IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hrv/hksfac/4415943.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deliberative and Non-Deliberative Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Mansbridge, Jane J.

Abstract

Theorists in all three major branches of deliberative theory have traditionally excluded from the concept of deliberation simple convergence to an outcome as well as any form of negotiation. In a major reformulation of the deliberative ideal, this paper argues that not only convergence but also incompletely theorized agreements, integrative negotiations, and fully cooperative distributive negotiations are valid forms of democratic deliberation. The analysis takes the absence of coercive power as the central feature of the “regulative ideal†of deliberation (a regulative ideal being a standard, admittedly impossible to achieve fully, toward which to strive). In their ideal forms, these four methods of achieving agreement do not involve coercive power. In the ideal, therefore, they are fully deliberative forms of negotiation. Democracies also need non-deliberative forms of negotiation and decision, which should be judged on other criteria, including the degree to which the parties involve exercise equal power.

Suggested Citation

  • Mansbridge, Jane J., 2009. "Deliberative and Non-Deliberative Negotiations," Scholarly Articles 4415943, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
  • Handle: RePEc:hrv:hksfac:4415943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4415943/Mansbridge%20Deliberative.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert H. Frank & Thomas Gilovich & Dennis T. Regan, 1993. "Does Studying Economics Inhibit Cooperation?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(2), pages 159-171, Spring.
    2. Mayntz, Renate, 1997. "Soziale Dynamik und politische Steuerung: Theoretische und methodologische Überlegungen," Schriften aus dem Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Köln, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, volume 29, number 29.
    3. Goodin, Robert E., 1996. "Institutionalizing the Public Interest: The Defense of Deadlock and Beyond," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 90(2), pages 331-343, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Peric, Ana & Miljus, Milutin, 2021. "The regeneration of military brownfields in Serbia: Moving towards deliberative planning practice?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    2. Metka Kuhar, 2013. "Exploring Psychological Factors Influencing Deliberation," Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems - scientific journal, Croatian Interdisciplinary Society Provider Homepage: http://indecs.eu, vol. 11(4), pages 415-426.

    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. Wilfred Dolfsma, 2001. "Economists as subjects: Toward a psychology of economists," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 30(2), pages 77-88, March.
    2. Michael R. Hammock & P. Wesley Routon & Jay K. Walker, 2016. "The opinions of economics majors before and after learning economics," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 76-83, January.
    3. Robison, Lindon J. & Hanson, Steven D., 1995. "Social Capital and Economic Cooperation," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 43-58, July.
    4. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    6. Sigle, Wendy, 2021. "Demography’s theory and approach: (how) has the view from the margins changed?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 112467, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    7. Utteeyo Dasgupta & Arjun Menon, 2011. "Trust and Trustworthiness among Economics Majors," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 31(4), pages 2799-2815.
    8. Alain Cohn & Tobias Gesche & Michel André Maréchal, 2022. "Honesty in the Digital Age," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 827-845, February.
    9. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    10. Ben-Ner, Avner & Putterman, Louis & Kong, Fanmin & Magan, Dan, 2004. "Reciprocity in a two-part dictator game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 333-352, March.
    11. Sterner, Thomas & Ewald, Jens & Sterner, Erik, 2024. "Economists and the climate," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Faravelli, Marco, 2007. "How context matters: A survey based experiment on distributive justice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1399-1422, August.
    13. Jonathan B. Wight, 2005. "Adam Smith and Greed," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 21(Fall 2005), pages 46-58.
    14. Mikko Arevuo, 2023. "Adam Smith's moral foundations of self‐interest and ethical social order," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 372-387, October.
    15. Kray, Laura J. & Kennedy, Jessica A. & Van Zant, Alex B., 2014. "Not competent enough to know the difference? Gender stereotypes about women’s ease of being misled predict negotiator deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 61-72.
    16. André, Kévin, 2013. "Why Should Business Education Care About Care? Toward an Educare Perspective," ESSEC Working Papers WP1315, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    17. Hai, Do Phu & Roig-Dobón, Salvador & Sánchez-García, José Luis, 2016. "Innovative governance from public policy unities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 1524-1528.
    18. Roland Cheo, 2006. "Teaching Contingent Valuation and Promoting Civic Mindedness in the Process," International Review of Economic Education, Economics Network, University of Bristol, vol. 5(2), pages 81-97.
    19. Günther G. Schulze & Björn Frank, 2003. "Deterrence versus intrinsic motivation: Experimental evidence on the determinants of corruptibility," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 143-160, August.
    20. Andreas Kuhn, 2017. "International Evidence on the Perception and Normative Valuation of Executive Compensation," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 55(1), pages 112-136, March.

    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:hrv:hksfac:4415943. 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: Office for Scholarly Communication (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.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.