts, Cristina Lafont argued against "shortcutting" democratic self-government. Lafont's critique of shortcuts turns to problematise taken-for-granted practices in democracies that bypass citizen inclusion and equality in authoring decisions governing public life. In this article, I extend Lafont's argument to another shortcut: the algocratic shortcut. The democratic harms attributable to the algocratic shortcut include diminishing the role of voice in politics and reducing opportunities for civic engagement. In this article, I define the algocratic shortcut and discuss the democratic harms of this shortcut, its relation to other shortcuts to democracy and the limitations of using shortcuts to remedy algocratic harms. Finally, I reflect on remedy through "aspirational deliberation". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we examine how youth voices and meaningful action that emerge from deliberative practices are shaped, legitimised, and constrained by national and international policy landscapes. Our paper situates itself within the policy nexus of (i) the UK Government’s Sustainability Strategy in England (2022), and (ii) at the international level by the Berlin Declaration on Education for Sustainable Development (2021), where principles of participation, engagement, intergenerational justice, and learning are paramount. We explore the ground-level challenges for youth-led and community action centred on intergenerational justice, local partnerships and national and international policy. Our paper examines the first Nottingham Youth Climate Assembly and outlines the interventions implemented by the authors and the community groups that we worked alongside. We then consider the successes and challenges in conducting local-level deliberative democratic processes, before discussing the role of youth voices within action for climate change. Finally, we offer suggestions for improving future interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tolerance is a prerequisite for deliberative democracies. Therefore, fostering tolerance is an important task for educational systems in democracies. In the present study, the concepts of social and political tolerance were disentangled and applied to the measurement approaches of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 (ICCS 2016). A single scale of political tolerance was proposed by identifying items on equal rights of women and men, different racial and ethnic groups and immigrants that capture the support of equal political rights. Previous research indicates different approaches that might be used to foster tolerance in schools. Methods: This study used the rarely applied alignment method to identify a political tolerance scale that was sufficiently invariant in the 15 participating European educational systems. The alignment method identifies solutions with minimal amounts of non-invariance. Multilevel regression analyses are used to identify which aspects of schooling are predictive of political tolerance at the student and at the school level. Results: The alignment analyses revealed a sufficiently invariant solution for the 15 education systems that could be used in regression analyses. While cognitive learning showed only a weak relationship with political tolerance, teacher fairness was relevant at student and school level. An open classroom climate was a positive predictor with relevant strength only at school level. Further multigroup analyses indicated that the results at the student level were stable between countries, while school level indicators varied more strongly between countries. Conclusions: Researchers need to acknowledge the conceptual differences between social and political tolerance in their measurement approaches. The alignment method can be useful to create scales that are comparable between many different educational systems. While educational systems differ strongly in their school level variance of political tolerance, teachers can play an important role in fostering political tolerance at the student level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deliberative mini-publics are increasingly used to try to tackle public discontent with the functioning of democracy. However, the ability of mini-publics to increase perceptions of legitimate decision-making among citizens at large remains unclear, given especially that existing studies have not considered the potentially damaging effects of mini-public recommendations not being followed. We designed, pre-registered, and ran a survey experiment in Ireland to test the effects of mini-publics on legitimacy perceptions conditional on whether or not their non-binding policy recommendations are honored (N = 1309). We find that mini-publics increase legitimacy perceptions among the broader citizenry; however, these beneficial effects are largely limited to situations in which their recommendations are honored. Additional results suggest that it makes no difference whether mini-public recommendations are overturned by elected representatives or by citizens in a referendum. Finally, we find that the legitimacy-enhancing effects of participatory processes are driven by citizens with low political trust. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study aims to analyze the formation of deliberative democracy in political education within the National Democratic Party (NasDem) of DKI Jakarta. By employing the concept of deliberative democracy, we argue that the NasDem Party of DKI Jakarta applies a democratic intersubjective dialogue process in decision-making regarding internal party political education. Although research on political education in general within political parties in Indonesia has been widely discussed, this paper complements previous studies by considering democratic inter-agent interactions and analyzing the discourse of deliberative democracy in political education within the NasDem Party of DKI Jakarta. Through qualitative exploration with descriptive case studies of two informants, field findings indicate that interactions in political education within the NasDem Party of DKI Jakarta are democratic in line with the party's ideological foundation, which guarantees internal democracy and promotes public democratization. Additionally, political parties also engage in empowering active members through participatory procedures and facilitate deliberative decisions in legitimizing internal political education from the village level to the provincial level. These findings contribute to an intra-party deliberative democracy model aimed at empowering members and offering a political public forum that prioritizes deliberation in influencing decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the developed democracies, the public discourse of political corruption and conspiracy remains stubbornly pervasive, in spite of the fact that these countries are, comparatively, the cleanest in the world. Everyday talk about corruption expresses a politics of distrust and disaffection, corrodes deliberative responses to political conflict and – most alarmingly – can be mobilized by populist authoritarians who would replace democratic institutions with decisionism. The phenomenon that Rosenblum and Muirhead call 'the new conspiracism' – assertions of conspiracies without evidence or even claims that could be refuted – is deepening the discourse of corruption, particularly in the United States. These discourses are expressive rather than discursive: they cannot be refuted because they signal fears and discontents rather than positions within public arguments. Because democracies only work when they channel political conflict into credible speech, these developments corrode the life-blood of democracies. A key problem for democrats today is to diagnose this pathology, identify powers of speech and devise responses that might protect the common pool resource of promise and commitment in speech-based politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In New Zealand the last few years have seen a re-emergence of interest in processes that build on the theory of deliberative democracy. Commentary on this trend, which typically positions deliberative democracy as a novel development in New Zealand politics, ignores several decades of public agencies' democratic experimentation. In this article we describe three of the 15 identified processes displaying the critical elements of deliberative democracy: the Capital Power citizens' jury (1996); Toi te Taiao: the Bioethics Council's public deliberation on pre-birth testing (2007-08), and the citizens' advisory panel on the Newtown-Berhampore cycleway (2014). We analyse the reasons for their ostensible failure and identify lessons that current policymakers interested in deliberative democracy should draw from these historical cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social capital ignored is an "object of political and ideological struggle" created to stifle working-class students in educational spaces. Furthermore, as societal dynamics are constructed in the student-lecturer relationship, this article seeks to evaluate how deliberative democracy in the online higher education space can inspire care through the ongoing dialogue between student and lecturer. This is framed against the Bourdieusian (social capital) and Bernsteinian (social code) framework because both theorists' work highlights how the dominant class (represented by lecturers) consciously and unconsciously tends to ignore students' social and cultural capital and codes. This, in turn, leads to a lack of dialogue and care in student-lecturer relationships in higher education. One of this study's findings is that higher education is aimed to support more middle-class students. The reason for this is that our findings show that lecturers tend not to know what to do with the social habitus of working-class or disadvantaged students. The aforementioned phenomena were foregrounded through Bourdieusian (social capital) and Bernsteinian (social code) model that is situated in the sociological approach, which is interpretive in nature, to explore whether dialogue and care were shown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]