Matching Items (10)
Filtering by
- Creators: Arizona State University
Description
This dissertation focuses on democracies governed by a Parliament. In such democracies, the executive branch consists of a subset of parties in the Parliament, called the Government. A key feature is that the Government is only indirectly determined by the voters' electoral decisions. This dissertation address how parliamentary characteristics and institutions influence the composition of the Government and government outcomes. The composition of the Government reflects the size and ideological make-up of the Government. Government outcomes reflect the length the Government survives and the policy consequences of the Government. The literature focuses on the former criterion. The view is that, in parliamentary democracies, longer Government duration should be associated with stability and better policies. The latter is important from the perspective of directly evaluating whether Governments make good or bad decisions from the perspective of voters. The first chapter of this dissertation develop a model of the government formation process, where parties care about and bargain over both policy and office benefits. The model generate predictions that matches important features of the data. The second chapter uses data from western European parliamentary democracies to estimate the parameters of the model in chapter one. The estimation results suggest that coalitions care about both ideology and office benefits, but more about office benefits. The third chapter studies which (existing) institutional environments lead to `good' government outcomes. The results have a number of important implications for constitutional design.
ContributorsHu, Lin, Ph.D (Author) / Hu, Lin (Thesis advisor) / Friedenberg, Amanda (Committee member) / Manelli, Alejandro (Committee member) / Chade, Hector (Committee member) / Silverman, Dan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
Chinese activists came forth in unprecedented numbers to compete as independent candidates in the 2011-12 local people's congress elections throughout China, directly challenging the ruling Chinese Communist Party within the electoral arena. In response, the government threatened, harassed and obstructed the campaigns of these candidates, and as a result only a handful of independent candidates made it onto the official ballots, let alone win the elections. Despite their lack of success, independent candidates have been promoted by media sources as the latest movement with the potential to bring about democratic reform within China. However, independent candidates as a collective have not been sufficiently analyzed in order to determine the extent of these candidates' shared desire for democratic reform or their powers to effect such reform. Therefore, within the theoretical framework of electoral authoritarianism and utilizing a single-case, exploratory case study, this thesis explores the potential of the 2011-12 independent candidate movement to initiate democratic reform in China. Relying upon the statements of the candidates as reported by English-language news media, I create a typology of the movement and examine the candidates' goals and motives, as well as their interactions with the local people's congresses and the Chinese Communist Party, in hopes of revealing a clearer picture of the balance of power between the movement and the current regime. I conclude that due to the inability of independent candidates to win a significant number of seats, the limited power of deputies on local people's congress to effect structural change, and the lack of unity and organization among independent candidates, the 2011-12 independent candidate movement will not immediately result in structural democratic reform in China. Nevertheless, I contend that the increased awareness of electoral rights and democracy in China as a result the independent candidate movement will, in the coming years and decades, compel the ruling Chinese Communist Party to take significant steps to appease the ever-growing demand for political participation in China.
ContributorsFitch, Elizabeth Carol (Author) / El-Meehy, Asya (Thesis advisor) / Murphy-Erphani, Julie (Committee member) / Wang, Ning (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
This paper examines the strength of a recent argument made against democracy. The notion of epistocracy, a system of government where the wise or the knowers rule, has garnered some attention of late. These theories of epistocracy have traditionally struggled with questions of political legitimacy and authority. In Against Democracy, Jason Brennan articulates an alternative theory for epistocracy which may prove more promising. Brennan argues instead that democracy faces objections of political legitimacy which epistocracy avoids because democracy either harms or violates rights as a result of granting political power to the incompetent. This negative argument against democracy hopes to make epistocracy the preferable option in comparison. I will argue, however, that if we take this comparative approach then we ought to prefer democracy---or, rather, democratic reform---over epistocracy as the best solution in addressing the concerns which Brennan raises. It is not enough to merely point to flaws in democracy. For this argument to be successful, it must also be shown that epistocracy avoids those flaws at an acceptable cost. I claim that, upon examination, epistocratic theories fail to make this case. Rather, it is evident from this examination that there are various institutional mechanisms available with which democracy may manage the risks and harms which might arise from imbuing the incompetent with political power. This in turn suggests ways by which we might reform democracy to achieve similar results hoped for by epistocrats without the effort, risk, and cost of tearing down and rebuilding our fundamental political institutions.
ContributorsZhang, Alexander (Author) / Brake, Elizabeth (Thesis advisor) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Calhoun, Cheshire (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
This work explores the underlying dynamics of democracies in the context of underdevelopment, arguing that when society has not attained a substantial degree of economic independence from the state, it undermines democratic quality and stability. Economic underdevelopment and political oppression are mutually reinforcing, and both are rooted in the structure of the agriculture sector, the distribution of land, and the rural societies that emerge around this order. These systems produce persistent power imbalances that militate toward their continuance, encourage dependency, and foster the development of neopatrimonialism and corruption in the government, thereby weakening key pillars of democracy such as accountability and representativeness. Through historical analysis of a single case study, this dissertation demonstrates that while this is partly a result of actor choices at key points in time, it is highly influenced by structural constraints embedded in earlier time periods. I find that Ghana’s historical development from the colonial era to present day closely follows this trajectory.
ContributorsEllis, Alicia N (Author) / Thies, Cameron (Thesis advisor) / Warner, Carolyn (Committee member) / Thomson, Henry (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
In this dissertation, I study large-scale civic conversations where technology extends the range of “discourse visibility” beyond what human eyes and ears can meaningfully process without technical assistance. Analyzing government documents on digital innovation in government, emerging data activism practices, and large-scale civic conversations on social media, I advance a rhetoric for productively listening to democratic discourse as it is practiced in 2016. I propose practical strategies for how various governments—from the local to the United Nations international climate talks—might appropriately use technical interventions to assist civic dialogues and make civic decisions. Acknowledging that we must not lose the value that comes from face-to-face civic deliberation, I suggest practical pathways for how and when to use technology to increase democratic engagement from all stakeholders.
ContributorsSutherland, Alison (Author) / Adamson, Joni (Thesis advisor) / Long, Elenore (Committee member) / Simeone, Michael (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
This dissertation examines how Indian polities have resisted and accommodated nuclear energy into their existing culture, politics and environment from the 1960s to the present. I document sites of friction between the nuclear establishment, urban activists, and local communities to trace how their engagements changed because of key ruptures in Indian nuclear history, namely Chernobyl, the US-India nuclear deal, and the Fukushima nuclear disaster. I interrogate the concept of ‘civic epistemologies,’ which was developed by comparative regulatory policy analysts in STS to explain how different national regulatory systems follow distinct cultural modes of evaluating the objectivity and credibility of policy-relevant scientific knowledge, evidence and expertise to arrive at different conclusions about similar technologies. By following how various actors are mobilizing cultures and institutions of knowledge production and deliberation to further political goals around nuclear power in India, as well as how these goals shape knowledge practices, I demonstrate that citizens’ desire to ‘scientize’ politics by creating a political culture of scientific debate around nuclear matters—thereby creating the forms of public reason as seen in Western nuclear debates—requires politicizing science to render it a publicly accessible rationality. As such, I argue that the creation of science- based, policy-relevant knowledge and politics should be seen as part and parcel of a particular variant of liberal democratic nation-building—albeit one that is inherently exclusionary, coercive and politically fraught. Using a mixed-methods approach of multi-sited ethnographies of five villages opposing nuclear energy, interviews with a wide range of actors, event ethnographies, oral histories and document collection and analysis, I discovered that urban and rural activists, politicians and regulatory officials articulate and enact different imaginaries of nuclear energy and democratic politics and participate in competing processes of knowledge-making and political formation. Democratic maneuvering and full access to the privileges of civil society are allowed actors who share the state's imaginary of nuclear power's role in achieving sovereignty and self-reliance, while others are not granted such affordances. Moreover, the state reproduces colonial sociopolitical categories in how it deals with the differential knowledge politics espoused by its rural, agrarian constituents and its urban elite citizens.
