Suchergebnisse

Deliberative democrats have long considered the trade-off between norms of inclusion and efficiency. The latest attempt at reconciliation is the deliberative systems model, which situates and links individual sites of deliberation in their macro context. Yet, critics argue that this move to scale up leaves inclusive practices of citizen deliberation vulnerable. Here, we seek to mitigate these concerns via an unlikely source: bureaucracy. Drawing on the notion of policy feedback, with its attendant focus on how policies (re)make democratic politics, we envision a deliberative bureaucracy where implementation and service delivery are imbued with norms of justification, publicity and, most radically, inclusion. Looking at promising contemporary governance practices, we argue that a deliberative bureaucracy, with the rich public encounters it might foster, can reconcile the desire to scale up deliberative democracy to whole systems with the desire to hold on to the benefits of scaled-down citizen deliberation.

AbstractThe systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory presents empirical researchers in this field with a problem. Deliberative systems are complex, porous and shifting in nature. These features cannot be adequately assessed by existing tools for measuring deliberative and democratic qualities. Such qualities only become apparent when set against practices in other systems. Meaningful analysis rests on comparison. However, in turning to the comparative politics literature for inspiration, we caution that the two dominant traditions in this subfield – rigidly systematic comparison or thickly descriptive area studies – are of only limited utility. On the one hand, rigid comparative analysis will map uncomfortably on the systemic account. On the other, there is a need to move beyond idiographic accounts produced in thick descriptions. Instead, this article emphasises the value of two alternative traditions in comparative political analysis. The first is through the use of 'family resemblances' in comparative research design. The second is through post hoc comparisons that draw together eclectic affinities between systems. Both approaches are sensitive to the contextual complexities of deliberative systems in practice. Both can tell us a great deal about why and how deliberative practices and institutions emerge, flourish or fail, and how they enable, enhance or undermine the democratic and deliberative qualities of the system overall. This article draws on promising examples of these two approaches to emphasise their value in understanding deliberative systems in practice.

AbstractAgency size is generally assumed to be positively correlated with survival: the bigger an agency, the less likely it is to be terminated. Yet, recent research finds a very small effect of size on survival. The reason, we argue, is that it only addresses size in terms of overall operating budget – what this article calls objective size. By contrast, we use an interpretive historicist approach to show how perceived size – the meanings and beliefs of key actors concerning an agency's size – affects termination. Drawing on a case study of Australia's independent aid agency, AusAID, which endured a tumultuous history of cuts, reorganizations and rebirths, culminating in termination, we show how perceptions of the agency's size mattered. These findings both support and extend recent research showing that adaptation and reputation are critical to the survival of government agencies.

On taking office in late 2013, the incoming Abbott government proclaimed the advent of a new aid paradigm. This article asks whether or not this is the case. It does so by situating the new coalition policy in the context of more than two decades of development thinking. Focusing on the way Australian aid policy reflects trends in both global development and geopolitical discourses, the article parses out continuity and change. It finds that Australia's new aid paradigm is in fact largely the old aid paradigm reincarnate, with aid policy continuing to follow the well-established parameters outlined over decades of global thinking and practice that emphasise the significance of private sector-led economic growth. However, while the overarching paradigm remains relatively intact, incremental change is also apparent, including alterations to the geographic focus, level and administration of the program.

On taking office in late 2013, the incoming Abbott government proclaimed the advent of a new aid paradigm. This article asks whether or not this is the case. It does so by situating the new coalition policy in the context of more than two decades of development thinking. Focusing on the way Australian aid policy reflects trends in both global development and geopolitical discourses, the article parses out continuity and change. It finds that Australia's new aid paradigm is in fact largely the old aid paradigm reincarnate, with aid policy continuing to follow the well-established parameters outlined over decades of global thinking and practice that emphasise the significance of private sector-led economic growth. However, while the overarching paradigm remains relatively intact, incremental change is also apparent, including alterations to the geographic focus, level and administration of the program.