Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- Member of: ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Description
This dissertation examines the intellectual debate over the concept of laissez faire in American political thought, which took place between 1880 and 1914. It presents an account of how the concept of laissez faire rose to prominence in American political thought during the Gilded Age as well as an account of how critics responded. The Gilded Age was a period of revolutionary economic change which prompted a renewed debate over the proper role of government. Much of the existing scholarship devoted to this period takes the form of historical overview or extensive focus on a particular thinker. My own analysis focuses on the specific arguments of three particular thinkers: Henry Demarest Lloyd, Thorstein Veblen, and Herbert Croly.
In order to explain the various features of this intellectual debate, I present a conceptual analysis of laissez faire and identify its key components. I also provide a critical comparison of the competing economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to illustrate the relationship between laissez faire thinking and the American Founding. I then present the laissez faire arguments of nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly the Social Darwinists. Finally, I critically appraise the arguments presented by Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly in order to show how the prevailing notions about the proper role of government were changing.
In this research, I show that the debate over laissez faire was about more than identifying the appropriate economic policy for the United States. It centered upon competing theories of society, human nature, and economic progress. In criticizing laissez faire, Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly also challenged the traditional American commitment to individualism, and in so doing, they laid the intellectual groundwork for a more affirmative government and the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century.
In order to explain the various features of this intellectual debate, I present a conceptual analysis of laissez faire and identify its key components. I also provide a critical comparison of the competing economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to illustrate the relationship between laissez faire thinking and the American Founding. I then present the laissez faire arguments of nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly the Social Darwinists. Finally, I critically appraise the arguments presented by Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly in order to show how the prevailing notions about the proper role of government were changing.
In this research, I show that the debate over laissez faire was about more than identifying the appropriate economic policy for the United States. It centered upon competing theories of society, human nature, and economic progress. In criticizing laissez faire, Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly also challenged the traditional American commitment to individualism, and in so doing, they laid the intellectual groundwork for a more affirmative government and the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century.
ContributorsBlanchard, Brian (Author) / Ball, Terence (Thesis advisor) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Crittenden, William (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014
Description
This study examines the factors that shape the timing of a passage of a piece of controversial gender equality legislation by conducting a case study of the abolition of the family-head system in South Korea. This study draws on the method of process tracing with the data collected from the archives and the interviews. The case study mainly compares the legislative processes for the bills on the abolition of the family-head system in 16th and the 17th National Assemblies, in which the bills resulted to opposite outcomes.
This study argues that the institutions of the legislative process mediate the impact of relevant actors for gender equality policymaking. In the bill initiation stage, only a small number of the elected officials are required to introduce a bill, and women representatives serve a vital role as they are more likely to introduce feminist bills than their male colleagues. This study argues that 1) the background of the women influencing their commitment to feminist agendas, 2) strong women’s movements contributing to issue saliency, and thereby the policy priorities of the issue, and 3) the resources and constraints inside the party for feminist policymaking influenced by party ideology, shape how active women representatives will be in advocating controversial gender equality agendas.
In the later stages of policymaking, the efforts of a small number of women members are offset by that of political parties. Emphasizing the positive agenda control of the majority party and the negative agenda control of the minority parties, this study suggests that party issue positions are critical for the outcome of the bill. To explain the party issue position (re)shape, this study underlines 1) public opinion, 2) the emergence of new voter groups leading to the decline of the cleavage politics, 3) new party entry, and 4) women in the party and the party leadership. The findings highlight that the major parties’ issue positions shift in the 17th National Assembly greatly contributed to amplifying the bargaining power of the key allies and weakening the institutional leverage of the opponents, leading to the successful legislation of the bill.
This study argues that the institutions of the legislative process mediate the impact of relevant actors for gender equality policymaking. In the bill initiation stage, only a small number of the elected officials are required to introduce a bill, and women representatives serve a vital role as they are more likely to introduce feminist bills than their male colleagues. This study argues that 1) the background of the women influencing their commitment to feminist agendas, 2) strong women’s movements contributing to issue saliency, and thereby the policy priorities of the issue, and 3) the resources and constraints inside the party for feminist policymaking influenced by party ideology, shape how active women representatives will be in advocating controversial gender equality agendas.
