Affected Interests and Their Institutions

in Democratic Theory
Restricted access

Abstract:

The scope, complexity, and interconnectedness of modern society should prompt us to develop dynamic understandings of democratic modes of inclusion and exclusion. In particular, democratic theory is becoming more attentive to the mismatch between those who make decisions and those who are affected by them as well as to the need to account for the voice of the latter. In this article I build on James Bohman’s understanding of democracy as a rule by multiple dêmoi to develop a framework for studying and evaluating modes of democratic inclusion that are based on being affected. To develop this framework I turn to law and public administration and examine the democratic properties of different institutions and procedures that give a voice to those who are affected by a decision.

Contributor Notes

Amit Ron is associate professor of politics at Arizona State University. His research centers around two central themes: the political dimensions of the history of political economy and the democratic theory of the public sphere. He has published works in the Journal of the History of Ideas, Environment & Planning D, the Journal of Political Philosophy, and the European Journal of Political Theory among others. E-mail: Amit.ron@asu.edu

Democratic Theory

An Interdisciplinary Journal

  • AbizadehArash. 2012. “On the Demos and Its Kin: Nationalism, Democracy, and the Boundary Problem.” American Political Science Review 106 (4): 867882.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BeckmanLudvig. 2009. The Frontiers of Democracy: the Right to Vote and Its Limits. Palgrave Macmillan.

  • BohmanJames. 2007. Democracy Across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • Brighouse and Fleurbaey. 2010. “Democracy and Proportionality.Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (2): 137155.

  • BrughaRuairí. 2000. “Stakeholder Analysis: A Review.” Health Policy and Planning 15 (3): 239246.

  • CohenJean. 1999. “Changing Paradigms of Citizenship and the Exclusiveness of the Demos.” International Sociology 14 (3): 245268.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ChristianoThomas. 2006. “A Democratic Theory of Territory and Some Puzzles about Global Democracy.” Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (1): 81107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ClarkDana L. 1999. A Citizen’s Guide to the World Bank Inspection Panel2nd ed. Washington, DC.

  • DahlRobert A. 1990. After the Revolution?: Authority in a Good Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • DryzekJohn S. 2001. “Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy.Political Theory 29 (5): 651669.

  • FletcherWilliam A. 1988. “The Structure of Standing.” Yale Law Journal 98: 221291.

  • FraserNancy. 2010. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. New York: Columbia University Press.

  • GoodinRobert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (1): 4068.

  • GoodpasterKenneth E. 1991. “Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis.” Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1): 5373.

  • GouldCarol C. 2006. “Self-Determination beyond Sovereignty: Relating Transnational Democracy to Local Autonomy.Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (1): 4460.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hall and Deardorff. 2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Strategy.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 6984.

  • KymlickaWill. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • ListChristian and Mathias Koenig-Archibugi. 2010. “Can There be a Global Demos?: An Agency-Based Approach.Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (1): 76110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • MathiowetzDean. 2008. “‘Interest’ Is a Verb: Arthur Bently and the Language of Interest.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (4): 622635.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NäsströmSofia. 2011. “The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle.” Political Studies 59 (1): 116134.

  • NineCara. 2014. “When Affected Interests Demand Joint Self-Determination: Learning from Rivers.” International Theory 6 (1): 157174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OwenDavid. 2012. “Constituting the Polity, Constituting the Demos: On the Place of the All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and in Resolving the Democratic Boundary Problem.” Ethics and Global Politics 5 (3): 129152.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SabatierPaul A. 2005. Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

  • SaundersBen. 2011. “Defining the Demos.Politics Philosophy and Economics 11 (3): 280301.

  • ShapiroIan. 1999. Democratic Justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • SongSarah. 2012. “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State.International Theory 4 (1): 3968.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ViningJoseph. 1978. Legal Identity: The Coming of Age of Public Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • WhittMatt. 2014. “Democracy’s Sovereign Enclosures: Territory and the All-Affected Principle.Constellations 21 (4): 560574.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WilliamsMelissa S. 2009. “Citizenship as Agency within Communities of Shared Fate.” In Unsettled Legitimacy: Political Community Power and Authority in a Global Era ed. Steven Bernstein and William D. Coleman3352. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation