Pressure Politics: The Challenges for Democracy

Grant, W. L.

doi:10.1093/parlij/gsg020

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In agreeing with the suggestions that there needs to be more debate over the ' representativeness ' of groups (see Grant 2001Grant , 2003Grant , 2004Grant , 2005Warleigh 2000Warleigh , 2001, the position developed in the article suggests that an across the board insistence on groups practising ' membership ' style affi liations and internal democracies would be overly heavy-handed, possibly even counterproductive. More nuanced approaches to vetting the policy involvement of groups suggest themselves.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Discussions of democratic expectations around group behaviour reflect the adoption of a ‘representation’ narrative of group practice. Grant (2001, 2003, 2004, 2005), for example, calls explicitly for ‘members’ to be given ‘opportunity to participate’ in groups, for the ‘accountability’ of groups to ‘their own members’, and for groups to be ‘representative’ of the ‘interests’ and ‘causes’ they pursue. These types of expectations of group practice appear to draw on what Jordan and Maloney described as the ‘extreme’ and ‘popular’ vision of groups as ‘voluntary, democratically accountable, and individual based’ (1997, pp.…”

Section: Great Expectations: Groups As Democratizing Agents?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Participatory and Democratic Potential and Practice of Interest Groups: Between Solidarity and Representation

Halpin

2006

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Embracing ‘groups’ as means to address democratic deficiencies invites scrutiny of their democratic practices. However, many groups lack internal democratic practices and offer few opportunities for affiliates to participate. Guided by an implicit ‘representation’ narrative of groups, the absence of internal democratic practices is interpreted as a sign of ‘failure’ or ‘deficiency’. Some scholars have entertained the idea of setting minimum standards of internal democracy as a prerequisite for policy access. This article scrutinizes this emerging consensus and its ‘representation’ narrative. Drawing upon the work of O’Neill (2001) and Pitkin (1967), it is argued that groups can also be viewed through a lens of solidarity. This paper argues that the type of constituency a group advocates for can be used to calibrate expectations of internal democratic structures of accountability and authorization. The concepts of ‘representation’ and ‘solidarity’ are used to make sense of the (changeable) practices of a variety of groups.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Great Expectations: Groups As Democratizing Agents?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Participatory and Democratic Potential and Practice of Interest Groups: Between Solidarity and Representation

Halpin

2006

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…More recently, in February 2003, the Controller of the Audit Commission complained of: 'sustained and improper political pressure', which was exerted by the Labour government in seeking to interfere with independent reports on policy delivery (Times 12 February 2003). Second, while politicians may seek to insulate certain issues from the political domain, it is unlikely that the wider public of that polity will accept that a certain issue is no longer 'political' (see Grant 2003). If an issue becomes politically salient in the eyes of the public, be it electricity charges or ethical issues in relation to human cloning, it will make little difference to them whether the policy is the responsibility of a state-owned company, an independent regulator or a quasi-autonomous agency.…”

Section: Depoliticization and Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributed Public Governance in Britain

Flinders

2004

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The structure of the British state is growing increasingly complex. This trend raises a number of questions that focus on the forces stimulating this complexity and its implications both for society-state relationships and the design and implementation of public policy. This article focuses on one specific element or strand of these debates: the growth in the number and role of quasi-autonomous public bodies within Britain. It seeks to analyse and reflect upon the distinctive approach taken by the Labour government, since winning office in May 1997, in relation to the sphere of 'distributed public governance' in Britain. Moreover, the article seeks to locate this analysis within broader debates surrounding the future of the British state and the Labour government's approach to statecraft through a thematic framework based around: growth, co-ordination, accountability, depoliticization and power. The central argument of this article is that the Labour government has increased considerably the sphere of distributed public governance in Britain. This process has been largely devoid of an underpinning rationale and this may have significant implications for successful policy delivery, the public's trust in government and the future trajectory of the British state.

show abstract

Bibliographie

Wirtschafts- Und Verbraucherschutzverbände Im Mehrebenensystem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pressure Politics: The Challenges for Democracy

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

The Participatory and Democratic Potential and Practice of Interest Groups: Between Solidarity and Representation

The Participatory and Democratic Potential and Practice of Interest Groups: Between Solidarity and Representation

Distributed Public Governance in Britain

Bibliographie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About