DOCSLIB.ORG

Become a Part of a Book Manuscript Entitled Democracy Beyond Elections: Government Accountability in the Media Age

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Become a Part of a Book Manuscript Entitled Democracy Beyond Elections: Government Accountability in the Media Age This paper should (after many revisions) become a part of a book manuscript entitled Democracy Beyond Elections: Government Accountability in the Media Age. There are actually three mini chapters included here: Democracy: Crisis or Transformation? (p.2) The Crisis of Democracy, Elitism and Diversity (p. 20) The Transformation of Democracy and Connectivity (p.40) I would be most grateful for any advice you can give me about any part that you might have read. Thank you again, Gergana Jeremy Haworth Research Fellow in Political Science University of Cambridge Email: [email protected] 1 Democracy: Crisis or Transformation? Is democracy today in crisis or not? The growing body of literature on the state of democracy testifies to the renewed urgency of that question. In this chapter only, I extrapolate more than 100 references to the most recent manifestations of democracy (see table 1 in the appendix). The majority of these studies are published in the last five years and almost all of them are published after 1997. The advances in conceptual innovation, however, sometimes mask the wealth of new insights into the nature of modern democracy. It is not entirely clear what the major dividing lines between the different conceptions of democracy are and where their commonalities, if any, lie. The conceptual ambiguities exceed the confines of conceptual clarity. Do we live in a “post-democracy” (Crouch 2004) or a “counter-democracy” (Rosanvallon 2008)?; “Audience” (Manin 1997), “spectator” (Lippman 1922) or “ocular” (Green 2011) democracy? Unrepresentative (Lewis 2001) or post-representative democracy Green 2011) democracy?; “Rancierean” (Hazan 2012), “Madisonian” (Bergman & Strom 2013) or “Machiavellian” (McCormick 2011) democracy?; A “shareholder” (Dasgupta 2010) or “stakeholder” y (Macdonald 2012) democracy? “Demoicrcay” (Nicolaïdis 2012), “technocracy” (Stie 2012), “mediocracy” (Tassano 2006) or “juristocracy” (Hirschl 2004)?; Is there a “confidence gap” (Lipset 1987), a “confidence trap” (Runciman 2013) or an “expectations gap” (Flinders &Dommett 2013); Are we living in an “electronic republic” (Grossman 1996), a “digital democracy” (Hindman 2008) or an “e-democrcay” (Della Porta 2013)? Are we witnessing the “great degeneration of democracy” (Ferguson 2012) or the “great transformation of democracy” (Warren 2006)?; Is there a “global resurgence of democracy” (Diamond & Plattner 1996) or “global divergence of democracy” (Diamond & Plattner 2010)? Is democracy in a “terminal decline” (Burn-Murdoch 2012) or in the midst of a “democratic revolution” (Schmitter)? The chapters suggest that there are two interrelated principles for distinguishing the models of the crisis of democracy from those of the transformation of democracy. 1. How elitist is the model and in what way? 2. What is the place of the concept of “diversity” in the model? The first and more obvious principal difference is the elitist character of democracy. Critical accounts of democracy tend to see the present state of democracy as being elitist. Elitism here is defined as being either caused by elites, resolved by elites or maintained by elites. The elites are the key driving force behind those models. The second point of differentiation between conflicting conceptions of democracy- the conception of the diversity of the public will. Both the models of the crisis and the transformation of democracy emphasize the fragmentation of the public. There is one crucial difference, however. The critics of democracy see the fragmentation of the public as the final and deplorable state of democratic development, whereas the transformationists believe that fragmentation is a precondition for the regrouping of public opinion. The newly configured public opinion, according to the transformationists, is more autonomous. 2 Ultimately, these two criteria- elitism and diversity - yield two very different concepts of society and governance: a polycentric and a monocentric model reflecting the conceptions of crisis and a transformation of democracy respectively. Figure 1: Monocentric vs. Polycentric Models of Democracy in Crisis and Transformation Respectively Transformation of Democracy: Crisis of Democracy: Polycentric Model Monocentric Model Elites Elites Public Public These two criteria-elitism and diversity- give rise to three additional questions: first, what is the connection between elitism and diversity; second, what are the causal mechanisms which explain why models of the crisis and transformation of democracy reach such different conclusions, based on the principles of diversity and elitism; and three, what are the implications for choosing diversity as a principle for defining the transformation