This article attempts to view the idea of a “crisis of democracy” through a lens of individualization of the society. As the consequence of the impact of the individualization on existing liberal democracy, new forms of niggling democracy have been emerging. This article maps varieties of such emerging democracies in contemporary Japanese society.
Tetsuki Tamura and Yasuko H. Kobayashi
Cass Sunstein details intrinsic flaws in group discussion, even in ideal deliberation, and draws attention to prediction markets and information-aggregation devices on the internet as supplements to discussion. I respond that the supposed flaws do not affect ideal deliberation, and that the evaluation of group discussion is too pessimistic: there are alternative hypotheses to account for his findings, and there are doubts about their external validity. Also, I contend that his evaluation of prediction markets and internet devices is too optimistic. The markets have failed miserably, and the internet is vulnerable to astroturfing by the powerful and wealthy.
The technological revolution that began with the Arpanet in the late Sixties has changed the world we live in. The Internet and social media have improved our lives considerably, but the changes came in with a high-price tag attached: our freedom. We now live in a world in which technology has exponentially expanded the power of the State to keep tabs on its citizens (within and across borders). If we continue on this path, democracy as we know it is doomed. Yet the future is not as grey as it might look at first sight. The ubiquity of social media and smartphones and the increasing relevance of the Internet in everyday life have also drastically changed the impact-power of citizens in technologically advanced societies. Understanding these changes is to understand which shape democracy will take in the future.
Changing the Relationship between Philanthropy and Democracy?
Joshua Murchie and Jean-Paul Gagnon
This Practitioner’s Note considers the disruptive function of Little Phil, a mobile app that seeks to democratize philanthropic giving. Although many of the cultural aspects of philanthropy – such as increased control over donation, tracking the impact of one’s giving, and building interpersonal relationships with receivers – can be opened to any person with an app-hosting device and internet access, it cannot supplant the role of big philanthropy and solve Rob Reich’s problem: how to domesticate private wealth so that it serves democratic purposes? Little Phil’s disruption has in concept gotten us halfway to legitimizing philanthropy. Perhaps the uptake of citizens’ panels by large philanthropic foundations will cover the remaining distance.
A Marxian Analysis
Richard D. Wolff
The U.S. economy’s high-tech sector (internet, computers, telecommunications, etc.) burst its classic speculative bubble in 2000. The Nasdaq stock market lost 40 per cent of its value during the year and lost another 20 per cent in the first quarter of 2001. The Nasdaq dragged down most other stock market indicators in the U.S. Trillions of dollars in U.S. wealth vanished. The wealthiest citizens turned away from the stock market as rapid losses replaced the absurdly high gains of 1999. Other U.S. citizens watched in horror as their recent expansions of securities holdings rapidly shrank in value (also confronting many with vanished savings and reduced retirement benefits since their pensions were invested in ‘history’s greatest boom’). See Appendix 5 for the details on U.S. stock ownership patterns. Industries began to scale back their investment programs as rapid growth shifted to slow growth and recession loomed. The majority of workers slowed their spending and their accumulation of debt because of falling stock prices and because they fear a recession’s impact on wages, benefits, and job security. All these negative developments are continuing into 2001.
Jeffrey D. Hilmer and Max Halupka
participatory research initiative, it addresses a range of interconnected fields from Education and Youth Work to the Internet and Public Policy. Framed in this way, the book further explores working definitions of participation, and analyzes theoretical
Ben Berkowitz and Jean-Paul Gagnon
, or social.” He places his faith in the internet’s capacity to combat citizen frustration with the way democracies function. And he has good reason to do so given SeeClickFix’s positive track record. It has, after all, thus far been successful at
Political Representation beyond Representative Democracy
; Hardt 2010 ). Certain categories of these common-pool resources, such as the “digital commons” of open-source peer production, display structures of self-management akin to those governing Athenian democracy. Wikipedia, the free, internet-based, and
Marcos S. Scauso, Garrett FitzGerald, Arlene B. Tickner, Navnita Chadha Behera, Chengxin Pan, Chih-yu Shih, and Kosuke Shimizu
and access to internet inequality are correlated to higher risks of infection and lower possibilities of self-isolation ( Chiou and Tucker 2020 ). The story is not much different in India, the world's largest democracy and former British colony, where
livestreams mushroomed on the Internet. Car caravans and carefully orchestrated, physically distanced actions attempted to substitute for the missing crowds. The solution to the problem came from the streets the last week of May. Outrage over the ceaseless