Esta tese trata da atuação das novas instâncias participativas voltadas para a governança territorial constituídas para atender ao Programa de Promoção da Sustentabilidade de Espaços Sub-Regionais, da Política Nacional de Desenvolvimento Regional. Busca identificar a contribuição dos arranjos institucionais deliberativos, denominados Fóruns das Mesorregiões Diferenciadas, enquanto espaços privilegiados para a prática da democracia deliberativa, na governança do desenvolvimento dos seus respectivos territórios. Para tanto, foram escolhidos como objetos de estudo dois fóruns mesorregionais, localizados na macrorregião Sul do país, abrangendo os estados do Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina e Paraná. A abordagem empírica foca-se na atuação do Fórum da Mesorregião Metade Sul do Rio Grande do Sul (Fórum MESOSUL) e do Fórum da Mesorregião Grande Fronteira do Mercosul (Fórum MESO MERCOSUL), constituídos para atuar na integração e articulação dos diferentes atores regionais para a construção, implementação, monitoramento e avaliação de planos, projetos e ações de interesse público para o desenvolvimento das mesorregiões. Buscou-se por meio de uma base teórica-metodológica compreender a atuação e o processo de deliberação destes fóruns, enquanto estratégias inovadoras de governança territorial participativa, em novas escalas de planejamento do desenvolvimento. Com base neste propósito, buscou-se analisar a trajetória sócio-histórica dos Fóruns MESOSUL e MESO MERCOSUL enquanto possíveis instâncias de governança territorial. No estudo empírico dos Fóruns se verificou suas características de espaço de governança territorial participativa. A forma como as deliberações são efetivadas, representam uma inovação em relação às práticas tradicionais de planejamento e gestão do desenvolvimento, embora com algumas fragilidades e dificuldades, a atuação destes fóruns representa um avanço no processo de descentralização político administrativo, principalmente por atuarem em uma escala intermediária entre a municipal e a estadual, onde a multiplicidade de estruturas públicas e privadas se entrecruza, constituindo uma complexa rede de poder e de interesses individuais e coletivos. Conclui-se que os respectivos fóruns se enquadram como arranjos institucionais deliberativos e as suas práticas demonstram um esforço de governança territorial, mesmo que ainda não atenda aos modelos ideais. A expectativa quanto à realização desta pesquisa é a de contribuir com informações sobre o campo do conhecimento das políticas de desenvolvimento local/regional do país, bem como, das estruturas de governança territorial constituídas em espaços territoriais diferenciados. / This thesis focuses on the practice of the new participative bodies aimed at the territorial governance set to meet the Program for the Promotion of Sustainability of Sub-Regional Spaces, of the National Policy for Regional Development. It seeks to identify the contribution of deliberative institutional arrangements, called Forums of the Differentiated Mesoregions, while privileged spaces for the practice of the deliberative democracy, in the governance of the development of their respective territories. In order to do so, two mesoregional forums were chosen as study objects, located in the South macro-region of tthe country, comprising the states of Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina and Paraná. The empirical approach focuses on the practice of the Fórum da Mesorregião Metade Sul do Rio Grande do Sul - Forum of the Mesoregion Southern Half of (Forum MESOSUL) and the Fórum da Mesorregião Grande Fronteira do Mercosul – Forum of the Mesoregion of the Mercosur Great Border (Fórum MESO MERCOSUL), comprised to work in the integration and articulation of the different regional actors for the construction, implementation, monitoring and assessment of plans, projects and actions of public interest for the development of the mesoregions. We aimed, through a theoretical-methodological basis, to understand the work and the process of deliberation of these forums as innovative strategies of participative territorial governance, in new scales of development planning. Based on this purpose, the aim was to analyze the social-historical course of the MESOSUL and MESO MERCOSUL Forums while possible instances of territorial governance. In the empirical study of the Forums it has been noticed their characteristics of space of participative territorial governance. The way the deliberations are made represent an innovation in terms of the traditional planning practices and development management, although with some weaknesses and difficulties, the practice of these forums represents an advance in the process of political and administrative decentralization, mainly as they work in an intermediary scale between the city and state level, where the diversity of public and private institutions intertwines, resulting in a complex network of power and individual and collective interests. The conclusion is that the respective forums fit in as deliberative institutional arrangements and their practices show an effort of territorial governance even though it does not yet serve the ideal models. The expectation concerning the completion of this research is to contribute with information on the field of knowledge about policies of local/regional development of the country as well as structures of territorial governance comprised in differentiated territorial spaces.