ContributorsBhadra, Monamie (Author) / Miller, Clark A. (Thesis advisor) / Hackett, Ed (Committee member) / Hurlbut, Ben (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016
Description
How do political elites perceive regional intergovernmental organizations that seek to promote democracy? When do political elites view regional intergovernmental institutions promoting democracy as legitimate? Many informal and formal types of regional intergovernmental institutions have sought to spread democracy. However, previous research on the nexus of regional intergovernmental institutions and democracy has focused primarily on the latter. Furthermore, these studies claim that membership in these formal international institutions (a.k.a. international organizations) increases the likelihood of the democratic survival of a newly democratic regime. Membership in these organizations provides a seal of approval that the newly democratic country intends to remain democratic. This kind of external validation should dissuade spoilers from undermining the transition and encourage ordinary people to support the transitional regime. This argument assumes that the domestic audience trusts this organization and believes it plays a vital role in society. Whether elites have confidence that the regional organization can positively impact democratic consolidation and how they perceive different types of regional organizations promoting democracy are empirical questions. This project seeks to answer these questions through a small sample and non-population-based elite survey experiment in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines. I also run a laboratory survey experiment with a larger sample of university students, giving me the opportunity for statistical power. The results suggest that political elites are skeptical of regional intergovernmental bodies promoting democracy. Meanwhile, non-elites consider regional institutions promoting democracy illegitimate when they are informal, i.e., no written shared expectations, rules, and permanent secretariat. When regional interstate cooperation on democracy operates under a formal procedure or codified in an international treaty and supported by a permanent secretariat, non-elites tend to consider them more legitimate.
ContributorsSari, Angguntari Ceria (Author) / Thies, Cameron G. (Thesis advisor) / Wright, Thorin (Thesis advisor) / Neuner, Fabian (Committee member) / Thomson, Henry (Committee member) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
The dissertation explores how participants view the relationships between democratic principles such as freedom, liberty, justice, and equality in work and home environments and their impact on the health and productivity of people living within these environments. This information can be used to determine the gap between legal democratic instruments established the published laws and rights and the participants understanding and awareness of these rights. The first step in effectively capturing information from the participants involved developing a virtual ethnographic research system architecture prototype that allowed participants to voice their opinions related to democracy and how the application of democratic principles in various lived environments such as the workplace and home can affect their health and productivity. The dissertation starts by first delving into what democracy is within the context of general social research and social contracts as related to everyday interactions between individuals within organizational environments. Second, it determines how democracy affects individual human rights and their well-being within lived environments such as their workplace and home. Third, it identifies how technological advances can be used to educate and improve democratic processes within various lived environments such that individuals are given an equal voice in decisions that affect their health and well-being, ensuring that they able to secure justice and fairness within their lives. The virtual ethnographic research system architecture prototype tested the ability of a web application and database technology to provide a more dynamic and longitudinal methodology allowing participants to voice their opinions related to the relationship of democracy in work and home environments to the health and productivity of the people who live within these environments. The technology enables continuous feedback as participants are educated about democracy and their lived environments, unlike other research methods that take a one-time view of situations and apply them to continuously changing environments. The analysis of the participant's answers to the various qualitative and quantitative questions indicated that the majority of participants agree that a positive relationship exists between democracy in work and home environments and the health and productivity of the individuals who live within these environments.
ContributorsBooze, Randall Ray (Author) / Romero, Mary (Thesis advisor) / Goul, Michael (Committee member) / Schugurensky, Daniel, 1958- (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
One of the ideals underpinning public education in the United has been that of educating young people to become engaged democratic citizens. Civics courses have been the main, and sometimes only, sign of public schools attending to their civic mission. An opportunity to offer citizenship education through the experience of democratic governance manifests itself through the implementation of school participatory budgeting. Though promising, the use of school participatory budgeting in the United States is relatively new. The literature is sparse and issues of process design as well as research methodology remain unexplored.
School participatory budgeting has the potential, at least, to offer students an opportunity to experience deliberative democratic decision-making and thus enhance those capabilities critical for effective citizenship. More ambitiously, school participatory budgeting presents an opportunity to delicately and steadily transform school governance to give real decision-making power to students.
The four stand-alone articles that make up this dissertation are four facets of a single case study on the first large-scale instance of school participatory budgeting in the United States. They began with the question: What were the accomplishments and challenges of school participatory budgeting in a large secondary school district in the Southwestern United States in its initial implementation?
