Networks and democratic ideals

Equality, freedom, and communication

Research output: A Conference proceeding or a Chapter in BookChapter

33 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Democratic theory has historically proceeded under the assumption that the proper — and perhaps exclusive — locus of political authority is the sovereign state claiming exclusive political authority over a defined territory and population. A well-defined demos can therefore accompany the sovereign state, with a claim to popular control over policy decisions that is fairly straightforward — at least in theory, if rarely in practice. The democratic ideal of political equality can then be defined in terms of the equal capacity of all citizens in the demos to exercise control over policy decisions. Additionally, state democracy in practice is almost always liberal democracy. And liberal democratic theorists can specify a number of rights — freedom of thought, expression, association, and assembly, more controversially rights to private property and subsistence — necessary to make such a system work.2 Public authority so constructed constitutes a relatively neat package. Those wedded to such a picture greet any departure with horror. So for example Lowi (1999) condemns the cooperative environmental governance applauded by Sabel et al. (1999) as an abdication of public authority that allows stakeholders to generate outcomes that suit themselves — but at the expense of a public interest properly defined at the highest levels of state government.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationTheories of Democratic Network Governance
EditorsEva Sørensen, Jacob Torfing
Place of PublicationLondon, UK
PublisherPalgrave Macmillan
Chapter15
Pages262-273
Number of pages12
ISBN (Electronic)9780230625006
ISBN (Print)9781403995285
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

public authorities
equality
democracy
private property
communication
public interest
stakeholder
governance
citizen

Cite this

Dryzek, J. S. (2007). Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and communication. In E. Sørensen, & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of Democratic Network Governance (pp. 262-273). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625006
Dryzek, John S. / Networks and democratic ideals : Equality, freedom, and communication. Theories of Democratic Network Governance. editor / Eva Sørensen ; Jacob Torfing. London, UK : Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. pp. 262-273
@inbook{74910aeebf4b4bd5a7e0d0bb2c6d88de,
title = "Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and communication",
abstract = "Democratic theory has historically proceeded under the assumption that the proper — and perhaps exclusive — locus of political authority is the sovereign state claiming exclusive political authority over a defined territory and population. A well-defined demos can therefore accompany the sovereign state, with a claim to popular control over policy decisions that is fairly straightforward — at least in theory, if rarely in practice. The democratic ideal of political equality can then be defined in terms of the equal capacity of all citizens in the demos to exercise control over policy decisions. Additionally, state democracy in practice is almost always liberal democracy. And liberal democratic theorists can specify a number of rights — freedom of thought, expression, association, and assembly, more controversially rights to private property and subsistence — necessary to make such a system work.2 Public authority so constructed constitutes a relatively neat package. Those wedded to such a picture greet any departure with horror. So for example Lowi (1999) condemns the cooperative environmental governance applauded by Sabel et al. (1999) as an abdication of public authority that allows stakeholders to generate outcomes that suit themselves — but at the expense of a public interest properly defined at the highest levels of state government.",
author = "Dryzek, {John S.}",
year = "2007",
doi = "10.1057/9780230625006",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781403995285",
pages = "262--273",
editor = "S{\o}rensen, {Eva } and Jacob Torfing",
booktitle = "Theories of Democratic Network Governance",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan",
address = "United Kingdom",

}

Dryzek, JS 2007, Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and communication. in E Sørensen & J Torfing (eds), Theories of Democratic Network Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, pp. 262-273. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625006

Networks and democratic ideals : Equality, freedom, and communication. / Dryzek, John S.

Theories of Democratic Network Governance. ed. / Eva Sørensen; Jacob Torfing. London, UK : Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. p. 262-273.

Research output: A Conference proceeding or a Chapter in BookChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Networks and democratic ideals

T2 - Equality, freedom, and communication

AU - Dryzek, John S.

PY - 2007

Y1 - 2007

N2 - Democratic theory has historically proceeded under the assumption that the proper — and perhaps exclusive — locus of political authority is the sovereign state claiming exclusive political authority over a defined territory and population. A well-defined demos can therefore accompany the sovereign state, with a claim to popular control over policy decisions that is fairly straightforward — at least in theory, if rarely in practice. The democratic ideal of political equality can then be defined in terms of the equal capacity of all citizens in the demos to exercise control over policy decisions. Additionally, state democracy in practice is almost always liberal democracy. And liberal democratic theorists can specify a number of rights — freedom of thought, expression, association, and assembly, more controversially rights to private property and subsistence — necessary to make such a system work.2 Public authority so constructed constitutes a relatively neat package. Those wedded to such a picture greet any departure with horror. So for example Lowi (1999) condemns the cooperative environmental governance applauded by Sabel et al. (1999) as an abdication of public authority that allows stakeholders to generate outcomes that suit themselves — but at the expense of a public interest properly defined at the highest levels of state government.

AB - Democratic theory has historically proceeded under the assumption that the proper — and perhaps exclusive — locus of political authority is the sovereign state claiming exclusive political authority over a defined territory and population. A well-defined demos can therefore accompany the sovereign state, with a claim to popular control over policy decisions that is fairly straightforward — at least in theory, if rarely in practice. The democratic ideal of political equality can then be defined in terms of the equal capacity of all citizens in the demos to exercise control over policy decisions. Additionally, state democracy in practice is almost always liberal democracy. And liberal democratic theorists can specify a number of rights — freedom of thought, expression, association, and assembly, more controversially rights to private property and subsistence — necessary to make such a system work.2 Public authority so constructed constitutes a relatively neat package. Those wedded to such a picture greet any departure with horror. So for example Lowi (1999) condemns the cooperative environmental governance applauded by Sabel et al. (1999) as an abdication of public authority that allows stakeholders to generate outcomes that suit themselves — but at the expense of a public interest properly defined at the highest levels of state government.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84995708698&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/consensus-conflict-policy-networks-much-little

U2 - 10.1057/9780230625006

DO - 10.1057/9780230625006

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781403995285

SP - 262

EP - 273

BT - Theories of Democratic Network Governance

A2 - Sørensen, Eva

A2 - Torfing, Jacob

PB - Palgrave Macmillan

CY - London, UK

ER -

Dryzek JS. Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and communication. In Sørensen E, Torfing J, editors, Theories of Democratic Network Governance. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 2007. p. 262-273 https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230625006