Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse (Theories of Institutional Design) PDF
Preview Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse (Theories of Institutional Design)
This page intentionally left blank DELIBERATIVE POLITICS IN ACTION “Deliberativepolitics”referstotheroleofconversationandargumentsinpolitics.Until recentlydiscussionofdeliberativepoliticstookplacealmostexclusivelyamongpolitical philosophers, but many questions raised in this philosophical discussion cry out for empiricalinvestigation.Thisbookprovidesthefirstextendedempiricalstudyofdeliber- ativepolitics,addressinginparticularquestionsofthepreconditionsandconsequences ofhigh-leveldeliberation.UsingparliamentarydebatesinGermany,Switzerland,the UnitedKingdom,andtheUnitedStatesasanempiricalbase,theauthorsmeasurethe levelofdeliberationbyconstructinga“DiscourseQualityIndex.”Asdeliberativepolitics movestotheforefrontofpoliticaltheory,thisbookmakesanimportantcontributionto deliberativedemocracy. ju¨rg steiner is Professor Emeritus of Politial Science at the University of North CarolinaatChapelHillandattheUniversityofBern.Intheacademicyear2003–4he wasalsoSwissChairattheEuropeanUniversityInstitute,Florence. andre´ ba¨chtiger is Swiss Chair Fellow at the European University Institute, Florence. markus spo¨rndli isaresearcherattheUniversityofBern,Switzerland. marco r. steenbergenisAssociateProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheUniversity ofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill. theories of institutional design SeriesEditor RobertE.Goodin ResearchSchoolofSocialSciences AustralianNationalUniversity AdvisoryEditors BrianBarry,RussellHardin,CarolePateman,BarryWeingast StephenElkin,ClausOffe,SusanRose-Ackerman Socialscientistshaverediscoveredinstitutions.Theyhavebeenincreasinglyconcerned with the myriad ways in which social and political institutions shape the patterns of individualinteractionswhichproducesocialphenomena.Theyareequallyconcerned withthewaysinwhichthoseinstitutionsemergefromsuchinteractions. Thisseriesisdevotedtotheexplorationofthemorenormativeaspectsoftheseissues. Whatmakesonesetofinstitutionsbetterthananother?How,ifatall,mightwemove fromthelessdesirablesetofinstitutionstoamoredesirableset?Alongsidethequestions ofwhatinstitutionswewoulddesign,ifweweredesigningthemafresh,arepragmatic questionsofhowwecanbestgetfromheretothere:fromourpresentinstitutionsto newrevitalizedones. Theoriesofinstitutionaldesignisinsistentlymultidisciplinaryandinterdisciplinary, bothintheinstitutionsonwhichitfocuses,andinthemethodologiesusedtostudy them.Thereareinterestingsociologicalquestionstobeaskedaboutlegalinstitutions, interestinglegalquestionstobeaskedabouteconomicinstitutions,andinterestingsocial, economic,andlegalquestionstobeaskedaboutpoliticalinstitutions.Byjuxtaposing theseapproachesinprint,thisseriesaimstoenrichnormativediscoursesurrounding importantissuesofdesigningandredesigning,shapingandreshapingthesocial,political, andeconomicinstitutionsofcontemporarysociety. Otherbooksinthisseries RobertE.Goodin(editor),TheTheoryofInstitutionalDesign BrentFisseandJohnBraithwaite,Corporations,Crime,andAccountability ItaiSened,ThePoliticalInstitutionofPrivateProperty BoRothstein,JustInstitutionsMatter JonElster,ClausOffe,andUlrichPreuss,InstitutionalDesigninPost-Communist Societies:RebuildingtheShipatSea MarkBovens,TheQuestforResponsibility GeoffreyBrennanandAlanHamlin,DemocraticDevicesandDesires AdrienneHeritier,Policy-MakingandDiversityinEurope:EscapefromDeadlock EricPatashnik,PuttingTrustintheUSBudget:FederalTrustFundsandthePoliticsof Commitment BenjaminReilly,DemocracyinDividedSocieties:ElectoralEngineeringforConflict Management HuibPellikuanandRobertvanderVeen,EnvironmentalDilemmasandPolicyDesign JohnS.DryzekandLeslieHolmes,Post-CommunistDemocratization:Political DiscoursesacrossThirteenCountries JonathanG.S.Koppell,ThePoliticsofQuasi-Government:HybridOrganizationsand theDynamicsofBureaucraticControl DELIBERATIVE POLITICS IN ACTION Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse JU¨ RG STEINER, ANDRE´ BA¨CHTIGER, MARKUS SPO¨ RNDLI, AND MARCO R. STEENBERGEN Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge , UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521828710 © Jürg Steiner, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, Marco R. Steenbergen 2004 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format - ---- eBook (EBL) - --- eBook (EBL) - ---- hardback - --- hardback - ---- paperback - --- paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Contents Acknowledgments page vi Introduction:Theresearchquestions 1 1 Institutionsandbehavior:theexampleofconsociational theory 8 2 Thephilosophicalliteratureondeliberativepolitics 16 3 Measuringdeliberation:aDiscourseQualityIndex 43 4 Understandingtherealworldofdeliberation:hypotheses aboutantecedentsandconsequences 74 5 Antecedentsofdeliberation:institutionsandissues 98 6 Discourseanditsconsequences 138 Conclusionandresearchoutlook 165 Appendix:DiscourseQualityIndex(DQI):instructionsforcoders 170 References 180 Index 194 v Acknowledgments WeacknowledgethegenerousfinancialsupportoftheSwissNationalSci- ence