Thesis (MA)--University of Montana, 2007. / Contents viewed on March 26, 2010. Title from author supplied metadata. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.) - Carleton University, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 110-117). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

O desenvolvimento da redemocratização brasileira foi vigorosamente fomentado pelos movimentos populares de saúde, garantindo a participação da comunidade na Constituição Federal de 1988, por meio de conselhos de saúde paritários e deliberativos. O estudo propõe analisar a intensidade democrática de participação de um conselho municipal de saúde no que tange ao programa de melhoria do acesso e da qualidade na atenção básica à saúde (PMAQ) nos centros de saúde da família de um município sul mineiro. Como objetivos específicos pretende-se qualificar o perfil sócio econômico e participativo dos conselheiros municipais de saúde; caracterizar a organização e funcionamento do conselho municipal de saúde e identificar a percepção dos conselheiros em relação ao PMAQ. É uma pesquisa descritiva e explicativa com abordagem qualitativa a partir de um estudo de caso. O corpus da pesquisa se constituiu de entrevistas semiestruturadas com dezesseis conselheiros municipais de saúde. O percurso metodológico abarcou as premissas da análise temática de conteúdo de Laurence Bardin, mediante a sistematização dos dados qualitativos auferidos. A categorização e a análise alicerçaram-se nas teses sobre a democracia participativa discutidas nos pressupostos teóricos desenvolvidos pelo sociólogo Boaventura de Sousa Santos que advoga a emergência da renovação da teoria democrática hierarquizada de acordo com a intensidade dos processos de autoridade partilhada e da reciprocidade do reconhecimento. / The development of brazilian redemocratization was vigorously fostered by popular movements of health, ensuring the community participation in the federal constitution o 1.988, through parity and deliberative health advices. The study proposes to analyses the demographic intensity of participation of City council health regarding te improvement program access and quality in primary care to health (PMAQ) in health centers of the family of a miner southern municipality. The specific objectives intended to qualify the economic profile and participatory member of the municipal health directors; characterize the organization and functioning of municipal health council and identify the perception of the directors in relation to PMAQ. It is a descriptive and explanatory research with qualitative approach from a case study. The corpus of the research is composed of semi-structured interviews with sixteen municipal health aldermen. The methodological route encompassed the premises of thematic content analysis of Laurence Bardin, by systematizing accrued qualitative data. The categorization and analysis is underpinned in the theses on participatory democracy discussed the theoretical assumptions developed by the sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos which advocates emergence of renewal of democratic theory hierarchical according to the intensity of shared authority procedures and the recognition and of reciprocity.