This dissertation investigates the question: what do we want from our democratic institutions and how should we design them to get it? I argue that we want our democratic institutions to promote cognitive political engagement among all citizens and that accomplishing this task requires focusing reform efforts on electoral institutions like mandatory voting rather than small-scale deliberative forums. Democratic theory has been dominated by deliberative theories of democracy for at least two decades. As this literature turned to the question of how to institutionalize deliberative democracy, the inherently limited scale of deliberative institutions like deliberative polling or participatory budgeting has made scholars like Simone Chambers and Jane Mansbridge worry that deliberation abandons mass democracy, and with it meaningful democratic legitimacy. I argue that such worries are well founded because the effective inclusion of all citizens, not deliberation, constitutes the most important democratic value and that as a result, participatory institutions should be arranged so as to promote inclusion, even at the cost of values like deliberation. The first part of the project advances a novel conception of inclusion based on reflective cognitive engagement with democratic politics and demonstrates the central importance of inclusion within democratic theory. The second half of the project examines different institutions for their ability to promote inclusion and finds that, in the American context, most deliberative forums as currently designed are too small and feeble to do so but that adequately reformed electoral institutions like mandatory voting can promote inclusion and reflection well. One important implication is that in a world of limited activist resources and public taste for reform, democratic reformers in the United States should focus their attention on electoral organization and institutions rather than small-scale experiments if they hope to affect mass democracy. This project sits at the nexus of empirical research on political participation, comparative institutional design, and the ethics of democratic citizenship. It considers questions like: when the resources of democratic reformers are finite, what is the most important goal for them to pursue? How demanding of the time, attention, and resources of its citizens must a flourishing democracy be? May citizens opt out of such demands? What specific reforms are most efficient at achieving the proper priorities of democratic theory? Answering these questions requires combining empirical insights about political behavior and the performance of different institutional arrangements with normative and ethical arguments regarding the priorities of democratic theory and the nature of democratic citizenship.

O presente trabalho procura demonstrar a evolução do conceito jurídico de cidadania, buscando compreender qual conceito melhor reflete o panorama democrático do século XXI. A democracia atual implica o envolvimento de múltiplos personagens, caminhando para a ampliação das formas de participação e do espaço de compartilhamento do poder entre a população e seus representantes. O conceito jurídico tradicional de cidadania se diferencia do conceito adotado pelas demais áreas do conhecimento, pois a limita aos direitos políticos ativos e passivos. Essa concepção clássica parece não corresponder ao atual estágio democrático, em que os governos passam a sofrer maior influência externa e interna, além da crescente possibilidade de participação dos personagens estranhos. É inegável o desconforto em conferir aos não detentores dos direitos políticos a condição de não-cidadãos, mesmo se esse conceito for considerado estritamente técnico. As ciências não-jurídicas desenvolveram o conceito de cidadania a partir do período pós-guerra, especialmente com a concepção de direito a ter direitos, introduzida por Hannah Arendt, a partir da qual os direitos políticos já não se resumem mais ao direito de votar e de ser votado. A possibilidade de participação e de compartilhamento do poder demonstra ser a cidadania um elemento democrático de significado muito mais amplo, cujo conceito deve ser construído não apenas à luz do direito positivo vigente, mas também considerando a necessária afirmação dos Direitos Humanos. Assim, pode-se dizer que o conceito jurídico de cidadania que fundamenta o Estado Democrático de Direito da República Federativa do Brasil deve ser entendido como o \"princípio da máxima inclusão possível\" dos indivíduos nas esferas política, econômica, cultural e social. / This present work aims at showing the evolution of the citizenship legal concept, seeking to comprehend which concept better reflects the democratic panorama of the 21st Century. Current democracy implicates the involvement of multiple characters walking towards the enhancement of participation forms and power sharing space between population and its representative. The traditional legal concept of citizenship differentiates from the concept adopted by other knowledge areas because it limits active and passive electoral rights. This classic conception seems not to relate to the current democracy stage, in which governments suffer greater external and internal influences, other than the possibility of foreign characters participation. It is undeniable how uneasy it is to grant non-citizen status to those not holding electoral rights, even if this concept is considered strictly technical. Non-legal sciences have developed the concept of citizenship from the post-war period, particularly with the conception of right to have rights introduced by Hannah Arendt, from which political rights are no longer narrowed to the right to vote and to be voted. The possibility of participation and sharing power evidences that citizenship is a democratic element with a much broader meaning, which concept must be built not only at the light of the positive right in force but also considering the required affirmation of Human Rights. Therefore, one can say that the legal concept of citizenship providing grounds to the Democratic State based on the rule of Law of the Federative Republic of Brazil must be understood as principle of maximum possible inclusion of individuals in the political, economical, cultural and social branches.

