Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration

Abstract

To date there is no systematic exploration of the concept of ‘political feasibility’. We believe that feasibility is a central issue for political philosophy, conceptually as well as practically, and that it has been given background status for far too long. Roughly, a state of affairs is feasible if it is one we could actually bring about. But there are many questions to ask about the conditions under which we are justified in thinking that we could bring about a political state of affairs. In this article we bring together several aspects of the concept of feasibility defended in the literature thus far, and build upon them to give an analysis of the notion of political feasibility. We suggest that the notion involves a relation between agents and the pursuit of certain actions and outcomes in certain historical contexts, and that there are two important roles for feasibility to play in political theory, corresponding to two feasibility ‘tests’: one categorical, the other comparative. We show how the tests operate in the assessment of three different levels of a normative political theory: core normative principles, their institutional implementation and the political reforms leading to them. Focusing on the third level, which has received the least attention in the literature, we proceed to explain how feasibility considerations interact with desirability and epistemic considerations in the articulation of normative political judgments.

Policy Design and Non-Design: Towards a Spectrum of Policy Formulation Types

“…It is usually thought to involve the deliberate and conscious attempt to define policy goals and connect them in an instrumental fashion to instruments or tools expected to realize those objectives (Gilabert & Lawford-Smith, 2012;Majone, 1975;May, 2003). Policy design, in this sense, is a specific form of policy formulation based on the gathering of knowledge about the effects of policy tool use on policy targets and the application of that knowledge to the development and implementation of policies aimed at the attainment of specifically desired public policy outcomes and ambitions (Bobrow, 2006;Bobrow & Dryzek, 1987;Montpetit, 2003;Weaver, 2009Weaver, , 2010.…”

Cosmopolitanism, Self-Interest and World Government

“…By contrast, I assume that world government is not impossible in the same sense, even if currently clearly impractical. The distinction here is that between a 'hard' and 'soft' feasibility constraint respectively (Gilabert and Lawford-Smith, 2012 215). Conscious of these concerns, here I will simply grant that full and reciprocally administered economic globalization is theoretically consistent with -and indeed could aid the realisation ofcosmopolitan principles, and ask what follows.…”

The Political Legitimacy of Global Governance and the Proper Role of Civil Society Actors

“…4 Thus, the nature of the argument, consisting of abstract and comprehensive theorizing, is such that I will not be able to address many important concerns in relation to political legitimacy in global governance, not least relating to institutional design and 3 Even if there might be disagreement about details, I am quite certain that this conceptual framework is accommodating enough to be acceptable also by proponents of the so-called 'transmission belt' model (discussed in 'The Proper Role of Civil Society' section), since they too have directed criticism against the traditional philosophical view of political legitimacy as 'a right to rule', and have attempted to broaden the notion to be applicable to a range of practices in which civil society typically engages. 4 According to these feasibility constraints, principles of political legitimacy must be compatible with the basic features of human nature as we know it as well as be possible to achieve from the status quo (Erman 2016b, p. 57;see also Buchanan 2004;Gilabert and Lawford-Smith 2012). Apart from these constraints, the defended account adopts the accessibility constraint that the suggested principles are desirable and worth pursuing only if they are not morally unapproachable in the sense of involving extreme moral costs (Buchanan 2004).…”