No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique

Valentini, Laura

doi:10.1017/s1537592714002138

Cited by 69 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, individuals can have different "stakes" in the choice, where a stake can be defined as the "the pay-off difference between the better option from the individual's perspective and the worse one" (Conradt and List 2009, 730). Some authors argue persuasively that differences in stakes should be taken into account when allocating participatory entitlements (Macdonald 2008, Brighouse and Fleurbaey 2010, Valentini 2014. The framework presented here is compatible with this position.…”

supporting

confidence: 59%

How to diagnose democratic deficits in global politics: the use of the ‘all-affected principle’

Koenig‐Archibugi

2017

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is there a ‘democratic deficit’ in global politics? If so, which changes in institutions and practices can mitigate it? Empirically oriented scholars who ask such questions often use as a yardstick the normative principle that people significantly affected by a decision should be able to take part in reaching that decision. This ‘all-affected principle’ is also endorsed by prominent political theorists. However, its most logically consistent interpretation seems so demanding that it casts doubt on the principle’s usefulness to guide the assessment of real-world situations, since it appears to require that virtually everyone in the world should have a say on any proposal or any proposal for proposals. The argument presented here intends to rescue the principle as a tool for empirical assessments of real-world situations by stressing its role in comparative judgments and especially by showing that its implications are not too expansive and/or indeterminate, once we take into account that certain types of prior decisions significantly restrict the agenda of other decisions in a systematic way. The theoretical guidance for empirical research offered in the first part of the article is then illustrated with an application to global child labor policies.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 59%

How to diagnose democratic deficits in global politics: the use of the ‘all-affected principle’

Koenig‐Archibugi

2017

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Certainly, this is very demanding and remote from current states of affairs. But it is, I argue, both desirable and feasible (see also Valentini 2014). It can only be falsified on empirical grounds if it turned out that the principles violated the feasibility constraints to which they are tied, that is, that we got robust evidence that the principles were impossible to achieve from where we are now or incompatible with the basic features of human nature.…”

Section: Iiii Decision Functions and Sufficient Statenessmentioning

confidence: 98%

Does Global Democracy Require a World State?

Erman

2019

Philosophical Papers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of whether global democracy requires a world state has with few exceptions been answered with an unequivocal 'No'. A world state, it is typically argued, is neither feasible nor desirable. Instead, different forms of global governance arrangements have been suggested, involving non-hierarchical and multilayered models with dispersed authority. The overall aim of this paper is to addresses the question of whether global democracy requires a world state, adopting a so-called 'function-sensitive' approach. It is shown that such an approach is equipped to resist the predominant binary view of a world state (either accepting it or rejecting it) and offer a more differentiated and nuanced answer to this question. In brief, a basic presumption of a function-sensitive approach is that the content, justification and status of principles of democracy are dependent on the aim they are set out to achieve, what functions they are intended to regulate (e.g., decision-making, implementation, enforcement and evaluation), and the relationship between those functions. More specifically, within a function-sensitive framework, the paper sketches the contours of an account of global democracy consisting of five regulative principles and argues-utilizing the notion of 'sufficient stateness'-that it would require supranational legislative entities and perhaps supranational judicial entities but not necessarily supranational executive entities. The world is becoming increasingly interconnected and interdependent, with ever more political, social, cultural, financial and commercial relations transgressing nation state borders. This has also brought along with it a growing need to make collective decisions at the global level to coordinate actions and solve common problems. In the last 15 years or so, the search for an institutional response to this need has taken the form of what has become known as 'global governance'. In broad strokes, two aspects of global governance have been emphasized as central: the first concerns efficiency in providing global public goods and avoiding global public bads, whereas the second concerns legitimacy This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.

show abstract

“…This will have to involve processing and digesting information and forming normative judgements which citizens of different Member States can then either accept or reject (or get involved in shaping themselves). Limiting the complexity of political information in this way is crucially important for national political projects to succeed, and the same is true for transnational ones (Valentini, , p. 298).…”

Section: Assessing the Moral Cost Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This capacity is importantly supported by the principled vision of the public good around which partisanship is structured: it is this vision that allows partisans to distil political information for citizens and to supply them with normative judgements concerning how that information is best interpreted (Ebeling, ). Such considerations have led some scholars of global democracy to argue that global parties would ‘significantly reduce the epistemic and motivational burdens falling on the members of a global demos’ (Valentini, , p. 798), and there can be little doubt that the same is also true in the case of the EU. Thus the transnational partisanship on whose behalf I have argued in these final paragraphs therefore appears able to support the emergence of a pan‐European demos also in this third sense.…”

Section: Making a People: Transnational Partisanship And A European Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demoicracy, Transnational Partisanship and the EU

Wolkenstein

2017

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advocates of demoicracy dismiss the proposal to transform the EU into a supranational democracy on the grounds that there is no pan-European demos. This article examines several arguments that have been advanced to that effect and, noting some problems left outstanding, goes on to suggest that demoicrats who endorse the no-demos thesis fail to consider the possibility that citizens themselves may seek to europeanize the identities of Europeans. If we take this possibility seriously, it not only follows that the no-demos thesis is not a knockdown objection to supranational democracy. We are also provided with an alternative normative vision for transforming the EU into a legitimate supranational democratic order, one that turns upon the transformative potential of citizens who associate across borders in pursuit of shared political goals. The article concludes by examining this vision under the heading of 'transnational partisanship'.

show abstract

No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systematization and Critique

Cited by 69 publications

References 85 publications

How to diagnose democratic deficits in global politics: the use of the ‘all-affected principle’

How to diagnose democratic deficits in global politics: the use of the ‘all-affected principle’

Does Global Democracy Require a World State?

Demoicracy, Transnational Partisanship and the EU

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About