O presente trabalho consiste em um estudo empírico com abordagem qualitativa cujo objetivo é, a partir do estudo de caso do processo de licenciamento ambiental da Usina Termoelétrica de Canas/SP, compreender concretamente os instrumentos de participação pública disponíveis em sua articulação em um procedimento estabelecido, bem como identificar o potencial e o déficit democrático do processo de licenciamento ambiental. A partir da análise de um caso específico, a dissertação apresenta as relações e as interações sociais que se dão no âmbito de um processo normatizado que tem por finalidade culminar numa deliberação pela administração pública. Para compreender essas relações e interações mediadas por um processo, o trabalho utiliza dados constantes dos trâmites do licenciamento da Usina Termoelétrica de Canas e aqueles obtidos por meio de entrevistas semiestruturadas realizadas com atores que participaram desse processo. / This work consists in an empirical study with a qualitative approach which, from the case study of the environmental permitting process of Canas Thermoelectric Plant, aims to understand the public participation instruments available in its articulation with an established procedure, as well as identify the potential and the democratic deficit of the environmental permitting process. From the case study, this work intends to reveal the relationships and social interactions that take place within an standardized process which culminates in a deliberation by the public administration. To understand these relationships and interactions the research uses data from the Canas Thermoelectric Plant environmental permitting process and those obtained by semi-structured interviews carried out with actors who participated in this process.

Maintaining the essential features of local democracy, representation and contestation, my theory allows for the representation of the interest of subpopulations in the global community by actors such as nongovernmental organization and intergovernmental organizations. I will begin by outlining what features are necessary for a theory’s consideration as democratic in nature. Then, relying upon democracy in a broad sense, it will be my aim to demonstrate that the right to democracy is universal human right. The following stage will provide the backing, by way of the moral progress of human rights, that the right to democracy is expressible by “importantly affected” subgroups in the global arena. The final stage of my conceptual defense will focus on the validation of representatives who have no institutional connection with the populations they represent. With such established, the paper will proceed into a practical defense, discussing how claims made by actors can be accepted or rejected by represented subpopulations. It will then become necessary to demonstrate that the paternalistic claims made by representatives are incorporable into a democratic theory without forgoing the essence of democracy. To show this is feasible, methods of appealing paternalistic claims by way of international human rights courts will be explained. Finally, possibilities to mediate general feasibility issues will be explored.

Globalization, specialization, and intensification have transformed the global food system, generating material flows and impacts that span multiple scales and levels, presenting novel governance challenges. Many argue for a transition toward a sustainable food system, although the scope and specific goals are fiercely contested. Theory and method is needed to evaluate competing normative claims and build legitimacy. In this dissertation Vermont serves as a case study to investigate how environmental and economic flows impact regional governance, focusing on efforts to manage agricultural phosphorus to achieve water quality goals. A material flow account is developed to estimate phosphorus flows embedded in commodities flowing in and out of Vermont’s agricultural system from 1925-2012. The results indicate a net imbalance of phosphorus flows for the entire period, leading to the accumulation of legacy phosphorus in soils that constitutes a long-term threat to water quality. Agricultural intensification and land cover change during this period led to increased phosphorus use efficiency, livestock density, and dependency on imported feed, the largest source of phosphorus entering Vermont since the 1980s. The evidence of persistent imbalance calls into question the effectiveness of current nonpoint source pollution policy. A critical investigation of nutrient management planning policy reveals several shortcomings: pasture is frequently excluded; many phosphorus flows that cross the farm-gate are not captured; critical information on soil phosphorus levels and runoff risk is not collected in a manner that facilitates regional governance. The integration of nutrient management plans and mass-balances is proposed as an alternative approach that can increase accountability, encourage efficiency, and facilitate management and governance, albeit within constraints imposed by Vermont’s position in a globalized market for agricultural commodities. The empirical and policy analysis is complemented by a theoretical investigation that starts from the observation that a sustainability transition inevitably entails tradeoffs amongst competing normative goals. Navigating these tradeoffs is complicated by mismatch between the reach of governance institutions and the spatial and temporal dimensions of the challenges they face. This investigation contributes to understanding how legitimacy and consensus are constructed in the context of competing normative claims and multi-level governance. It considers deliberative democracy as a means for evaluating normative claims and arriving at a shared, legitimate basis for social action. An instrumental perspective on deliberation is contrasted with a deeper notion that sees deliberation as constitutive of sustainability at a local-to-global level. A conclusion grounds this analysis by drawing out the ways in which deliberation can inform Vermont’s efforts to govern its agriculture, water quality, and economic development, sowing the seeds for a sustainability transition.

