Suchergebnisse

This entry has been realised in the framework of the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2018 project "LoGov - Local Government and the Changing Urban-Rural Interplay". LoGov aims to provide solutions for local governments that address the fundamental challenges resulting from urbanisation. To address this complex issue, 18 partners from 17 countries and six continents share their expertise and knowledge in the realms of public law, political science, and public administration. LoGov identifies, evaluates, compares, and shares innovative practices that cope with the impact of changing urban-rural relations in five major local government areas: (1) local responsibilities and public services, (2) local financial arrangements, (3) structure of local government, (4) intergovernmental relations of local governments, and (5) people's participation in local decision-making. The present entry addresses people's participation in local decision-making in Italy. The entry forms part of the LoGov Report on Italy. To access the full version of the report on Italy, other practices regarding people's participation in local decision-making and to receive more information about the project, please visit: https://www.logov-rise.eu/. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 823961.

This entry has been realised in the framework of the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2018 project "LoGov - Local Government and the Changing Urban-Rural Interplay". LoGov aims to provide solutions for local governments that address the fundamental challenges resulting from urbanisation. To address this complex issue, 18 partners from 17 countries and six continents share their expertise and knowledge in the realms of public law, political science, and public administration. LoGov identifies, evaluates, compares, and shares innovative practices that cope with the impact of changing urban-rural relations in five major local government areas: (1) local responsibilities and public services, (2) local financial arrangements, (3) structure of local government, (4) intergovernmental relations of local governments, and (5) people's participation in local decision-making. The present entry addresses people's participation in local decision-making in Italy. The entry forms part of the LoGov Report on Italy. To access the full version of the report on Italy, other practices regarding people's participation in local decision-making and to receive more information about the project, please visit: https://www.logov-rise.eu/. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 823961.

This entry has been realised in the framework of the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2018 project "LoGov - Local Government and the Changing Urban-Rural Interplay". LoGov aims to provide solutions for local governments that address the fundamental challenges resulting from urbanisation. To address this complex issue, 18 partners from 17 countries and six continents share their expertise and knowledge in the realms of public law, political science, and public administration. LoGov identifies, evaluates, compares, and shares innovative practices that cope with the impact of changing urban-rural relations in five major local government areas: (1) local responsibilities and public services, (2) local financial arrangements, (3) structure of local government, (4) intergovernmental relations of local governments, and (5) people's participation in local decision-making. The present entry addresses people's participation in local decision-making in Italy. The entry forms part of the LoGov Report on Italy. To access the full version of the report on Italy, other practices regarding people's participation in local decision-making and to receive more information about the project, please visit: https://www.logov-rise.eu/. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 823961.

This entry has been realised in the framework of the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2018 project "LoGov - Local Government and the Changing Urban-Rural Interplay". LoGov aims to provide solutions for local governments that address the fundamental challenges resulting from urbanisation. To address this complex issue, 18 partners from 17 countries and six continents share their expertise and knowledge in the realms of public law, political science, and public administration. LoGov identifies, evaluates, compares, and shares innovative practices that cope with the impact of changing urban-rural relations in five major local government areas: (1) local responsibilities and public services, (2) local financial arrangements, (3) structure of local government, (4) intergovernmental relations of local governments, and (5) people's participation in local decision-making. The present entry addresses people's participation in local decision-making in Italy. The entry forms part of the LoGov Report on Italy. To access the full version of the report on Italy, other practices regarding people's participation in local decision-making and to receive more information about the project, please visit: https://www.logov-rise.eu/. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 823961.

