The Experts below are selected from a list of 9540 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Helene Landemore - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
crowdsourced Deliberation the case of the law on off road traffic in finland
Policy & Internet, 2016Co-Authors: Tanja Aitamurto, Helene LandemoreAbstract:This article examines the emergence of Democratic Deliberation in a crowdsourced law reform process. The empirical context of the study is a crowdsourced legislative reform in Finland, initiated by the Finnish government. The findings suggest that online exchanges in the crowdsourced process qualify as Democratic Deliberation according to the classical definition. We introduce the term “crowdsourced Deliberation” to mean an open, asynchronous, depersonalized, and distributed kind of online Deliberation occurring among self-selected participants in the context of an attempt by government or another organization to open up the policymaking or lawmaking process. The article helps to characterize the nature of crowdsourced policymaking and to understand its possibilities as a practice for implementing open government principles. We aim to make a contribution to the literature on crowdsourcing in policymaking, participatory and deliberative democracy and, specifically, the newly emerging subfield in deliberative democracy that focuses on “deliberative systems.”
-
crowdsourced Deliberation the case of the law on off road traffic in finland
Policy & Internet, 2016Co-Authors: Tanja Aitamurto, Helene LandemoreAbstract:In this paper we examine the emergence of Democratic Deliberation in a crowdsourced law reform process. The empirical context of the study is a crowdsourced legislative reform in Finland, initiated by the Finnish government. The findings suggest that online exchanges in the crowdsourced process qualify as Democratic Deliberation according to the classical definition. We introduce the term “crowdsourced Deliberation” to mean an open, asynchronous, depersonalized, and distributed kind of online Deliberation occurring among self-selected participants in the context of an attempt by government or another organization to open up the policymaking or lawmaking process. The article helps to characterize the nature of crowdsourced policymaking and to understand its possibilities as a practice for implementing open government principles. We aim to make a contribution to the literature on crowdsourcing in policymaking, participatory and deliberative democracy and, specifically, the newly emerging subfield in deliberative democracy that focuses on “deliberative systems.”
-
five design principles for crowdsourced policymaking assessing the case of crowdsourced off road traffic law in finland
2015Co-Authors: Tanja Aitamurto, Helene LandemoreAbstract:This article reports a pioneering case study of a crowdsourced law-reform process in Finland. In the crowdsourcing experiment, the public was invited to contribute to the law-reform process by sharing their knowledge and ideas for a better policy. This article introduces a normative design framework of five principles for crowdsourced policymaking: inclusiveness, accountability, transparency, modularity, and synthesis. Inclusiveness, accountability, and transparency are overarching principles for crowdsourced policymaking. Modularity and synthesis support these overarching principles and are instrumental in achieving the main goals of crowdsourced policymaking, namely, an efficient search for knowledge and Democratic Deliberation among the participants. These principles apply to both the design of the process and the medium that the process takes place in, i.e., the technology facilitating crowdsourcing. This article analyzes the design of the crowdsourced off-road traffic law experiment in Finland using the five principles described above and provides a future research agenda for examining design aspects in crowdsourced policymaking.
-
talking it out with others vs Deliberation within and the law of group polarization some implications of the argumentative theory of reasoning for deliberative democracy
Análise Social, 2012Co-Authors: Helene Landemore, Hugo MercierAbstract:Talking it out with others vs. Deliberation within and the law of group polarization: Some implications of the argumentative theory of reasoning for deliberative democracy. This paper argues that a new psychological theory—the argumentative theory of reasoning—provides theoretical support for the discursive, dialogical ideal of Democratic Deliberation. It converges, in particular, with deliberative democrats’ predictions about the positive epistemic properties of talking things out with others. The paper further considers two influential objections to Democratic Deliberation: first, that “Deliberation within” rather than Deliberation with others carries most of the burden in terms of changing people’s minds; and second, that the so-called “law of group polarization” casts serious doubts on the value of Democratic Deliberation and, more generally, the ideal of deliberative democracy.
Tanja Aitamurto - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
crowdsourced Deliberation the case of the law on off road traffic in finland
Policy & Internet, 2016Co-Authors: Tanja Aitamurto, Helene LandemoreAbstract:This article examines the emergence of Democratic Deliberation in a crowdsourced law reform process. The empirical context of the study is a crowdsourced legislative reform in Finland, initiated by the Finnish government. The findings suggest that online exchanges in the crowdsourced process qualify as Democratic Deliberation according to the classical definition. We introduce the term “crowdsourced Deliberation” to mean an open, asynchronous, depersonalized, and distributed kind of online Deliberation occurring among self-selected participants in the context of an attempt by government or another organization to open up the policymaking or lawmaking process. The article helps to characterize the nature of crowdsourced policymaking and to understand its possibilities as a practice for implementing open government principles. We aim to make a contribution to the literature on crowdsourcing in policymaking, participatory and deliberative democracy and, specifically, the newly emerging subfield in deliberative democracy that focuses on “deliberative systems.”
-
crowdsourced Deliberation the case of the law on off road traffic in finland
Policy & Internet, 2016Co-Authors: Tanja Aitamurto, Helene LandemoreAbstract:In this paper we examine the emergence of Democratic Deliberation in a crowdsourced law reform process. The empirical context of the study is a crowdsourced legislative reform in Finland, initiated by the Finnish government. The findings suggest that online exchanges in the crowdsourced process qualify as Democratic Deliberation according to the classical definition. We introduce the term “crowdsourced Deliberation” to mean an open, asynchronous, depersonalized, and distributed kind of online Deliberation occurring among self-selected participants in the context of an attempt by government or another organization to open up the policymaking or lawmaking process. The article helps to characterize the nature of crowdsourced policymaking and to understand its possibilities as a practice for implementing open government principles. We aim to make a contribution to the literature on crowdsourcing in policymaking, participatory and deliberative democracy and, specifically, the newly emerging subfield in deliberative democracy that focuses on “deliberative systems.”
