The Experts below are selected from a list of 634566 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Stephen Gardbaum - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
comparative Political Process theory
International Journal of Constitutional Law, 2020Co-Authors: Stephen GardbaumAbstract:What, if anything, do recent constitutional court decisions requiring a legislature to create a customized presidential impeachment procedure, invalidating a government’s prorogation of parliament, rejecting the disbanding of an independent anticorruption unit, and striking down legislation for inadequate deliberation have in common? They are all examples of courts protecting the Political Processes of representative democracy against threats or failures. Yet none of these various types of failure appear in the work that is synonymous with a Political Process theory of judicial review: John Hart Ely’s Democracy and Distrust. This article argues that when we look beyond the United States and at the comparative context generally, a Political Process theory has a great deal of relevance and application to constitutional law and courts around the world, both descriptively and normatively. Especially now when the structures and Processes of representative democracy are under assault in so many places. However, for comparative purposes, Ely’s account takes too narrow a view of what types of Political Process failures exist and are of concern, and what types of judicial review or other protective mechanisms they may call for. It is also an interpretive theory of one system, but what is needed in the comparative context is a broader, normative theory of the role of courts and other actors in protecting democratic politics. Accordingly, suitably expanded and adapted, a comparative Political Process theory can make a valuable contribution to the field of comparative constitutional law. This article seeks to explore and further develop such a theory.
-
comparative Political Process theory
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Stephen GardbaumAbstract:What, if anything, do recent constitutional court decisions requiring a legislature to create a customized presidential impeachment procedure, invalidating a government's prorogation of parliament, rejecting the disbanding of an independent anti-corruption unit, and striking down legislation for inadequate deliberation, have in common? They are all examples of courts protecting the Political Processes of representative democracy against threats or failures. Yet none of these various types of failure appear in the work that is synonymous with a Political Process theory of judicial review: John Hart Ely's Democracy and Distrust. This article argues that when we look beyond the United States and at the comparative context generally, a Political Process theory has a great deal of relevance and application to constitutional law and courts around the world, both descriptively and normatively. Especially now when the structures and Processes of representative democracy are under assault in so many places. However, for comparative purposes, Ely's account takes too narrow a view of what types of Political Process failures exist and are of concern, and what types of judicial review or other protective mechanisms they may call for. It is also an interpretive theory of one system, but what is needed in the comparative context is a broader, normative theory of the role of courts and other actors in protecting democratic politics. Accordingly, suitably expanded and adapted, a comparative Political Process theory can make a valuable contribution to the field of comparative constitutional law. This article seeks to explore and further develop such a theory. Published version is available here: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moaa084
Lisanne S F Ko - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
decolonization and the movement for institutionalization of chinese medicine in hong kong a Political Process perspective
Social Science & Medicine, 2005Co-Authors: Stephen W K Chiu, Lisanne S F KoAbstract:This paper focuses on the question of why the social and Political acceptance of Chinese medicine has grown in the former British colony of Hong Kong since the late 1980s. To supplement the conventional explanations for the institutionalization of alternative medicines, we propose a Political Process perspective that highlights the effects of Political changes amidst the decolonization Process in Hong Kong. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the weakening of the Political position of the established elite, the opening up of Political space for previously excluded groups, and the competition for support among the new Political elite, all stimulated the indigenous Chinese medicine organizations to mobilize for the institutionalization of Chinese medicine. By the mid-1990s academics from leading tertiary institutions began to take over the leadership of the movement and in doing so carried it to a higher level. In the conclusion, we briefly consider the implications of this movement for the future development of alternative medicine in Hong Kong and other societies.
Richard Badham - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political Process perspectives on organization and technological change
Human Relations, 2005Co-Authors: Ian Mcloughlin, Richard BadhamAbstract:In 1949 in Mann Gulch and in 1994 in South Canyon, US firefighters died trying to outrun forest fires. They died ‘with their packs on’, weighed down by their satchels and other heavy firefighting equipment which they continued to carry despite instructions to remove them. Karl Weick (1996), in exploring why they did not ‘down tools’ when so ordered and it seemed rational to do so, raised central issues about the role of tools in people’s work identity, and the complex social and technical arrangements that make us hold on to ‘heavy tools’ when, in hindsight at least, a more flexible and responsive approach to changing conditions appear to warrant their release. This merging of people and the tools that they employ, the intertwined identities of our ‘material’ and ‘non-material’ cultures (Ogburn, 1964), is the subject of a growing number of studies extending far beyond the confines of technological change at work or within organizations. The questioning of the modernist assumption of a clear and unequivocal divide between ‘people’ and ‘things’ raises fundamental questions about how we are to understand technology, ourselves and progress in a late modern era. In an age of postmodern reflexivity characterized by the declining authority of metanarratives, questions are inevitably raised about the validity and meaning of any view of technology as an autonomous, independent and progressive ‘great growling engine of change’ (Toffler, 1970: 25). In what Latour (1994) characterizes as our ‘amodern’ world, the fundamental mythical divide upon which the self-understanding of our modernist culture was based – the separation of the ‘technical’ and the ‘human’ – is recognized by many for what it is (and was): a cultural equivalent of Canute ordering back the waves. The
-
rethinking Political Process in technological change socio technical configurations and frames
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2000Co-Authors: Ian Mcloughlin, Richard Badham, Paul K CouchmanAbstract:The Political Process perspective has done much to enhance our understanding of the organizational effects of technological change as a negotiated outcome reflecting the Political and power dynamics of the adopting context. In so doing, we suggest, technology has been marginalized as an analytical category and the problem of change agency, although better understood, remains largely unresolved. This article addresses these issues through the articulation of the concepts of socio-technical configurations and technological frames and explores their utility in understanding change agency through an action research project. The project sought a novel form of 'socio-technology' transfer, taking ideas and concepts of 'human-centered' manufacturing embodied in team-based cellular manufacture from a European context into three firms in Australia.
