Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T20:03:12.495Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Affected Interests and Their Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Amit Ron
Amit Ron*
Affiliation:
Arizona State University
*
E-mail: Amit.ron@asu.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The scope, complexity, and interconnectedness of modern society should prompt us to develop dynamic understandings of democratic modes of inclusion and exclusion. In particular, democratic theory is becoming more attentive to the mismatch between those who make decisions and those who are affected by them as well as to the need to account for the voice of the latter. In this article I build on James Bohman’s understanding of democracy as a rule by multiple dêmoi to develop a framework for studying and evaluating modes of democratic inclusion that are based on being affected. To develop this framework I turn to law and public administration and examine the democratic properties of different institutions and procedures that give a voice to those who are affected by a decision.

Keywords

affected interestsdêmoiinclusioninstitutionspeople-making principles

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Democratic Theory , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , December 2017, pp. 66 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © The Cambridge Journal of Anthropology 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abizadeh, Arash. 2012. “On the Demos and Its Kin: Nationalism, Democracy, and the Boundary Problem.” American Political Science Review 106 (4): 867–882.10.1017/S0003055412000421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Ludvig. 2009. The Frontiers of Democracy: the Right to Vote and Its Limits. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James. 2007. Democracy Across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2327.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brighouse and Fleurbaey, . 2010. “Democracy and Proportionality.” Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (2): 137–155.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00316.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brugha, Ruairí. 2000. “Stakeholder Analysis: A Review.” Health Policy and Planning 15 (3): 239–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Jean. 1999. “Changing Paradigms of Citizenship and the Exclusiveness of the Demos.” International Sociology 14 (3): 245–268.10.1177/0268580999014003002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, Thomas. 2006. “A Democratic Theory of Territory and Some Puzzles about Global Democracy.” Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (1): 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Dana L. 1999. A Citizen’s Guide to the World Bank Inspection Panel, 2nd ed. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1990. After the Revolution?: Authority in a Good Society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, John S., 2001. “Legitimacy and Economy in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29 (5): 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, William A. 1988. “The Structure of Standing.” Yale Law Journal 98: 221–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Nancy. 2010. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World. Cambridge, UK: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35 (1): 40–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodpaster, Kenneth E. 1991. “Business Ethics and Stakeholder Analysis.” Business Ethics Quarterly 1 (1): 53–73.Google Scholar
Gould, Carol C. 2006. “Self-Determination beyond Sovereignty: Relating Transnational Democracy to Local Autonomy.” Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (1): 44–60.10.1111/j.1467-9833.2006.00302.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall and Deardorff. 2006. “Lobbying as Legislative Strategy.” American Political Science Review 100 (1): 69–84.10.1017/S0003055406062010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kymlicka, Will. 2001. Politics in the Vernacular: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian, and Mathias, Koenig-Archibugi. 2010. “Can There be a Global Demos?: An Agency-Based Approach.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 38 (1): 76–110.10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01174.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathiowetz, Dean. 2008. “‘Interest’ Is a Verb: Arthur Bently and the Language of Interest.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (4): 622–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2011. “The Challenge of the All-Affected Principle.” Political Studies 59 (1): 116–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nine, Cara. 2014. “When Affected Interests Demand Joint Self-Determination: Learning from Rivers.” International Theory 6 (1): 157–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, David. 2012. “Constituting the Polity, Constituting the Demos: On the Place of the All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and in Resolving the Democratic Boundary Problem.” Ethics and Global Politics 5 (3): 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul A. 2005. Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6577.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, Ben. 2011. “Defining the Demos.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 11 (3): 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1999. Democratic Justice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Song, Sarah. 2012. “The Boundary Problem in Democratic Theory: Why the Demos Should Be Bounded by the State.” International Theory 4 (1): 39–68.10.1017/S1752971911000248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vining, Joseph. 1978. Legal Identity: The Coming of Age of Public Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Whitt, Matt. 2014. “Democracy’s Sovereign Enclosures: Territory and the All-Affected Principle.” Constellations 21 (4): 560–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Melissa S. 2009. “Citizenship as Agency within Communities of Shared Fate.” In Unsettled Legitimacy: Political Community, Power, and Authority in a Global Era, ed. Steven, Bernstein and William D., Coleman, 33–52. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press.Google Scholar