-
five design principles for crowdsourced policymaking assessing the case of crowdsourced off road traffic law in finland
2015Co-Authors: Tanja Aitamurto, Helene LandemoreAbstract:This article reports a pioneering case study of a crowdsourced law-reform process in Finland. In the crowdsourcing experiment, the public was invited to contribute to the law-reform process by sharing their knowledge and ideas for a better policy. This article introduces a normative design framework of five principles for crowdsourced policymaking: inclusiveness, accountability, transparency, modularity, and synthesis. Inclusiveness, accountability, and transparency are overarching principles for crowdsourced policymaking. Modularity and synthesis support these overarching principles and are instrumental in achieving the main goals of crowdsourced policymaking, namely, an efficient search for knowledge and Democratic Deliberation among the participants. These principles apply to both the design of the process and the medium that the process takes place in, i.e., the technology facilitating crowdsourcing. This article analyzes the design of the crowdsourced off-road traffic law experiment in Finland using the five principles described above and provides a future research agenda for examining design aspects in crowdsourced policymaking.
Jacob S. Sherkow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Governance Choices of Genome Editing Patents
'Frontiers Media SA', 2021Co-Authors: Naomi Scheinerman, Jacob S. SherkowAbstract:There are a variety of governance mechanisms concerning the ownership and use of patents. These include government licenses, compulsory licenses, march-in rights for inventions created with federal funding, government use rights, enforcement restrictions, subject-matter restrictions, and a host of private governance regimes. Each has been discussed in various contexts by scholars and policymakers and some, in some degree, have been employed in different cases at different times. But scholars have yet to explore how each of these choices are subject to—or removed from—Democratic control. Assessing the range of Democratic implications of these patent governance choices is important in understanding the social and political implications of controversial or wide-ranging technologies because their use has a significant potential to affect the polity. This paper seeks to unpack these concerns for genome editing, such as CRISPR, specifically. Patents covering genome editing make an interesting case because, to date, it appears that the polity is concerned less with certain kinds of access, and more with distribution and limits on the technology’s particular uses, such as human enhancement and certain agricultural and environmental applications. Here, we explore what it means for patents to be Democratic or non-Democratically governed and, in so doing, identify that patents covering many of the most controversial applications—that is, ones most likely to gain public attention—are effectively controlled by either non- or anti-Democratic institutions, namely, private restrictions on licensing. This may be effective—for now—but lawmakers should be wary that such restrictions could rapidly reverse themselves. Meanwhile, other choices, like compulsory licenses, more broadly touch on Democratic Deliberation but, as currently structured, are aimed poorly for particular applications. Insofar as the public wants, or perhaps deserves, a say in the distribution and limits of these applications, illuminating the ways in which these governance choices intersect—or fail to intersect—with Democratic institutions is critical. We offer some concluding thoughts about the nature of patents and their relationship with Democratic governance as distributed claims to authority, and suggest areas for scholars and policymakers to pay close attention to as the genome editing patent landscape develops
John Boswell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
deliberating downstream countering Democratic distortions in the policy process
Perspectives on Politics, 2016Co-Authors: John BoswellAbstract:Key theorists and scholars of democracy have focused on understanding and enhancing the institutions and practices that shape decision-making. Indeed, the most influential contemporary normative account—the deliberative version—though increasingly adapted to the complex realities of contemporary politics, retains a tight focus on the conditions of legitimate will formation. This remains the core underpinning the normative the impetus for innovation and reform in contemporary Democratic politics. Yet missing from even the adapted deliberative account is detailed consideration of what happens after will formation. In this paper, I turn to the policy and administration literature to show how the inescapably attritional and opaque policy process can magnify asymmetries that theorists and scholars of contemporary democracy, chief among them deliberative democrats, ought to be much better attuned to. I argue that in failing to consider these problems adequately, contemporary Democratic thinkers, scholars and reformers risk lending legitimacy to institutions and practices that might sustain the very biases they are mobilized against. As such, I identify institutional innovations and governing practices that can embed aspects of Democratic Deliberation ‘downstream’ in the policy process in order to counter distortions and rebalance asymmetries. I conclude by calling for theorists, researchers and reformers to explore the value of these institutions and practices, and expand the repertoire of governing mechanisms available to counter the distortions that occur through the policy process.
Simone Chambers - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
rhetoric and the public sphere has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy
Political Theory, 2009Co-Authors: Simone ChambersAbstract:The pathologies of the Democratic public sphere, first articulated by Plato in his attack on rhetoric, have pushed much of deliberative theory out of the mass public and into the study and design of small scale deliberative venues. The move away from the mass public can be seen in a growing split in deliberative theory between theories of Democratic Deliberation (on the ascendancy) which focus on discrete deliberative initiatives within democracies and theories of deliberative democracy (on the decline) that attempt to tackle the large questions of how the public, or civil society in general, relates to the state. Using rhetoric as the lens through which to view mass democracy, this essay argues that the key to understanding the deliberative potential of the mass public is in the distinction between deliberative and plebiscitary rhetoric.