Democratic Theory

The article first describes characteristics of major infrastructure projects. Second, it documents a much neglected topic in economics: that ex ante estimates of costs and benefits are often very different from actual ex post costs and benefits. For large infrastructure projects the consequences are cost overruns, benefit shortfalls, and the systematic underestimation of risks. Third, implications for cost–benefit analysis are described, including that such analysis is not to be trusted for major infrastructure projects. Fourth, the article uncovers the causes of this state of affairs in terms of perverse incentives that encourage promoters to underestimate costs and overestimate benefits in the business cases for their projects. But the projects that are made to look best on paper are the projects that amass the highest cost overruns and benefit shortfalls in reality. The article depicts this situation as ‘survival of the unfittest’. Fifth, the article sets out to explain how the problem may be solved, with a view to arriving at more efficient and more democratic projects, and avoiding the scandals that often accompany major infrastructure investments. Finally, the article identifies current trends in major infrastructure development. It is argued that a rapid increase in stimulus spending, combined with more investments in emerging economies, combined with more spending on information technology is catapulting infrastructure investment from the frying pan into the fire.

This research aims to investigate some aspects of “what happens when people do politics”. Through literature review, made from the writings of Hannah Arendt, we study how and to what extent her work allows us to review the concept of politics in the face of the contemporary development of democracy. This approach not only derives from her theory of action, but it is also a proposal made from the faculty to Judge and the ability to Comprehend. So in respect to politics, to the faculty of Judgement and to the exercise of Comprehension, we admit that it is possible to establish connections between Arendt's original ideas and the apprehension of an expressive and substantive notion of democracy, which we call pluriarchy. Therefore, with this notion in mind, we disclose some of the theoretical gains in sustaining the maintenance of the faculty of Judgement and the ability of Comprehension as activities that, at the same time, empower political activity, mediate conflicts and promote this vision of democracy. This indicates that a locus where politics emerges in the contemporary world is also in the life of the spirit, shared by men, and not only in collective action. Finally, we emphasize that this study finds that the use of Judgement and Comprehension – and not only the freedom to act and speak – are also important to understand and articulate the various aspects of Arendt's political theory in the face of the challenges politically experienced in democracy.

This article presents an analysis of public debate about a pressing political issue on a novel Web arena in a small linguistic community: the debate on Twitter about the implementation of the European Union’s Data Retention Directive in Norway. Who participates in this communication, and how can we characterize different forms of use? The analysis is based on data gathered from more than 12,000 tweets over a 16–week period. Findings reveal a heavily skewed distribution of activity among users, favoring a tiny core, which consists of five groups with different patterns of use. Discussing Twitter as an arena for public debate, I argue that, although its impact comes across as minuscule, Twitter does seem to facilitate direct engagement among adversaries. These adversaries do, however, still belong to groups that share characteristics with offline elites.

"""ABSTRACT

The present paper introduces a new approach to the the theory of voting in
the context of binary collective choice, which seeks to define a dynamic optimal voting rule by using insights derived from the mathematical theory of information. In order to define such a voting rule, a method of defining a (non-additive, but monotone) "measure" of the weight of independent opinion of an arbitrary set of voters is suggested, which is value free to the extent that it depends only on probabilistic information extracted from previous patterns of voting, but does not require for its definition any direct information concerning either the correctness or incorrectness of previous voting decisions, or the content of those decisions. The approach to the definition of such a measure, which the author calls gravitas, is axiomatic. The voting rule is then defined by comparing the gravitas of the set of those voters who vote for a given motion with the gravitas of the set of those who vote against that motion."""

"Neoliberal economics have emerged in the post-Cold War era as the predominant ideological tenet applied to the development of countries in the global south. For much of the global south, however, the promise that markets will bring increased standards of living and emancipation from tyranny has been an empty one. Instead, neoliberalisation has increased the gap between rich and poor and unleashed a firestorm of social ills.

This book deals with the post-conflict geographies of violence and neoliberalisation in Cambodia. Applying a geographical analysis to contemporary Cambodian politics, the author employs notions of neoliberalism, public space, and radical democracy as the most substantive components of its theoretical edifice. He argues that the promotion of unfettered marketisation is the foremost causal factor in the country’s inability to consolidate democracy following a United Nations sponsored transition. The book demonstrates Cambodian perspectives on the role of public space in Cambodia's process of democratic development and explains the implications of violence and its relationship with neoliberalism.

Taking into account the transition from war to peace, authoritarianism to democracy, and command economy to a free market, this book offers a critical appraisal of the political economy in Cambodia.
______________________________________________________

Reviews:

Gunn, G. C. 2013. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 43.1: 188-191.

Brickell, K. 2011. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 52.3: 372-374.

Percival, T. 2011. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 32.2: 270-272.

Christie, R. 2010. South East Asia Research, 19.2: 349-372.

Ordóñez de Pablos, P. 2010. International Journal of Asian Business and Information Management, 1.4: 65-66."

The first two volumes of Avènement de la démocratie (I. La révolution moderne and II. La crise du libéralisme 1880-1914) published in autumn 2007 inaugurate the systematic exposition of Marcel Gauchet's strong theory of democracy understood as a process of historical construction of a society 'departing from religion', namely, in which religion has ceased to be a principle for structuring the social. As a 'political mise en forme of autonomy', democracy requires that historical analysis and theoretical reflection are developed together. The awareness of its own being in history builds an autonomous society. Thus, in order to understand the latter, it is necessary to interpret the work of history, its hidden legacies and illusory aspirations, and how these overlap and oppose each other within social realities.

Contemporary political philosophy in the West is the philosophy of democracy, is democratic theory. Philosophy under democracy has become complacent. Even the recent reaffirmation of communism by influential philosophers such as Alain Badiou and Slavoj Žižek failed to inspire a significant following. There has been no radical philosophical reaction to the near-collapse of the capitalist economic system, mainly because any criticism of capitalism would imply a criticism of democracy ("the best possible political shell for capitalism", as Lenin said). Techno-philosophical alternatives to democracy, such as anarcho-capitalist "seasteading", and calls for the suspension of democracy to cure climate change are originating outside academic departments of philosophy. Is there still philosophy if everyone agrees? Is philosophy still philosophy if discontent with the-one-and-only-truth can only be voiced from outside the academy? Or does political philosophy more and more resemble Plato's cave? This paper will venture outside the cave, outside the comfort zone of western academic philosophy as always-already-democratic. Only in this way can it seek to engage in a meaningful dialogue with non-western worldviews. Only by stepping into the light will we illuminate why still, in the twenty-first century, scholars may be justified in studying not democracy, but anti-democracy. Where are the niches of anti-democratic thought that may yet save us from the destruction wrought upon the world by the failing capitalist-democratic complex? What are the political trends against democracy we miss at our peril and what are their philosophical implications, worldwide? What are the new alternatives to democracy that emerge in our day? Free of self-imposed prejudice, this paper rejects the boycott of thought that does not comply with western inhibitions, and refuses to shy away from the encounter of philosophical positions emanating from non-democratic political practices. Philosophy is not blind, it does not condone any ideologies uncritically, and philosophy does not equal democracy.