IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v90y1996i01p46-60_20.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberative Democracy and Authority

Author

Listed:
  • Warren, Mark E.

Abstract

The topic of authority only rarely figures into theories of deliberative democracy, no doubt owing to the widely held view that authority is inherently undemocratic. But deliberative democrats need a concept of authoritative decision making, not least because the scale and complexity of contemporary societies radically limit the numbers of decisions that can be made by deliberatively democratic means. I argue for an inherently democratic conception of authority, in large part by examining and rejecting the view—held by radical democrats, conservatives, and most liberals—that authority involves a surrender of judgment by those subject to authority. In contrast, I develop the view that authority, particularly in posttraditional contexts, involves a limited suspension of judgment enabled by a context of democratic challenge and public accountability. An important point is that democratic authority supports robust deliberative decision making by enabling individuals to allocate their time, energy, and knowledge to the issues most significant to them.

Suggested Citation

  • Warren, Mark E., 1996. "Deliberative Democracy and Authority," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(1), pages 46-60, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:01:p:46-60_20
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400205327/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), 2010. "The Capitalization of Knowledge," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13300.
    2. Matilde Luna & José Luis Velasco, 2010. "Knowledge Networks: Integration Mechanisms and Performance Assessment," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 12, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Hyman, Richard & Gumbrell-McCormick, Rebecca, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105078, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Shouzhi Xia, 2017. "E-Governance and Political Modernization: An Empirical Study Based on Asia from 2003 to 2014," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Richard Hyman & Rebecca Gumbrell-McCormick, 2020. "(How) can international trade union organisations be democratic?," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 26(3), pages 253-272, August.
    6. Jonathan Benson, 2019. "Deliberative democracy and the problem of tacit knowledge," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 18(1), pages 76-97, February.
    7. Kieran C. O’Doherty & Michael K. MacKenzie & Dan Badulescu & Michael M. Burgess, 2013. "Explosives, Genomics, and the Environment," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(1), pages 21582440134, March.
    8. Helmut Willke & Gerhard Willke, 2008. "Corporate Moral Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Morals: A Critique of Palazzo/Scherer’s Communicative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 81(1), pages 27-38, August.
    9. Michael MacKuen & Jennifer Wolak & Luke Keele & George E. Marcus, 2010. "Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(2), pages 440-458, April.
    10. Mark E. Warren, 1999. "What is Political?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(2), pages 207-231, April.
    11. Luthardt, Ulf & Zimmermann, Jochen, 2009. "A European view on the legitimacy of accounting procedures: Towards a deliberative-accountability framework for analysis," Research in Accounting Regulation, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 79-88.
    12. Shlomi Segall, 2005. "Political Participation as an Engine of Social Solidarity: A Sceptical View," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 53(2), pages 362-378, June.
    13. Brown, Mark B., 2007. "Can technologies represent their publics?," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 327-338.
    14. Pivato, Marcus, 2007. "Pyramidal Democracy," MPRA Paper 3965, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Kaisa Herne & Olli Lappalainen & Maija Setälä & Juha Ylisalo, 2022. "Accountability as a Warrant for Trust: An Experiment on Sanctions and Justifications in a Trust Game," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 615-648, November.
    16. Eric M. Uslaner, 2005. "Varieties of Trust," Working Papers 2005.69, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:90:y:1996:i:01:p:46-60_20. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.