IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v48y2000i5p947-969.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy

Author

Listed:
  • Maeve Cooke

Abstract

Five arguments in favour of deliberative democracy are considered. These focus on its educative power, on its community‐generating power, on the fairness of the procedure of public deliberation, on the epistemic quality of its outcomes and on the congruence of the deliberative democratic ideal ‘with whom we are’. The first four arguments are shown to be inadequate. The fifth argument, it is claimed, not only provides the most convincing defence of deliberative democracy but can also be used to decide rationally between competing interpretations of the deliberative ideal. By way of illustration, the essay concludes with a critical discussion of the rival versions proposed by Rawls and Habermas.

Suggested Citation

  • Maeve Cooke, 2000. "Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(5), pages 947-969, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:48:y:2000:i:5:p:947-969
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00289
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00289
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9248.00289?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Devkota, Bishnu Prasad, 2020. "Social inclusion and deliberation in response to REDD+ in Nepal’s community forestry," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Franceschini, Simone & Marletto, Gerardo, 2015. "Assessing the benefits and the shortcomings of participation – findings from a test in Bari (Italy)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 33-42.
    3. Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 688-714, October.
    4. Giles Mohan & Gordon Wilson, 2005. "The antagonistic relevance of development studies," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 5(4), pages 261-278, October.
    5. Jimmy Donaghey, 2008. "Deliberation, Employment Relations and Social Partnership in the Republic of Ireland," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 29(1), pages 35-63, February.
    6. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "When the Forum Meets Interest Politics: Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation," Politics & Society, , vol. 34(4), pages 571-602, December.
    7. Leyla Tavernaro-Haidarian, 2020. "Agency and Deliberative Communication in the Classroom," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, January.
    8. Hugh Ward & Aletta Norval & Todd Landman & Jules Pretty, 2003. "Open Citizens’ Juries and the Politics of Sustainability," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(2), pages 282-299, June.
    9. S. Franceschini & G. Marletto, 2014. "A deliberative-participative procedure for sustainable urban mobility – Findings from a test in Bari (Italy)," Working Paper CRENoS 201408, Centre for North South Economic Research, University of Cagliari and Sassari, Sardinia.
    10. Yunus Sözen, 2016. "Reason, Passion and Participation: Paradoxes of Deliberative Democracy," Yildiz Social Science Review, Yildiz Technical University, vol. 2(1), pages 47-64.
    11. Ank Michels & Harmen Binnema, 2018. "Deepening and Connecting Democratic Processes. The Opportunities and Pitfalls of Mini-Publics in Renewing Democracy," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-13, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:48:y:2000:i:5:p:947-969. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.