This question was interpreted and answered differently in each article. The first article examines aspects of process design and how participatory budgeting might contribute not only to citizenship learning but also the expansion of student voice. The experiences of students, in the second article, and those of teachers and administrators, in the third article, are explored through analysis of interview data. The final article addresses this question by drawing on my own experience of implementing school participatory budgeting using analytic autoethnography. This dissertation presents school participatory budgeting from multiple perspectives and recommends more empirical research on the structure of the process before, during, and after implementation.
This dissertation examines this approach to citizenship learning dynamically by using various methodologies and bringing together the literature on student voice, citizenship learning, participatory budgeting, and curriculum studies in order to enrich the discussions and provide actionable knowledge for advocates and practitioners.
School participatory budgeting has the potential, at least, to offer students an opportunity to experience deliberative democratic decision-making and thus enhance those capabilities critical for effective citizenship. More ambitiously, school participatory budgeting presents an opportunity to delicately and steadily transform school governance to give real decision-making power to students.
The four stand-alone articles that make up this dissertation are four facets of a single case study on the first large-scale instance of school participatory budgeting in the United States. They began with the question: What were the accomplishments and challenges of school participatory budgeting in a large secondary school district in the Southwestern United States in its initial implementation?
This question was interpreted and answered differently in each article. The first article examines aspects of process design and how participatory budgeting might contribute not only to citizenship learning but also the expansion of student voice. The experiences of students, in the second article, and those of teachers and administrators, in the third article, are explored through analysis of interview data. The final article addresses this question by drawing on my own experience of implementing school participatory budgeting using analytic autoethnography. This dissertation presents school participatory budgeting from multiple perspectives and recommends more empirical research on the structure of the process before, during, and after implementation.
This dissertation examines this approach to citizenship learning dynamically by using various methodologies and bringing together the literature on student voice, citizenship learning, participatory budgeting, and curriculum studies in order to enrich the discussions and provide actionable knowledge for advocates and practitioners.
ContributorsBrown, Andrew Boyd Keefer (Author) / Schugurensky, Daniel, 1958- (Thesis advisor) / Barone, Thomas E (Committee member) / Sandlin, Jennifer A. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
This dissertation investigates how ideas of the right relationships among science, the public, and collective decision-making about science and technology come to be envisioned in constructions of public engagement. In particular, it explores how public engagement has come to be constructed in discourse around gene editing to better understand how it holds together with visions for good, democratic governance of those technologies and with what effects. Using a conceptual idiom of the co-production of science and the social order, I investigate the mutual formation of scientific expertise, responsibility, and democracy through constructions of public engagement. I begin by tracing dominant historical narratives of contemporary public engagement as a continuation of public understanding of science’s projects of social ordering for democratic society. I then analyze collections of prominent expert meetings, publications, discussions, and interventions about development, governance, and societal implications human heritable germline gene editing and gene drives that developed in tandem with commitments to public engagement around those technologies. Synthesizing the evidence from across gene editing discourse, I offer a constructive critique of constructions of public engagement as expressions and evidence of scientific responsibility as ultimately reasserting and reinforcing of scientific experts' authority in gene editing decision-making, despite intentions for public engagement to extend decision-making participation and power to publics. Such constructions of public engagement go unrecognized in gene editing discourse and thereby subtly reinforce broader visions of scientific expertise as essential to good governance by underwriting the legitimacy and authority of scientific experts to act on behalf of public interests. I further argue that the reinforcement of scientific expert authority in gene editing discourse through public engagement also centers scientific experts in a sociotechnical imaginary that I call “not for science alone.” This sociotechnical imaginary envisions scientific experts as guardians and guarantors of good, democratic governance. I then propose a possible alternatives to public engagement alone to improve gene editing governance by orienting discourse around notions of public accountability for potential shared benefits and collective harms of gene editing.
ContributorsRoss, Christian (Author) / Hurlbut, James B. (Thesis advisor) / Maienschein, Jane (Thesis advisor) / Collins, James P. (Committee member) / Crow, Michael M. (Committee member) / Sarewitz, Daniel R. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021