Orientador: Maria Conceição da Costa / Dissertação (mestrado) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Geociencias / Made available in DSpace on 2018-08-13T10:07:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Piolli_AlessandroLuis_M.pdf: 3431431 bytes, checksum: e1844117c6ac0d0279ed63392cc86fec (MD5) Previous issue date: 2009 / Resumo: A centralidade da ciência e da tecnologia no mundo atual gera, cada vez mais, um aumento da participação de cientistas em decisões públicas, especialmente na resolução de controvérsias. Esta participação crescente de cientistas aponta dois problemas para o futuro das democracias. Um desses problemas seria resultante das desigualdades de conhecimentos entre especialistas e leigos, que são incompatíveis com o princípio da igualdade das democracias liberais. Outro problema ocorre quando o Estado, ao dar especial status à opinião de experts, fere o princípio da neutralidade. Pensados separadamente, esses dois problemas poderiam ser solucionados nos caminhos da política: as desigualdades de conhecimento ou a suposta "incapacidade pública" de participar das decisões seriam resolvidos com a educação; já a questão da neutralidade, ou o suposto descontrole democrático do conhecimento especializado poderia ser resolvido por meio dos concílios de cidadãos em tecnologia ou conselhos e comitês gestores com participação do público. Pensados juntos, no entanto, os dois problemas trazem uma questão mais complexa: se os experts são o princípio do conhecimento público, e esse conhecimento não deveria ser pensado como superior à opinião do público leigo, o público é, então, menos competente que os experts e está sob o controle cultural ou intelectual desses especialistas. Para discutir esses problemas, será feita uma análise compreensiva, com uso de tipos ideais de experts e de expertises, a partir do estudo de caso na Câmara Técnica Rural dos comitês federal e estadual das bacias hidrográficas dos rios Piracicaba, Capivari e Jundiaí, que terá como foco três aspectos: a elaboração de uma proposta de cálculos para cobrança pelo uso das águas no meio rural; as disputas entre setor rural e de saneamento para a definição das formas de cobrança e pela alocação de recursos arrecadados; e as propostas dos comitês estudados para divulgação e educação científica de aspectos ligados a gestão das águas. O presente estudo demonstra que a diversidade permitida na gestão por comitês promove a formação de novas formas de expertise, como a expertise híbrida - entre as expertises interacional e contributiva - que têm fortalecido o processo democrático. A análise dos processos de formação dessas expertises é o ponto de partida para o desenvolvimento de dois argumentos centrais. O primeiro é o de que a contraposição feita entre ciência e política, comum nas disputas do comitê estudado, desvaloriza um dos principais avanços do novo modelo de gestão das águas: a diversidade política, técnica e científica gera uma maior abertura ao debate político, fundamental ao processo democrático, e não a despolitização do debate. O segundo argumento parte da noção de que é possível se estabelecer, por meio de negociações, um mínimo necessário de conhecimentos que permite ao público "leigo" o engajamento na discussão, permitindo a ele, mesmo mantendo suas características de não especialista, participar das decisões políticas de assuntos científicos. / Abstract: The science and the technology are in the center of the world nowadays, which generates the crescent increase of the scientists' participation on public decisions, especially on the resolution of controversies. These scientists increasing participation highlights two problems for the future of democracies. One of these problems would result in inequality of knowledge between experts and lay people, which are incompatible with the principle of equality in liberal democracies. Another problem takes place when the State gives special status to the view of experts, offending the principle of neutrality. If considered separately, these two problems could be solved in the path of politics: the inequality of knowledge or the supposed "public failure" to participate in decisions would be solved with education, while the issue of neutrality, or the supposed lack of democratic expertise could be solved through the councils of citizens in technology or management boards and committees with public participation. If considered together, however, the two problems bring up a more complex issue: if experts are the principle of public knowledge, and this knowledge should not be taken as superior to the opinion of the lay people, the public is the less competent than experts and is under the intellectual or cultural control of experts. To discuss these issues, a comprehensive analysis will be done, with use of ideal types of experts and expertise from the case study in the Rural Technical Chamber of federal and state committees of the river basins of the rivers Piracicaba, Capivari and Jundiaí, which will focus three aspects: the preparation of a draft recovery calculations for the use of water in rural areas, disputes between the rural sector and sanitation for the definition of the forms of recovery and the allocation of funds raised and the proposals of the committees studied to disseminate scientific and educational aspects of water management. This study shows that the diversity allowed by the management committees promotes the formation of new forms of expertise such as hybrid expertise - between the interactional and contributory expertises, which has strengthened the democratic process. The analysis of the formation procedures of such expertise is the starting point for the development of two central arguments. The first is that the opposition made between science and policy, common in disputes of the committees studied, devalues one of the main advances of the new model of water management: the policy, technical and scientific diversity generates greater openness to political debate, fundamental the democratic process, not the depoliticization of the debate. The second argument comes from the notion that it is possible to establish, through negotiations, a minimum necessary of knowledge which enables the lay public to the engagement in discussion, enabling him, even while maintaining its characteristics of non-specialists, to participate in decisions policies for scientific affairs. / Mestrado / Mestre em Política Científica e Tecnológica

Not supplied

This study explores the relationship between economic development, social mobility, elites, and regime formation. I argue that the genesis of regime formation, in general, and of democratic regimes, in particular, is determined by the type of economic structure a society possesses, on the one hand, and on the degree the to which demands from disfranchised groups do or do not pose a substantial threat to the interests of elites who occupy the upper strata of the social and economic status hierarchy. Second I demonstrate that the dynamics of transition to wider political participation, as the core element of a democratic system of governance, and the survival of such change are different. In what follows I illustrate that some factors that have been found to dampen the chances for wider participation or have been found to be unrelated to onset of a democratic system of governance have considerable impacts on the durability of the democratic regimes. In a nutshell, the analysis points to the positive effects of mineral wealth and income inequality on the prospects of a democratic survival. Using a cross-national time series data set for all countries for the period between 1960 and 1999 I put the hypotheses to the test. I use binary logit, ordered logit, and ordinary least squares (OLS) to delineate the link between socioeconomic changes and the transition to wider participation. Survival analyses are employed to test for what factors account for the durability of a democratic regime.