or crisis of democracy? I briefly address each question below. What are the Main Differences between Contemporary Models of Democracy? This chapter seeks to breathe new life into the most recent insights about the nature of democracy by putting the new concepts in dialogue with each other and by separating them into distinct analytical categories. This is an effort to simultaneously differentiate and integrate the new advances in understanding democracy. I argue that it is possible to reduce the great variety of conceptual innovation into two big but meaningful categories: the sceptics of democracy versus the transformationists, who believe that democracy is transformed, not undermined. Kenneth Newton (2011) distinguishes between a “citizen-centred input theory of democratic malaise” and a “top down output approach to democratic malaise.” I develop this analytical separation further I introduce seven main points of differentiation between models of the crisis of democracy and models of the transformation of democracy. To facilitate the comparison between the models, I use a simple depiction of democracy as the 3 crossover point between public demand for representation and institutional supply of representation. The following criteria differentiate more from less optimistic accounts of present day democracy: 1) emphasis: who drives the model- the elites or the public; 2) approach: is the determining force bottom-up or top-down?; 3) view of the public: is the public homogenous or heterogeneous?; 4) view of the elites: are the elites divided or united; 5) relationship between supply and demand: is there a democratic deficit or democratic surplus?; 6) mechanisms: are the mechanisms that determine the model centripetal or centrifugal; 7) determinants of public demand: are they endogenous or exogenous?; single or multiple? The sceptics believe that democracy is in crisis. The single most common critique of the democracy is that it elitist and oligarchic. According to the sceptics of democracy, a powerful and unified group of political elites dominates over a passive public. The will of the public is dependent and endogenously determined. An endogenous public will is largely created by the elites or by instruments or groups that the elites control, such as (civic) education, the media moguls or by intellectuals. The sceptics’ perception of the public is that it is mostly homogenous. It is not splintered into groups, factions and autonomous centres of power. The crisis of democracy is a top- down phenomenon devised and executed by the elites. Whereas the degrees of totality within the sceptics’ camp vary, the model of the crisis of democracy in its most extreme version propounds that the totality of the elites rules over the totality of public will. The crisis of democracy arises because of a democratic deficit. The transformationists tend to view democracy as being in a state of a progress, reinvention and an opportunity for improvement. It presents a bottom-up conception of democracy, because public will, not elites, are at the centre of activism. Transformationists perceive the public will as created by exogenous factors which are beyond the control of political elites. Part of the reason why the determinants of the public will are exogenous is that they are multiple: globalization, the financial crisis, the rise of the media, technological revolution, the demise of the political parties, the New Public Management and depoliticisation. The result of these multiple exogenous forces is to fragment the public will. Fragmentation, according to the transformationists, creates new opportunities for association, reconfiguration and re- creation of the public will. The public becomes more particularistic but also more autonomous. The multiple and exogenous factors have split up the monolithic elites. There is no immediate and ostensible connection between media moguls, political leaders, globalization firms, educational institutions and intellectuals. While the level and the reasons for diversity vary, the transformationist model can be summarized as portraying diverse elites as being challenged by a diverse public will. The transformation of democracy is activated by a democratic surplus. 4 Figure2: Principle Differences between the Sceptics and the Transformationalists’ View of the Present State of Democracy Criteria Sceptics Transformationists State of democracy Crisis Transformation Emphasis Elites Public Approach Top-down Bottom-up View of the Public Homogenous or Heterogeneous Over- Heterogeneous View of the Elites Homogenous Heterogeneous Relationship between Democratic deficit Democratic Surplus Supply and Demand Mechanisms Centrifugal Centripetal Determinants of public Endogenous: intellectuals, Exogenous: globalization, demand civic education, elites, media, associations, media financial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hong Kong's Pro-Democracy Protests
