IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v62y2018i2p398-409.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Political Stability in the Open Society

Author

Listed:
  • John Thrasher
  • Kevin Vallier

Abstract

We argue that the Rawlsian description of a just liberal society, the well‐ordered society, fails to accommodate deep disagreement and is insufficiently dynamic. In response, we formulate an alternative model that we call the open society, organized around a new account of dynamic stability. In the open society, constitutional rules must be stable enough to preserve social conditions that foster experimentation, while leaving room in legal and institutional rules for innovation and change. Systemic robustness and dynamic stability become important for the open society in a way that they are not in the well‐ordered society. This model of the open society and the corresponding model of stability have interesting implications for thinking about the goals, norms, and institutions of liberal political systems.

Suggested Citation

  • John Thrasher & Kevin Vallier, 2018. "Political Stability in the Open Society," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 62(2), pages 398-409, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:62:y:2018:i:2:p:398-409
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12333
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12333?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. Gregory Robson, 2021. "The rationality of political experimentation," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 20(1), pages 67-98, February.
    2. Paul Weithman, 2023. "Fixed points and well-ordered societies," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(2), pages 197-212, May.

    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:wly:amposc:v:62:y:2018:i:2:p:398-409. 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: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.