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.

Ghana's democracy has been hailed by scholars, practitioners, and the international community in recent years as a shining example in the West African subregion as a result of the country's record of organizing successive elections with minimal or no violence. However, the evaluation of Ghana's democracy has predominantly focused on the elections and disproportionately captures the views of the political elite; conspicuously missing is the perspective of the ordinary Ghanaian. This presents an incomplete picture of Ghana's democracy, given the relevance of citizens' participation in democratic societies. To address this gap in knowledge, this qualitative case study explored the practice of democracy in Ghana under the fourth republic from the perspective of the citizenry. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews with purposefully sampled ordinary Ghanaian citizens (n = 15), observation, and documents review. The data were then subjected to thematic and content analysis to reveal themes, categories, and patterns. The results revealed that the participating Ghanaians had dichotomous views, opinions, and experiences of democracy. Their experiences and opinions of the electoral system were generally positive, while their experiences and opinions of governance in the intervening years were generally negative. The study's results should inspire a paradigm shift in the responsiveness of government to citizens and how the government engages with citizens on policy formulation and implementation. This study's results can encourage positive social change with respect to the manner in which democratic performance is evaluated in Ghana by scholars, practitioners, and the international community.

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.

It is claimed that low-income people in Dhaka city do not have the financial ability to enjoy adecent housing environment. There is a clear lack of knowledge on how low-income people,drawing upon both their available income together and support from formal financial institutions,would be able to afford housing. It is commonly considered a fact that their access to formalfinancial means is largely hindered by their poor financial status, along with the absence of anyform of land tenure security. The case of this study demonstrates, on the contrary, the adequatefinancial ability of the urban poor when it comes to meeting rent and payments for other necessaryservices. This study therefore primarily responds to the critical issue of whether the government isunaware of informal housing practices, or is simply ignorant of low-income housing provision.In this study, perspectives on change are analyzed in order to comprehend the obstacles andchallenges embedded within the housing organizations of Dhaka city. Within the local governanceparadigm, the concepts of deliberative dialogue and partnership are explored with the aim toreveal both the resources rooted in ‘informal’ low-income housing practices, and the resources atstake for the ‘formal’ housing gatekeepers. Different land tenure security options are explored inorder to understand their compatibility with the informal nature of low-income housing. Thetheory of social business is critically reviewed, and used to examine whether low-incomeaffordable housing could be seen as a product resulting from partnerships between vested actors,for whom the low-income community could be considered to be both a beneficiary and a partner.This study suggests that outside the boundary of ‘formal’ housing, there is an unexplored andfunctional ‘informal’ housing market where de facto owners purchase ‘business tenure security’from the slum lords, while de facto tenants buy ‘house rental tenure security’ in exchange forregular rental payments. Within this informality, an innovative financial organization (the JhilparCooperative) has emerged as a creative platform for business investment. This study reveals thatJhilpar’s inhabitants pay more than 30 percent of their monthly income for housing. As anabsolute value, this is more than what is being paid by middle-class – and even many high-income– people. The slum inhabitants also pay more for a limited supply of basic services, such aselectricity.This study concludes that the formal housing gatekeepers lack a complete knowledge of‘informality’ – a notion reflected in, for example, the actual financial ability of the urban poor; thestrength and potentials of systematic community-based cooperative business; and housing relocationdecisions (employment-housing nexus). This fundamental lack of knowledge precludesthe housing gatekeepers from taking the right decisions to achieve affordable low-incomehousing. These deficiencies have led to low-income housing projects that have barely benefitedthe urban poor, benefiting other income groups instead. Low-income housing projects utilizingland title provision, sites and services schemes, and relocation to other places (amongst otherstrategies) disregard the nature, strength, and potentials of housing ‘informality’ in the slums inthe most pronounced manner. This identified knowledge gap also rules out private and publichousing gatekeepers employing their resources as enablers or providers. To improve this impassewith regard to affordable low-income housing, this study advocates a ‘social business model forlow-income housing’ as the most effective option for the Jhilpar community, wherebypartnerships would be built on an ‘investment’ mindset, through a shift away from conventional‘give away’ practices. / QC 20120221

The aim of this thesis is to explore how different competing discourses in the historical context of the Swedish education development have qualified and disqualified different constructions of national curriculum. How and after what kind of principles is the curriculum constructed? What qualify who are going to be recognized as the author and addressee of the curriculum? These key ques-tions of the study are discussed in the first part of the thesis. My point of depar-ture is that the curriculum can be understood as a relation between freedom and control. In an educational system this relationship reflects the problematic ten-sion between the external demands from an authoritative center and the local need to independently reflect over educational issues. How these concepts are defined by the prevailing social discourses affect specific relations and construc-tions of curricula as a steering tool and a producer of specific teacher identities. In this sense, I claim that curriculum is constructed in different ways depending on which of the didactic questions are emphasized and answered and who is judged as the legitimate author. Based on this, three models of curriculum con-struction are formulated; the content based, the result based and the process based. These models are subsequently used as an analytical tool to examine the historical development of Swedish national curricula. The second part of the thesis investigates the Swedish education system and the production of the national curriculum as a product of rival discourses. The historical investigation begins 1842 when the first state curriculum was issued and the inquiry concludes in 2008. The findings indicate that no one single con-struction has been totally dominant and that there has been an on-going discur-sive struggle between different alternative and opinions about what teachers must do and be.

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. 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.