Abstract The article analyzes different forms of democratic innovation. On the one side, it highlights how deliberation is embedded in institutions that hold concrete decision-making powers; on the other side, it explores possibilities for the concrete implementation of an "integrated deliberative system", in which mini-publics are not only isolated experimentations of the governmental authorities conducted for some specific targets.It then focuses on two different albeit complementary features of deliberative democracy. The first regards how to accommodate law-making processes to deliberative standards; the second feature develops how legal arrangements can permanently regulate deliberative processes, such as mini-publics. The paper aims to ascertain whether it is possible to fit permanent deliberative experiments into constitutionally regulated decision-making processes.Primarily, the essay shed light on the above mentioned question by analyzing ad hoc experiences of law- and constitution-making processes, which took place through "deliberative mini-publics". The article then investigates permanent legal regulations for deliberative processes by referring to some institutional and procedural examples, in general, and by analyzing the experience of two Italian regions (Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna) and a Spanish one (Aragon), in particular, which adopted general regulations on deliberative mini-publics. The article opposes one-time deliberative experiments and long-term deliberative arrangements in order to assess which option better fits the decision-making processes in contemporary constitutional systems.The objective of the comparative analysis of different theoretical and practical examples of democratic innovations is twofold: on one hand, it demonstrates that democracy - as a government tool - might be concretely restructured in order to better match the modern needs; on the other hand, it helps exploring the reality with the purpose to imagine what constitutional democracy might mean and might become in the future. ; ResumenEl artículo analiza diferentes formas de innovación democrática. Por un lado, pone de relieve cómo la deliberación se incrusta en las instituciones que tienen poderes de decisión concretos; por otro lado, explora posibilidades para la aplicación concreta de un " sistema deliberativo integrado", en el que los "mini-publics" no son sólo experimentos aislados de las autoridades gubernamentales para algunos objetivos específicos. Luego se centra en dos funciones diferentes, aunque complementarias, de la democracia deliberativa. La primera considera como acomodar los procesos legislativos a los standards deliberativos; la segunda característica se refiere a cómo las disposiciones legales pueden regular de modo permanente los procesos deliberativos, como "mini-publics". El trabajo pretende determinar si es posible desarrollar experimentos deliberativos permanentes en los procesos de toma de decisiones regulados constitucionalmente. Sobre todo, el ensayo arroja luz sobre la cuestión mencionada, analizando experiencias ad hoc de procesos de elaboración de la ley y la Constitución, que se llevaron a cabo a través de "mini-publics" deliberativos. El artículo investiga entonces regulaciones legales permanentes para procesos deliberativos, con referencia a algunos ejemplos institucionales y procedimentales, en general y mediante el análisis de la experiencia de dos regiones italianas (Tuscany y Emilia-Romaña) y una española (Aragón), en particular, que aprobó el Reglamento general sobre "mini-publics" deliberativos.El artículo compara a los experimentos deliberativos de una sola vez y los acuerdos deliberativos a largo plazo, con el fin de evaluar quó opción se adapta mejor a los procesos de toma de decisiones en los sistemas constitucionales contemporáneos.El objetivo del análisis comparado de distintos ejemplos teóricos y prácticos de estas innovaciones democráticas es doble: por un lado, demuestra que la democracia - como una herramienta de gobierno - podría ser reestructurada en aspectos concretos, para adaptarse mejor a las necesidades modernas; por otra parte, ayuda a explorar la realidad con el propósito de imaginar lo que la democracia constitucional puede significar y podría ser en el futuro. Abstract The article analyzes different forms of democratic innovation. On the one side, it highlights how deliberation is embedded in institutions that hold concrete decision-making powers; on the other side, it explores possibilities for the concrete implementation of an "integrated deliberative system", in which mini-publics are not only isolated experimentations of the governmental authorities conducted for some specific targets.It then focuses on two different albeit complementary features of deliberative democracy. The first regards how to accommodate law-making processes to deliberative standards; the second feature develops how legal arrangements can permanently regulate deliberative processes, such as mini-publics. The paper aims to ascertain whether it is possible to fit permanent deliberative experiments into constitutionally regulated decision-making processes.Primarily, the essay shed light on the above mentioned question by analyzing ad hoc experiences of law- and constitution-making processes, which took place through "deliberative mini-publics". The article then investigates permanent legal regulations for deliberative processes by referring to some institutional and procedural examples, in general, and by analyzing the experience of two Italian regions (Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna) and a Spanish one (Aragon), in particular, which adopted general regulations on deliberative mini-publics. The article opposes one-time deliberative experiments and long-term deliberative arrangements in order to assess which option better fits the decision-making processes in contemporary constitutional systems.The objective of the comparative analysis of different theoretical and practical examples of democratic innovations is twofold: on one hand, it demonstrates that democracy - as a government tool - might be concretely restructured in order to better match the modern needs; on the other hand, it helps exploring the reality with the purpose to imagine what constitutional democracy might mean and might become in the future.

"The volume offers new and unexplored perspectives on federalism and its relationships with diversity accommodation. It represents the first structured attempt to use federal theory and practice to frame several phenomena of governance in the area of diversity management. Federalism is here tested as a theoretical and practical tool that may contribute to a better understanding of phenomena such as non-territorial autonomy, participatory democracy and legal pluralism. This volume unveils the theoretical potential of federalism in explaining complex pluralist legal systems: This theoretical function may be the 21st century dimension of federalism"--