Communities near nuclear power plants are at potential risk from natural and man-made failures at the nuclear power plants located within those communities. This study explored the concerns and rationalizations of residents of a community who live within a 10-mile evacuation zone of the nuclear power plant located there. Using the general theory of deliberative democracy, the purpose of this qualitative study was to understand and explore why individuals continue to live close to nuclear power plants. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 15 individuals who live within a 10- mile radius of a nuclear power plant in the western US. These interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using a modified Van Kaam procedure. Findings indicated that members of the community had concerns that natural or man-made disasters could lead to catastrophic failure of the nuclear power plant but rationalized living in proximity. Another key finding was that the community itself was supported by the revenue generated from the plant which led many of the participants to live in the community and this contributed to their rationalizing for why they should live close to the plant. The social change implications of this study included recommendations to mayors, city councils, and regulatory bodies to provide more information about nuclear power plants to communities to help them cope with fear and feelings of helplessness. Residents living near nuclear power plants would benefit from the recommendations made in this study because it would help them understand the risks of living near nuclear power plants.

This thesis will argue that one of the main challenges for deliberative democracy is the lack of attention paid to the different modes of deliberative practices. The theories of deliberative democracy often treat deliberation as a decision-making process. Yet, I would argue that this approach fails to appreciate the full benefits of deliberation because it ignores the fundamental role that the social learning phase of deliberation plays in reconciling differences. Hence I argue for a deliberative framework in which social learning and decision-making moments of deliberation are analytically differentiated so that the resources of social learning are freed from the pressures of decision-making procedures and are therefore no longer subordinated to the terms of decision-making.¶ This is particularly important for countries such as Turkey where divisions cut deep across society. A case study examines the discourses of the Turkish public sphere regarding Islam, democracy and secularism to identify the kinds of discourses present in relation to the topic in question. By analysing the types of discourses through Q methodology the study reveals points of convergence and divergence between discourses, hence provides significant insight into how deliberation oriented to social learning can play a substantive role in reconciling differences between sharply divided groups.

<p>The objective for this study is to examine whether it is possible to use the method of reflective equilibrium in order to enhance the usefulness of public debates as a support for political decision-making. Since public debates from political quarters are seen as an important tool for policy-making, the need for a rational assessment of the views put forward in such debates are important. And since reflective equilibrium aims for coherence between judgments on different levels – intuitions, principles and theories, which all are put forward in public debates – the point of departure for this theses is that this method could be useful for the matter of bringing some kind of structure to public debates.</p><p>The analysis in this study shows that there actually are similarities between the method of reflective equilibrium and the course of public debates, since they both are characterized by the fact that viewpoints are mutually scrutinized in the light of one another. Further, it is argued that a more systematic applying of the method of reflective equilibrium would further the justification force of the outcome of public debates, since the method stresses the need of rationality and the importance of taking all relevant opinions into consideration. Therefore, the conclusion is that applying reflective equilibrium to public debates could make the political decision-making more democratic.</p>

We can best understand the moral obligations of citizens and officials concerning public reason as set out by John Rawls when two differing standards latent in his body of work are made explicit. The weaker standard, which I call Public Representation (or PR), is exegetically supported primarily by the proviso found in his “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”. PR allows that citizens may deliberate over serious political matters, both internally and with others, according to whatever perspective and using whatever reasons they please, so long as they believe the positions they advocate are adequately just and adequately justifiable with public reasons. I present PR as establishing a moral minimum citizens and officials bear an obligation to satisfy on pain of failing to garner an adequate degree of justice, respect, legitimacy, and stability. The more demanding standard, which I call Public Judgment (or PJ), is exegetically supported by quotes found throughout Rawls’s work, but especially in Political Liberalism, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. PJ requires that citizens deliberate over serious political matters, both internally and with others, according to a public perspective with public reasons, that they only advocate positions and offer justifications they consider most reasonable, and that they share their thought processes in public. PR is nonobligatory, but achieves significant gains according to each of the four key political values mentioned above, which gives dedicated citizens good reason to embrace it. Chapter one lays out and explores the big picture concepts framing the project; chapter two sets out Rawls’s view on public reason according to the primary texts; chapter three presents four contemporary liberal theorists’ views on public reason – Nicholas Wolterstorff, Robert Audi, David Reidy, and Micah Schwartzman; chapter four uses the lessons of chapter three to help fully unpack and compare Public Representation and Public Judgment; and chapter five considers three potential objections to my view and offers corresponding replies.