Il concetto di “inclusione” fa riferimento alla domanda “chi partecipa?”, ovvero alla questione cruciale di come vengono determinati in astratto e selezionati concretamente i soggetti della società civile a cui viene demandata la deliberazione su taluni aspetti dei processi decisionali delle amministrazioni pubbliche. L’Autore affronta i principali aspetti teorici e metodologici, confrontando le risposte della letteratura critica con le norme della legge n. 69/2007 della Regione Toscana sulla promozione della partecipazione alla elaborazione delle politiche regionali e locali. Dalla disamina emerge (...) un insieme di scelte pregiudiziali che specifica cosa significhi democrazia deliberativa, come essa si realizzi nei processi partecipativi e quali misure vadano prese per evitare il consolidarsi di meccanismi sociali selettivi. (shrink)

Think of some environmentally unfriendly choices – taking the car instead of public transport or driving an SUV, just binning something recyclable, using lots of plastic bags, buying an enormous television, washing clothes in hot water, replacing something when you could make do with last year's model, heating rooms you don't use or leaving the heating high when you could put on another layer of clothing, flying for holidays, wasting food and water, eating a lot of beef, installing a patio (...) heater, maybe even, as some have said lately, owning a dog. Think about your own choices, instances in which you take an action which enlarges your carbon footprint when you might have done otherwise without much trouble. Is there consolation in the thought that it makes no difference what you do? (shrink)

Democracy is usually justified either on intrinsic or instrumental, particularly epistemic, grounds. Intrinsic justifications stress the values inherent in the democratic process itself, whereas epistemic ones stress that it results in good outcomes. This article examines whether epistemic justifications for deliberative democracy are superior to intrinsic ones. The Condorcet jury theorem is the most common epistemic justification of democracy. I argue that it is not appropriate for deliberative democracy. Yet deliberative democrats often explicitly state that the process will favour the (...) best argument. This can only be the case if deliberation improves the overall competence of the group and of the individuals that constitute it. I analyse when deliberation will increase competences and when it will not do so and find that individual competences will not reliably increase as a result of deliberation. In order for deliberative democracy to be epistemically more effective than representative democracy, strong procedural assumptions need to be made and deliberative democracy needs to be justified based on a combination of epistemic and intrinsic elements. (shrink)

If we wish to assess the morality of elected officials, we must understand their function as our representatives and then infer how they can fulfill this function. I propose to treat the class of elected officials as a profession, so that their morality is a role morality and it is functionally determined. If we conceive the role morality of legislators to be analogous to the ethics of other professions, then this morality must be functionally defined by the purpose that legislators (...) are to fulfill once in office. Hence, the role morality of legislators will largely be determined by our theory of representation. We will need not a normative account of their role, but an empirical explanatory account. In David Hume's terms, the morality of role holders is one of “artificial” duties, that is to say, duties defined by their functional fit with the institutional purposes of a profession. Our most difficult problem, therefore, is to understand the role of our elected representatives. (shrink)

Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter is deeply ideological and conceptually confused. His book is shaped by pro‐market and pro‐expert biases and anti‐democratic attitudes, leading to one‐sided and conclusion‐driven arguments. His notion that voters are rationally irrational when they hold anti‐market and anti‐trade beliefs is incoherent, as is his idea that sociotropic voting can be explained as the rational purchase of a good self‐image.

The author applies an economic theory of ordinary knowledge—street-level epistemology—to the popular understanding of science. Street-level theory is essentially economic and pragmatic. If it is very costly to learn something, you are less likely to learn it. If you need to know it, you are more likely to find out about it (although what you find out might be wrong). For most of what you know, you essentially rely on others as sources (some of these others might be "experts," but (...) many are not). In general, the ordinary person does not need to know modern physics and cannot be expected to. But most of us generally need medical knowledge on occasion, and we can be expected to go in quest of it. Our primary task in seeking medical knowledge, however, is to settle on whom we count as relevant experts. Key Words: knowledge • epistemology • scientific knowledge • ordinary knowledge. (shrink)

For much economics research, ethics committee approval is not required. This is seen by some as indicating that there are no ethical issues in economics research. However, ethical research requires more than simply meeting regulatory requirements. If economics research has an impact on perceptions and resulting decisions, then there may be concerns about the nature of the research and its impact. There are a number of arguments that could be raised as to why economics does not describe the real world. (...) What we see is shaped by how we see, so it is important to consider context. This paper considers the simplification that is an inevitable aspect of research. Implications for economic approaches are described, recognising that criticisms can apply to heterodox as well as mainstream approaches. Subjectivity is then discussed, questioning the traditional positive-normative distinction. An additional section relates to the application of economics. It focuses on the significance of rhetoric and the differing roles played by economists, each of which may have their own obligations and expectations. A theme throughout the paper is that of groups and group membership shaping perceptions and behaviour. The paper concludes that there are ethical issues in relation to both how and why economists undertake their work. Read the Open Peer Discussion on this paper » Read the discussion of this paper on the WEA's Ethics conference ». (shrink)