IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/218853.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emanzipation oder Reaktion: Wie konservativ ist die deliberative Demokratie?
[Emancipation or Reaction: How Conservative is Deliberative Democracy?]

Author

Listed:
  • Schäfer, Andreas
  • Merkel, Wolfgang

Abstract

Ist die deliberative Demokratie ein konservatives Modell? Beruht es auf Mechanismen, die in systematischer Weise seinen emanzipatorischen Anspruch unterminieren? Der Aufsatz beantwortet diese Frage im Anschluss an KritikerInnen der deliberativen Demokratie in Hinblick auf drei Dimensionen. Die zeitliche Dimension betreffend wird untersucht, inwieweit das deliberative Modell einen den Status quo bewahrenden Charakter hat. In der sachlichen Dimension wird eine Tendenz zur Entpolitisierung diskutiert. Für die soziale Dimension thematisiert der Aufsatz die potenzielle Exklusion bestimmter sozialer Gruppen und ihrer Perspektiven aus dem Deliberationsprozess. In Auseinandersetzung mit einschlägigen Ansätzen der deliberativen Demokratietheorie und mit Befunden der empirischen Deliberationsforschung gelangt der Aufsatz zu einem differenzierten Bild. Demnach lassen sich potenziell konservierende Tendenzen in der deliberativen Demokratie auffinden. Gleichzeitig wird argumentiert, dass diese Tendenzen vermeidbar sind, wenn einerseits das genuin kritische Potenzial deliberativer Praxis gegenüber anderen Elementen des Modells hervorgehoben und andererseits die Notwendigkeit der institutionellen Einbettung deliberativer Prozesse in Verfahren der repräsentativen Demokratie berücksichtigt wird.

Suggested Citation

  • Schäfer, Andreas & Merkel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Emanzipation oder Reaktion: Wie konservativ ist die deliberative Demokratie? [Emancipation or Reaction: How Conservative is Deliberative Democracy?]," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 61(3), pages 449-472.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:218853
    DOI: 10.1007/s11615-020-00232-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/218853/1/Full-text-article-Sch%c3%a4fer-et-al-Emanzipation-oder-Reaktion.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11615-020-00232-8?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Merkel, Wolfgang, 2014. "Is capitalism compatible with democracy?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(2), pages 109-128.
    2. Marlène Gerber, 2015. "Equal Partners in Dialogue? Participation Equality in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis)," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 110-130, April.
    3. Karpowitz, Christopher F. & Mendelberg, Tali & Shaker, Lee, 2012. "Gender Inequality in Deliberative Participation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(3), pages 533-547, August.
    4. Pogrebinschi, Thamy & Ryan, Matt, 2018. "Moving beyond input legitimacy: When do democratic innovations affect policy making?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 57(1), pages 135-152.
    5. James N. Druckman & Kjersten R. Nelson, 2003. "Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 729-745, October.
    6. Claudia Landwehr, 2015. "Democratic Meta-Deliberation: Towards Reflective Institutional Design," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 38-54, April.
    7. Warren, Mark E., 2017. "A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(1), pages 39-53, February.
    8. White, Jonathan & Ypi, Lea, 2011. "On Partisan Political Justification," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 381-396, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Scott Radnitz, 2018. "Historical narratives and post-conflict reconciliation: An experiment in Azerbaijan," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 154-174, March.
    2. Fanni Bársony & György Lengyel & Éva Perpék, 2020. "Enclave deliberation and common-pool resources: an attempt to apply Civic Preference Forum on community gardening in Hungary," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 687-708, April.
    3. O’Brien, Diana Z. & Rickne, Johanna, 2016. "Gender Quotas and Women's Political Leadership," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(1), pages 112-126, February.
    4. Neimanns, Erik & Blossey, Nils, 2022. "From media-party linkages to ownership concentration causes of cross-national variation in media outlets' economic positioning," MPIfG Discussion Paper 22/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    5. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    6. De Paola, Maria & Lombardo, Rosetta & Pupo, Valeria & Scoppa, Vincenzo, 2021. "Do Women Shy Away from Public Speaking? A Field Experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    7. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    8. Rebecca J. Romsdahl, 2020. "Deliberative framing: opening up discussions for local-level public engagement on climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(2), pages 145-163, September.
    9. Lauren Guggenheim & S. Mo Jang & Soo Young Bae & W. Russell Neuman, 2015. "The Dynamics of Issue Frame Competition in Traditional and Social Media," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 659(1), pages 207-224, May.
    10. Jones, Christopher R. & Eiser, J. Richard & Gamble, Tim R., 2012. "Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 451-465.
    11. Dieter Dekeyser & Henk Roose, 2022. "Polarizing policy opinions with conflict framed information: activating negative views of political parties in a multi-party system," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1121-1138, June.
    12. Shigeoka, Hitoshi & Yamada, Katsunori, 2019. "Income-comparison attitudes in the United States and the United Kingdom: Evidence from discrete-choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 414-438.
    13. Morais, Mariana, 2022. "Citizen participation in urban policy: Lessons based on Berlin and São Paulo experiences," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Democracy and Democratization SP V 2022-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    14. Baccaro, Lucio & Simoni, Marco, 2010. "Organizational determinants of wage moderation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33510, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Claudia Landwehr & Armin Schäfer, 2023. "The promise of representative democracy: deliberative responsiveness," Working Papers 2309, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    16. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    17. Alicia R. Ingersoll & Christy Glass & Alison Cook & Kari Joseph Olsen, 2019. "Power, Status and Expectations: How Narcissism Manifests Among Women CEOs," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(4), pages 893-907, September.
    18. Merkel, Wolfgang & Zürn, Michael, 2019. "Kosmopolitismus, Kommunitarismus und die Demokratie," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 67-101.
    19. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    20. William A. Boettcher III & Michael D. Cobb, 2009. "“Don’t Let Them Die in Vainâ€," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 677-697, October.

    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:zbw:espost:218853. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.