Editorial introduction: The fourth generation of deliberative democracy

Resumo Este artigo se propõe a discutir a participação de organizações da sociedade civil brasileiras no âmbito da cooperação para o desenvolvimento. Trata-se de um artigo teórico que procura problematizar os processos de cooperação para o desenvolvimento e construir um quadro analítico capaz de dar conta da participação de novos atores, de natureza não governamental, nas relações entre países em desenvolvimento − comumente denominada de cooperação Sul/Sul (CSS) − e suas implicações para a ampliação de direitos entre populações em situação de extrema vulnerabilidade. O artigo recorre a fontes bibliográficas de diferentes campos do conhecimento. Destaca as relações internacionais, a sociologia política e a gestão social para entender as possibilidades, perspectivas e armadilhas que se configuram para os processos de cooperação para o desenvolvimento e que são moldadas pela busca de maior horizontalidade entre nações e participação de novos atores, notadamente, da sociedade civil.

show abstract

“…Portanto, está vinculado a uma série de interesses e atores (BYDLOWSKI, 2011;ELSTUB, 2010;MATOS, 2011).…”

Section: Yasmine Santos Mansur Armindo Dos Santos De Sousa Teodósiounclassified

“…Ela está inserida em múltiplos domínios da vida social, envolvendo diferentes atores, operando, muitas vezes, sobre uma realidade social marcada pela grande heterogeneidade de interesses (BACHATINGER et al, 2010;ELSTUB, 2010).…”

Section: Desafios Da Participação De Atores Locais Nos Processos De Dunclassified

Participação das organizações da sociedade civil na cooperação Sul/Sul: em busca de um modelo de análise nos estudos em administração

Mansur

Teodósio

2016

Cad. EBAPE.BR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In terms of reaching agreements, the ideal of consensus has a salient although much debated role in deliberative democratic theory (Chambers 2003, Elstub 2010. The currently dominant view is a pragmatic one in which deliberation is judged as successful if people are willing to accept the decisions that result from it and continue to participate in it, which is sometimes referred to as meta-consensus (Elstub 2010, p 294).…”

Section: Global Environmental Governance and The Deliberative Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC

Berg

Lidskog

2018

Climatic Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the arguments for expanding deliberation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and scrutinizes their implications for the deliberative capacity of global environmental governance (GEG). An analysis of the IPCC is presented that builds on a systematic literature review and thus a broad set of scientific debates concerning the IPCC. Based on this analysis, two different paths are outlined, one moderate and one radical; these paths ascribe different democratizing functions to the IPCC and rely on different epistemologies. The moderate path emphasizes decision capacity, whereas the radical path strives to create deliberative space and to identify the value inherent in different claims. It is argued that the IPCC cannot accommodate the aspirations of these different pathways in a single assessment. Parallel assessments must be developed in complementary subject areas with different science-policy relations.

show abstract

“…Academics have applied "participation by whom" as a criterion to evaluation of citizen participation, chiefly focusing on three concepts: inclusiveness, representativeness, and diversity [35][36][37][38][39]. Inclusiveness, as an antonym of exclusive participation, implies that every citizen should have an equal opportunity to have an influence on the whole process of policy-making.…”

Section: Player Of Participation: Who Participates?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Government-Driven Participation and Collective Intelligence: A Case of the Government 3.0 Initiative in Korea

Nam¹

2016

Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The Park Geun-hye Administration of Korea (2013Korea ( -2017 aims to increase the level of transparency and citizen trust in government through the Government 3.0 initiative. This new initiative for public sector innovation encourages citizen-government collaboration and collective intelligence, thereby improving the quality of policy-making and implementation and solving public problems in a new way. However, the national initiative that identifies collective intelligence and citizen-government collaboration alike fails to understand what the wisdom of crowds genuinely means. Collective intelligence is not a magic bullet to solve public problems, which are called "wicked problems". Collective deliberation over public issues often brings pain and patience, rather than fun and joy. It is not so easy that the public finds the best solution for soothing public problems through collective deliberation. The Government 3.0 initiative does not pay much attention to difficulties in gathering scattered wisdom, but rather highlights uncertain opportunities created by collective interactions and communications. This study deeply discusses the weaknesses in the logic of, and approach to, collective intelligence underlying the Government 3.0 initiative in Korea and the overall influence of the national initiative on participatory democracy.

show abstract

Editorial introduction: The fourth generation of deliberative democracy

Cited by 81 publications

References 49 publications

Participação das organizações da sociedade civil na cooperação Sul/Sul: em busca de um modelo de análise nos estudos em administração

Participação das organizações da sociedade civil na cooperação Sul/Sul: em busca de um modelo de análise nos estudos em administração

Pathways to deliberative capacity: the role of the IPCC

Government-Driven Participation and Collective Intelligence: A Case of the Government 3.0 Initiative in Korea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About