Philip Hamburger - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
equality and exclusion religious liberty and Political Process
Social Science Research Network, 2014Co-Authors: Philip HamburgerAbstract:Religious Americans are substantially excluded from the Political Process that produces laws, and this prompts sobering questions about the reality of religious equality. Put simply, Political exclusion threatens religious equality.The exclusion is two-fold. It arises partly from the growth of administrative power, which leaves Americans, including religious Americans, no opportunity to vote for or against their administrative lawmakers. It also arises from section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. As a result of this section, even when law is made in Congress (or an elected state legislature), religious organizations are restricted in their freedom to petition and to campaign for or against their lawmakers. There thus is a broad exclusion of religious Americans and their organizations from the Political Process that shapes lawmaking, and Americans thereby have lost essential mechanisms for persuading their lawmakers to avoid burdening their religious beliefs. Religious liberty thus comes with an unexpected slant. Courts blithely assume that America offers a flat or even legal landscape — a broad and equitable surface on which all Americans can participate equally, regardless of their religion. The underlying exclusion, however, tilts the entire game, so that apparently equal laws actually slant against religion. What is assumed to be a flat and natural landscape turns out to be an artificially tilted game.The conceptual framing of religious liberty therefore needs to expanded. The central conceptual problem for the free exercise of religion is usually understood as the choice between exemption and equality — the choice between a freedom from equal laws, on account of one’s religion, and a freedom under equal laws, regardless of one’s religion. The conceptual problem, however, turns out to be more complicated. In addition to the constitutional choice between exemption and equality, one must also consider the role of exclusion.
Ian Mcloughlin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Political Process perspectives on organization and technological change
Human Relations, 2005Co-Authors: Ian Mcloughlin, Richard BadhamAbstract:In 1949 in Mann Gulch and in 1994 in South Canyon, US firefighters died trying to outrun forest fires. They died ‘with their packs on’, weighed down by their satchels and other heavy firefighting equipment which they continued to carry despite instructions to remove them. Karl Weick (1996), in exploring why they did not ‘down tools’ when so ordered and it seemed rational to do so, raised central issues about the role of tools in people’s work identity, and the complex social and technical arrangements that make us hold on to ‘heavy tools’ when, in hindsight at least, a more flexible and responsive approach to changing conditions appear to warrant their release. This merging of people and the tools that they employ, the intertwined identities of our ‘material’ and ‘non-material’ cultures (Ogburn, 1964), is the subject of a growing number of studies extending far beyond the confines of technological change at work or within organizations. The questioning of the modernist assumption of a clear and unequivocal divide between ‘people’ and ‘things’ raises fundamental questions about how we are to understand technology, ourselves and progress in a late modern era. In an age of postmodern reflexivity characterized by the declining authority of metanarratives, questions are inevitably raised about the validity and meaning of any view of technology as an autonomous, independent and progressive ‘great growling engine of change’ (Toffler, 1970: 25). In what Latour (1994) characterizes as our ‘amodern’ world, the fundamental mythical divide upon which the self-understanding of our modernist culture was based – the separation of the ‘technical’ and the ‘human’ – is recognized by many for what it is (and was): a cultural equivalent of Canute ordering back the waves. The
-
rethinking Political Process in technological change socio technical configurations and frames
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 2000Co-Authors: Ian Mcloughlin, Richard Badham, Paul K CouchmanAbstract:The Political Process perspective has done much to enhance our understanding of the organizational effects of technological change as a negotiated outcome reflecting the Political and power dynamics of the adopting context. In so doing, we suggest, technology has been marginalized as an analytical category and the problem of change agency, although better understood, remains largely unresolved. This article addresses these issues through the articulation of the concepts of socio-technical configurations and technological frames and explores their utility in understanding change agency through an action research project. The project sought a novel form of 'socio-technology' transfer, taking ideas and concepts of 'human-centered' manufacturing embodied in team-based cellular manufacture from a European context into three firms in Australia.