    Protests & Democracy: Hong Kong’s Pro-Democracy Protests Jennifer Yi Advisor: Professor Tsung Chi Politics Senior Comprehensive Project Candidate for Honors consideration April 10, 2015 2 Abstract Protests that occur in the public sphere shed light on the different types of democracy that exist in a region. A protester’s reason for participation demonstrates what type of democracy is missing, while a protest itself demonstrates what type of democracy exists in the region. This Politics Senior Comprehensive Project hypothesizes that the recent pro-democracy protests in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“Hong Kong”), dubbed the Umbrella Movement, demonstrate an effective democracy due to active citizen engagement within the public sphere. Data is collected through personal interviews of Umbrella Movement participants that demonstrate what type of democracy currently exists in Hong Kong, what type of democracy protesters are looking for, and what type of democracy exists as a result of the recent protests. The interviews show that a true representative and substantive democracy do not exist in Hong Kong as citizens are not provided the democratic rights that define these types of democracy. However, the Umbrella Movement demonstrates an effective democracy in the region as citizens actively engage with one another within the public sphere for the purpose of achieving a representative and substantive democracy in Hong Kong. 3 I. Introduction After spending most of my junior year studying in Hong Kong, I have become very interested in the region and its politics. I am specifically interested in the different types of democracy that exist in Hong Kong as it is a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China (“China”).
    [Show full text]
  • PSCI 5113 / EURR 5113 Democracy in the European Union Mondays, 11:35 A.M
    Carleton University Fall 2019 Department of Political Science Institute of European, Russian and Eurasian Studies PSCI 5113 / EURR 5113 Democracy in the European Union Mondays, 11:35 a.m. – 2:25 p.m. Please confirm location on Carleton Central Instructor: Professor Achim Hurrelmann Office: D687 Loeb Building Office Hours: Mondays, 3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m., and by appointment Phone: (613) 520-2600 ext. 2294 Email: [email protected] Twitter: @achimhurrelmann Course description: Over the past seventy years, European integration has made significant contributions to peace, economic prosperity and cultural exchange in Europe. By contrast, the effects of integration on the democratic quality of government have been more ambiguous. The European Union (EU) possesses more mechanisms of democratic input than any other international organization, most importantly the directly elected European Parliament (EP). At the same time, the EU’s political processes are often described as insufficiently democratic, and European integration is said to have undermined the quality of national democracy in the member states. Concerns about a “democratic deficit” of the EU have not only been an important topic of scholarly debate about European integration, but have also constituted a major argument of populist and Euroskeptic political mobilization, for instance in the “Brexit” referendum. This course approaches democracy in the EU from three angles. First, it reviews the EU’s democratic institutions and associated practices of citizen participation: How
    [Show full text]
  • Wien Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna
    Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna Reihe Politikwissenschaft / Political Science Series No. 45 The End of the Third Wave and the Global Future of Democracy Larry Diamond 2 — Larry Diamond / The End of the Third Wave — I H S The End of the Third Wave and the Global Future of Democracy Larry Diamond Reihe Politikwissenschaft / Political Science Series No. 45 July 1997 Prof. Dr. Larry Diamond Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace Stanford University Stanford, California 94305-6010 USA e-mail: [email protected] and International Forum for Democratic Studies National Endowment for Democracy 1101 15th Street, NW, Suite 802 Washington, DC 20005 USA T 001/202/293-0300 F 001/202/293-0258 Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna 4 — Larry Diamond / The End of the Third Wave — I H S The Political Science Series is published by the Department of Political Science of the Austrian Institute for Advanced Studies (IHS) in Vienna. The series is meant to share work in progress in a timely way before formal publication. It includes papers by the Department’s teaching and research staff, visiting professors, students, visiting fellows, and invited participants in seminars, workshops, and conferences. As usual, authors bear full responsibility for the content of their contributions. All rights are reserved. Abstract The “Third Wave” of global democratization, which began in 1974, now appears to be drawing to a close. While the number of “electoral democracies” has tripled since 1974, the rate of increase has slowed every year since 1991 (when the number jumped by almost 20 percent) and is now near zero.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy on the Precipice Council of Europe Democracy 2011-12 Council of Europe Publishing Debates
