國立高雄大學圖資館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

圖資館首頁

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Having a say: Public hearings, deli...

Karpowitz, Christopher F.

Having a say: Public hearings, deliberation, and democracy in America.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Having a say: Public hearings, deliberation, and democracy in America.
作者:	Karpowitz, Christopher F.
面頁冊數:	442 p.
附註:	Adviser: Tali Mendelberg.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-12, Section: A, page: 4516.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International66-12A.
標題:	Political Science, General.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3200303
ISBN:	9780542449192

Having a say: Public hearings, deliberation, and democracy in America.
Karpowitz, Christopher F.

Having a say: Public hearings, deliberation, and democracy in America. - 442 p.

Adviser: Tali Mendelberg.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Princeton University, 2006.

Even in the presence of deliberative reforms designed to remedy their deficiencies, local public meetings still function as critical sites of political discourse. With the help of an in-depth case study, I argue that deliberative theorists and reformers have failed to adequately consider existing institutions for public discourse and decision-making. Unitary-style deliberative reforms do not supplant adversary institutions, and attending to the interaction between unitary and adversary democracy is essential for understanding both political behavior and public discourse.

ISBN: 9780542449192Subjects--Topical Terms:

212408
Political Science, General.

Having a say: Public hearings, deliberation, and democracy in America.
LDR:03360nmm _2200277 _450 001 170995
005 20061228142341.5
008 090528s2006 eng d
020 $a 9780542449192
035 $a 00243025
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 0 $a Karpowitz, Christopher F. $3 245026
245 1 0 $a Having a say: Public hearings, deliberation, and democracy in America.
300 $a 442 p.
500 $a Adviser: Tali Mendelberg.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 66-12, Section: A, page: 4516.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Princeton University, 2006.
520 # $a Even in the presence of deliberative reforms designed to remedy their deficiencies, local public meetings still function as critical sites of political discourse. With the help of an in-depth case study, I argue that deliberative theorists and reformers have failed to adequately consider existing institutions for public discourse and decision-making. Unitary-style deliberative reforms do not supplant adversary institutions, and attending to the interaction between unitary and adversary democracy is essential for understanding both political behavior and public discourse.
520 # $a Local meetings should not be dismissed as non-deliberative simply because they do not employ a conversational approach to public talk or aim toward producing consensus. Nor do meetings fall short because of the citizens who usually attend. They are, on average, more opinionated than non-attenders, but their opinions tend not to be ideologically extreme, ill-considered, or uninformed. On the other hand, local meetings struggle to achieve deliberative standards of equality and inclusion because some segments of the population, especially those with lower incomes, do not attend at the same rate as those with higher incomes. Over the last thirty years, however, attendance rates of both the rich and the poor have fallen, with attendance among those with the highest incomes falling fastest. Further complicating deliberative aims, local boundaries fragment metropolitan areas, making effective discourse across diverse racial and class interests more difficult.
520 # $a This study seeks to bridge the gap between normative and empirical approaches to political science by exploring local institutions of political discourse, such as those held by town councils and school boards all across the nation. These formal institutions of local politics are some of the few---in some localities, the only---places where citizens can engage in open, public, and formal reason-giving with each other and their elected decision-makers. This study draws upon political theory and empirical analysis to bring renewed focus to local meetings, to ask whether they meet standards of democratic deliberation, and to investigate the relationship between such meetings and new deliberative reform efforts. I assert that effective contestation of diverse interests should be the goal of both existing institutions and deliberative reformers.
590 $a School code: 0181.
650 # 0 $a Political Science, General. $3 212408
690 $a 0615
710 0 # $a Princeton University. $3 212488
773 0 # $g 66-12A. $t Dissertation Abstracts International
790 $a 0181
790 1 0 $a Mendelberg, Tali, $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2006
856 4 0 $u http://libsw.nuk.edu.tw:81/login?url=http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3200303 $z http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3200303