In the later stages of policymaking, the efforts of a small number of women members are offset by that of political parties. Emphasizing the positive agenda control of the majority party and the negative agenda control of the minority parties, this study suggests that party issue positions are critical for the outcome of the bill. To explain the party issue position (re)shape, this study underlines 1) public opinion, 2) the emergence of new voter groups leading to the decline of the cleavage politics, 3) new party entry, and 4) women in the party and the party leadership. The findings highlight that the major parties’ issue positions shift in the 17th National Assembly greatly contributed to amplifying the bargaining power of the key allies and weakening the institutional leverage of the opponents, leading to the successful legislation of the bill.
ContributorsLee, Mijun (Author) / Kittilson, Miki (Thesis advisor) / Simhony, Avital (Committee member) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Deliberative democratic theorists contend that legitimate democratic decision-making must proceed through reasoned and inclusive discussion. Deliberative theories of democracy have been subject to critique, but these critiques generally focus not on whether quality deliberation is desirable but rather on whether it is achievable, as a practical matter.
To address the question of whether and how deliberative ideals might be achieved, and through what method, I examine interest-based or integrative problem-solving as a successful model that might provide such insights. Focusing on three instances of its usage to address complex, multi-stakeholder issues in the labor-management context, I demonstrate how integrative models have enabled participants to overcome historically toxic relationships, incorporate participation by stakeholders with different perspectives and needs, and address tumultuous changes in their fields and institutions.
I then unpack the mechanics of interest-based methodology, beginning by examining its theoretical origins in the work of Mary Parker Follett. Building on that theoretical foundation, I examine how Follett’s theories have been implemented in contemporary interest-based processes, focusing in particular on how Follett’s transformative view of conflict resolution contrasts with the more transactional model promoted by most deliberative democrats. This difference is directly reflected in the techniques used in Folletian conflict resolution processes, which seek to capitalize on the existence of conflict to drive effective and meaningful participation. Follett’s integrative methods, I contend, directly answer many of the critiques of traditional processes of deliberative democracy.
Last, I consider the implications of interest-based methods for political decision-making. These include what types of issues, communities, and participants most lend themselves to deliberative models of decision-making; the critical role of training and facilitation to the success of deliberative models; and the ways in which process can be used to address the issues of capacity, power, epistemology, and feasibility that have plagued more traditional modes of deliberation when empirically tested. From this analysis, I conclude that interest-based models are worthy of continuing study and implementation in the political context, and I suggest avenues of further potential study and trial implementation.
To address the question of whether and how deliberative ideals might be achieved, and through what method, I examine interest-based or integrative problem-solving as a successful model that might provide such insights. Focusing on three instances of its usage to address complex, multi-stakeholder issues in the labor-management context, I demonstrate how integrative models have enabled participants to overcome historically toxic relationships, incorporate participation by stakeholders with different perspectives and needs, and address tumultuous changes in their fields and institutions.
I then unpack the mechanics of interest-based methodology, beginning by examining its theoretical origins in the work of Mary Parker Follett. Building on that theoretical foundation, I examine how Follett’s theories have been implemented in contemporary interest-based processes, focusing in particular on how Follett’s transformative view of conflict resolution contrasts with the more transactional model promoted by most deliberative democrats. This difference is directly reflected in the techniques used in Folletian conflict resolution processes, which seek to capitalize on the existence of conflict to drive effective and meaningful participation. Follett’s integrative methods, I contend, directly answer many of the critiques of traditional processes of deliberative democracy.
Last, I consider the implications of interest-based methods for political decision-making. These include what types of issues, communities, and participants most lend themselves to deliberative models of decision-making; the critical role of training and facilitation to the success of deliberative models; and the ways in which process can be used to address the issues of capacity, power, epistemology, and feasibility that have plagued more traditional modes of deliberation when empirically tested. From this analysis, I conclude that interest-based models are worthy of continuing study and implementation in the political context, and I suggest avenues of further potential study and trial implementation.
ContributorsGenna, Ignazio (Author) / Crittenden, Jack (Thesis advisor) / Simhony, Avital (Thesis advisor) / Kirkpatrick, Jennet (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017