    Democracy on the Precipice Democracy Democracy is well-established and soundly practiced in most European countries. But despite unprecedented progress, there is growing dissatisfaction with the state of democracy and deepening mistrust of democratic institutions; a situation exacer- Democracy on the Precipice bated by the economic crisis. Are Europe’s democracies really under threat? Has the traditional model of European democracy exhausted its potential? A broad consensus is forming as to the urgent need to examine the origins of the crisis and to explore Council of Europe visions and strategies which could contribute to rebuilding confidence in democracy. Democracy Debates 2011-12 As Europe’s guardian of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, the Council of Europe is committed to exploring the state and practice of European democracy, as Debates of Europe Publishing 2011-12 Council Council of Europe Democracy well as identifying new challenges and anticipating future trends. In order to facilitate Preface by Thorbjørn Jagland this reflection, the Council of Europe held a series of Democracy Debates with the participation of renowned specialists working in a variety of backgrounds and disciplines. This publication presents the eight Democracy Debate lectures. Each presentation Zygmunt Bauman analyses a specific aspect of democracy today, placing the issues not only in their political context but also addressing the historical, technological and communication Ulrich Beck dimensions. The authors make proposals on ways to improve democratic governance Ayşe Kadıoğlu and offer their predictions on how democracy in Europe may evolve. Together, the presentations contribute to improving our understanding of democracy today and to John Keane recognising the ways it could be protected and strengthened.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Democracy the Democratic Form of Government Is An
    Types of Democracy The democratic form of government is an institutional configuration that allows for popular participation through the electoral process. According to political scientist Robert Dahl, the democratic ideal is based on two principles: political participation and political contestation. Political participation requires that all the people who are eligible to vote can vote. Elections must be free, fair, and competitive. Once the votes have been cast and the winner announced, power must be peacefully transferred from one individual to another. These criteria are to be replicated on a local, state, and national level. A more robust conceptualization of democracy emphasizes what Dahl refers to as political contestation. Contestation refers to the ability of people to express their discontent through freedom of the speech and press. People should have the ability to meet and discuss their views on political issues without fear of persecution from the state. Democratic regimes that guarantee both electoral freedoms and civil rights are referred to as liberal democracies. In the subfield of Comparative Politics, there is a rich body of literature dealing specifically with the intricacies of the democratic form of government. These scholarly works draw distinctions between democratic regimes based on representative government, the institutional balance of power, and the electoral procedure. There are many shades of democracy, each of which has its own benefits and disadvantages. Types of Democracy The broadest differentiation that scholars make between democracies is based on the nature of representative government. There are two categories: direct democracy and representative democracy. We can identify examples of both in the world today.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Promotion and Civil Society
    Armine Ishkanian Democracy promotion and civil society Book section Original citation: Ishkanian, Armine (2007) Democracy promotion and civil society. In: Albrow, Martin and Glasius, Marlies and Anheier, Helmut K. and Kaldor, Mary, (eds.) Global Civil Society 2007/8 : Communicative Power and Democracy. Global Civil Society - Year Books . SAGE publications Ltd, London, UK, pp. 58-85. ISBN 9781412948005 © 2007 SAGE Publications This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/37038/ Available in LSE Research Online: June 2011 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s submitted version of the book section. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. GCS_Democracy_CH4/5/6/7:GCS Part 2_Issues 12/7/07 22:16 Page 2 CHAPTER 4 DEMOCRACY PROMOTION AND CIVIL SOCIETY Of the various strands of democracy promotion, in this chapter I focus on civil society strengthening Armine Ishkanian programmes and ask the following questions.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A