Foundation. Special thanks go to Wolf Linder and David Lowery who have attentively followed the project from the very beginning to the very end. In various phases of our research, we received helpful sugges- tions from Rudy Andeweg, Klaus Armingeon, Matthijs Bogaards, Pamela Conover, Rainer Doebert, Robert Goodin, Ju¨rgen Habermas, Adrienne Heritier,LiesbetHooghe,KatjaKleinberg,HanspeterKriesi,ArendLijphart, GaryMarks,DonaldSearing,andPhilippeSchmitter.Wearegratefulforthe stimulatingdiscussionsinseminarsondeliberationattheUniversityofBern, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the European University InstituteinFlorence,andtheOsloSummerSchoolinComparativeSocial ScienceStudies. vi Introduction The research questions This book is about deliberation in parliamentary institutions. It presents data on the institutional antecedents as well as the consequences of leg- islative deliberation in four countries: Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Our goal is to connect the literature on deliberation,whichhasdevelopedalmostexclusivelywithinthefieldofpo- liticalphilosophy,toatheoreticalandempiricalunderstandingofpolitical institutions. Our main argument will be that talk matters: the nature of speechactsinsidelegislaturesisafunctionofinstitutionalrulesandmech- anisms,andbearsaninfluenceonpoliticaloutcomesthattranscendsthose rulesandmechanisms.OurmainvehicleofanalysisisaDiscourseQuality Index(DQI),whichmeasuresthequalityofdeliberation. Togiveafeelingfortheempiricaldatatobepresentedinthemainbody of the book, we open with two illustrations, one of a high quality of de- liberation and one of a low quality of deliberation. The former example comesfromadebateintheSwissCouncilofStatesonamendingthecon- stitutionwithalanguagearticle.InthecommitteestageGerman-speaking Rene´Rhinowmadetheproposaltoestablishintheamendmenttheabstract principleoffreedomoflanguage.Hewithdrewhisproposalintheplenary session in deference to the opposition of many French speakers, referring totheimportanceofpeacefulrelationsamongthelanguagegroups.From adeliberativeperspectiveitisimportantthatRhinowwaswillingtolisten with respect to the arguments of the French speakers and that he did not withdrawhisproposalaspartofabargainingdealinexchangeforthevotesof theFrenchspeakersinothermattersimportanttohim.Rather,hebasedthe withdrawalofhisproposalonhisconcernforlanguagepeace.Anextreme 1 2 DELIBERATIVE POLITICS IN ACTION exampleofalowqualityofdeliberationoccurredinanabortiondebatein the German Bundestag when Claus Ja¨ger interrupted another member of parliament,saying:“Youdeserveaslapinthefaceforthat!”Withthisrude remarkJa¨gerlackedanyrespectforotherarguments;inthiswayhesignaled thathewasunwillingtoyieldtotheforceofthebetterargument.Hedenied thatotherargumentshadanymeritsatallsothatitwasnotworthhiswhile toconsidertheminanyseriousway.ThespeechactsofRhinowandJa¨ger are at the extreme ends of our Discourse Quality Index with most speech actsbeingsomewhereinbetween. At the beginning of the book we put forward two concrete illustra- tions in order to make clear at the outset that we are addressing the is- sueofdeliberativepoliticsinanempiricalway.Wewishtoinvestigatethe level of discourse quality in the parliamentary debates of several coun- tries and to see how variation in discourse quality can be systematically explained by its preconditions and consequences. Until very recently, the discussionondeliberativepoliticstookplacealmostentirelyamongpoliti- calphilosophers.Withinthisphilosophicaldiscussionthefollowingques- tions are at the center: (1) How is the deliberative model of democracy to be defined and how is it different from other models of democracy? (2) Is deliberation a good thing in itself? (3) Has deliberation beneficial consequences, in particular for social justice? (4) What are the favorable conditions for deliberation? The last two questions cry out for empiri- cal investigation, and it is precisely our intention to tackle them in this book. We address several audiences in this book. First, we address polit- ical philosophers by formulating our DQI in a theoretically justifiable way, linking it in particular to the ideas of Ju¨rgen Habermas. Because of this theoretical foundation, empirical data generated using the DQI should be of interest to political philosophers. They can inform future philosophical debates about the preconditions for and merits of delibera- tion. Our second audience consists of the scholars of political institutions. Muchofthetheoreticalunderstandingofinstitutionsisbasedontwotra- ditions–rationalchoicetheoryandpsycho-sociologicalmodelsofnorms. The former tradition typically views legislators’ preferences as fixed and generally focuses on the way in which institutional rules translate those preferencesintoformaloutcomes(e.g.votes).Thelattertraditionfocuses onthemannerinwhichlegislatorsadoptbehavioralnormsandhowthose norms influence behavior. In both traditions, strong emphasis is given to voting.Ofcourse,votingisanimportantaspectoflegislativebehavior,and part of this book is concerned with that topic. But much (if not most) of
Description:The list of books you might like