    Elections Without Democracy THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way Steven Levitsky is assistant professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. His Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Lucan A. Way is assistant professor of political science at Temple University and an academy scholar at the Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the obstacles to authoritarian consolidation in the former Soviet Union. The post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hy- brid political regimes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbab- we), postcommunist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transi- tional forms of democracy. Yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic. Particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, many regimes have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction. It may therefore be time to stop thinking of these cases in terms of transitions to democracy and to begin thinking about the specific types of regimes they actually are. In recent years, many scholars have pointed to the importance of hybrid regimes. Indeed, recent academic writings have produced a vari- ety of labels for mixed cases, including not only “hybrid regime” but also “semidemocracy,” “virtual democracy,” “electoral democracy,” “pseudodemocracy,” “illiberal democracy,” “semi-authoritarianism,” “soft authoritarianism,” “electoral authoritarianism,” and Freedom House’s “Partly Free.”1 Yet much of this literature suffers from two important weaknesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017
    St Comp Int Dev https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018-9268-z Measuring Polyarchy Across the Globe, 1900–2017 Jan Teorell1 & Michael Coppedge2 & Staffan Lindberg3 & Svend-Erik Skaaning 4 # The Author(s) 2018 Abstract This paper presents a new measure polyarchy for a global sample of 182 countries from 1900 to 2017 based on the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) data, deriving from an expert survey of more than 3000 country experts from around the world, with on average 5 experts rating each indicator. By measuring the five compo- nents of Elected Officials, Clean Elections, Associational Autonomy, Inclusive Citi- zenship, and Freedom of Expression and Alternative Sources of Information separately, we anchor this new index directly in Dahl’s(1971) extremely influential theoretical framework. The paper describes how the five polyarchy components were measured and provides the rationale for how to aggregate them to the polyarchy scale. We find Previous versions of this paper were presented at the APSA Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, August 28- 31, 2014, at the Carlos III-Juan March Institute of Social Sciences, Madrid, November 28, 2014, and at the European University Institute, Fiesole, January 20, 2016. Any remaining omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-018- 9268-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. * Jan Teorell [email protected] Michael Coppedge [email protected] Staffan Lindberg [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Islamic Shura, Democracy, and Online Fatwas 50
    yber C yberO rient, Vol. 5, Iss. 2, 2011 pp. 50-72 Islamic Shura, Democracy, and Online Fatwas Jens Kutscher Abstract: Publications on the Islamic shura concept – Arabic and English – usually include a com- parison with present-day liberal democracy. This paper addresses the issue of shura and democracy from the perspective of Muslim communities residing in non-Islamic countries. How do muftis in their online fatwas respond to questions whether Islam and democracy can be reconciled? How do they address the issue of shura? This paper argues that one might well expect the shura concept to serve as a justification for the reconciliation of Islam and democracy or at least find the shura concept to be a distinctly Islamic understanding of democracy. The online fatwas considered for this survey (from AskImam.org, IslamiCity. com, IslamOnline.net, and IslamQA.com) reveal a number of distinct understandings of shura, which are nevertheless linked with each other – be they elections as an expression of shura, shura as a constitutional principle and perfect form of government, or shura in cases of hardship or the political participation of women. While muftis from all websites are unanimous in their defense of shura, their conclusions regarding the centrality and impli- cations of this concept reflect the different streams of thought and currents they represent. Keywords: study of religion, democracy, legal science, Islam and civil society, Islam and politics, Is- lamic law, websites, fatwas Islam and Democracy in the 21st Century Whether “Islam” and “democracy” are actually compatible is an issue that has been raised for several decades now (McElroy 1938).
    [Show full text]
  • Illiberal Democracies: Overview
    Illiberal Democracies: Overview •“Transitions to democracy” •Democracy with adjectives •Illiberal democracies in practice: –Russia and “stable” illiberalism –Kenya: Violently democratic –Romania: from ill to liberal •(In)conclusions “Transitions to democracy” • Transitions literature comes out of a reading of democratization in L.Am., ‘70s & ‘80s. • Mechanisms of transition (O’Donnell and Schmitter): – Splits appear in the authoritarian regime – Civil society and opposition develop – “Pacted” transitions Democracy with Adjectives • Problem: The transitions model is excessively teleological and just inaccurate • “Illiberal” meets “democracy” – What is democracy (again, and in brief)? – Why add “liberal”? – What in an illiberal democracy is “ill”? A Typology of Regimes Chart taken from Larry Diamond, “Thinking about Hybrid Regimes” Journal of Democracy 13: 2 (2002) How do “gray zone” regimes develop? • Thomas Carothers: Absence of pre-conditions to democracy, which is tied to… (Culturalist) • Fareed Zakaria: When baking a liberal democracy, liberalize then democratize (Institutionalist). • Michael McFaul: Domestic balance of power at the outset matters (path dependence). Where even, illiberalism may develop (Rationalist). Russia Poland Case studies: Russia • 1991-93: An even balance of power between Yeltsin and reformers feeds into political ambiguity…and illiberalism • After Sept 1993 - Yeltsin takes the advantage and uses it to shape Russia into a delegative democracy • The creation of President Putin • Putin and the “dictatorship of law”
    [Show full text]
  • International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding
    The Unintended Consequences of Democracy Promotion: International Organizations and Democratic Backsliding Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Anna M. Meyerrose, M.A. Graduate Program in Political Science The Ohio State University 2019 Dissertation Committee: Alexander Thompson, Co-Advisor Irfan Nooruddin, Co-Advisor Marcus Kurtz William Minozzi Sara Watson c Copyright by Anna M. Meyerrose 2019 Abstract Since the end of the Cold War, international organizations (IOs) have engaged in unprecedented levels of democracy promotion and are widely viewed as positive forces for democracy. However, this increased emphasis on democracy has more re- cently been accompanied by rampant illiberalism and a sharp rise in cases of demo- cratic backsliding in new democracies. What explains democratic backsliding in an age of unparalleled international support for democracy? Democratic backsliding oc- curs when elected officials weaken or erode democratic institutions and results in an illiberal or diminished form of democracy, rather than autocracy. This dissertation argues that IOs commonly associated with democracy promotion can support tran- sitions to democracy but unintentionally make democratic backsliding more likely in new democracies. Specifically, I identify three interrelated mechanisms linking IOs to democratic backsliding. These organizations neglect to support democratic insti- tutions other than executives and elections; they increase relative executive power; and they limit states’ domestic policy options via requirements for membership. Lim- ited policy options stunt the development of representative institutions and make it more difficult for leaders to govern. Unable to appeal to voters based on records of effective governance or policy alternatives, executives manipulate weak institutions to maintain power, thus increasing the likelihood of backsliding.
    [Show full text]
  • After the New Social Democracy Offers a Distinctive Contribution to Political Ideas
    fitzpatrick cvr 8/8/03 11:10 AM Page 1 Social democracy has made a political comeback in recent years, After thenewsocialdemocracy especially under the influence of the Third Way. However, not everyone is convinced that this ‘new social democracy’ is the best means of reviving the Left’s social project. This book explains why and offers an alternative approach. Bringing together a range of social and political theories After the After the new new social democracy engages with some of the most important contemporary debates regarding the present direction and future of the Left. Drawing upon egalitarian, feminist and environmental social democracy ideas it proposes that the social democratic tradition can be renewed but only if the dominance of conservative ideas is challenged more effectively. It explores a number of issues with this aim in mind, including justice, the state, democracy, welfare reform, new technologies, future generations and the new genetics. Employing a lively and authoritative style After the new social democracy offers a distinctive contribution to political ideas. It will appeal to all of those interested in politics, philosophy, social policy and social studies. Social welfare for the Tony Fitzpatrick is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Sociology and Social twenty-first century Policy, University of Nottingham. FITZPATRICK TONY FITZPATRICK TZPPR 4/25/2005 4:45 PM Page i After the new social democracy TZPPR 4/25/2005 4:45 PM Page ii For my parents TZPPR 4/25/2005 4:45 PM Page iii After the new social democracy Social welfare for the twenty-first century TONY FITZPATRICK Manchester University Press Manchester and New York distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave TZPPR 4/25/2005 4:45 PM Page iv Copyright © Tony Fitzpatrick 2003 The right of Tony Fitzpatrick to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]