A ideologia neoliberal se manifestou predominante, após a crise vivenciada a partir do fim da década de 70, com a defesa da necessidade de diminuição do aparato estatal e a ampliação da liberdade dos agentes econômicos, o que interferiu no modelo de democracia vigente. Sob a perspectiva dessa ideologia, o modelo de democracia então hegemônico se viu reforçado, dando-se prevalência ao sistema representativo, bem como se sedimentando a questão puramente procedimental, vinculada apenas ao sufrágio universal e despida da perspectiva moral de alteração da sociedade. Isso acabou aumentando a desigualdade e fortalecendo a influência do mercado e agentes externos sobre as políticas públicas. Com isso, a democracia se viu afetada com o crescimento da apatia social e dos questionamentos quanto à política, já que a alternância de projetos não existe. Como forma de mitigar esses problemas, a ampliação da participação social seria o instrumento, sendo isso defendido inclusive por agências multilaterais, como a OIT, ao trazer o diálogo social como um de seus objetivos estratégicos. Ele seria utilizado para ampliar a discussão a respeito das políticas econômicas e sociais, permitindo a construção de soluções alternativas e concertadas. Dentro desse contexto de dominação da ideologia neoliberal, viu-se a criação de Conselhos Econômicos e Sociais na Espanha, em Portugal e no Brasil. Na Espanha e em Portugal, a criação ocorreu em um momento em que eram necessárias grandes reformas para adequação desses países aos ditames da União Europeia, mormente em razão da premente unificação monetária. No Brasil, a criação foi apresentada como um instrumento para fazer frente àquele predomínio ideológico, tendo sido assentada, como uma de suas funções, a construção de um novo pacto social. Levando em conta essa realidade vivenciada, o presente estudo objetiva analisar se o diálogo social institucionalizado nos Conselhos Econômicos e Sociais desses países realmente serviu de instrumento para uma maior participação social e para a criação de alternativas concertadas para o desenvolvimento econômico e social. A hipótese a ser trabalhada é que a prática dos Conselhos na Espanha, em Portugal e no Brasil é parecida, no sentido de dar legitimidade às políticas econômicas e sociais ou ao governo, apesar de o discurso de criação ser distinto. Para possibilitar esse estudo, o segundo capítulo traz a vinculação da democracia ao capitalismo, principalmente no período de dominação ideológica do neoliberalismo. O terceiro capítulo faz um apanhado histórico a partir do processo de redemocratização até a criação dos Conselhos. No quarto, são apresentadas as características institucionais e a evolução do diálogo social com a criação dos Conselhos. Para apresentar essa evolução, foram utilizados artigos a respeito do diálogo social naqueles países e documentações primárias fornecidas por cada um dos Conselhos, sendo utilizados os pareceres feitos pelo pleno dos Conselhos da Espanha e de Portugal e as atas e discursos das reuniões ordinárias do Conselho do Brasil. No quinto capítulo, são apontados problemas vistos no processo de participação social institucionalizada. Para, na sequência, ser apresentada a conclusão de que a institucionalização do diálogo social não serviu para a pensada ampliação democrática. / The neoliberal ideology has manifested prevalent after the crisis experienced from the end of the 70’s, with its defense of the need to reduce the state apparatus and of the expansion of freedom of the economic agents, which interfered in the model of the democracy. From the perspective of this ideology, the hegemonic model of democracy was reinforced, giving prevalence to the representative system, as well as consolidating the purely procedural matter, linked only to the universal suffrage and without the moral perspective of change in society. This has increased inequality and strengthened the influence of the market and external stakeholders on public policy. Therefore, democracy was affected with the growth of social apathy and questions about the politic, since the alternation of projects does not exist. In order to mitigate these problems, increasing social participation would be the instrument and this was defended even by multilateral agencies such as the ILO, to bring social dialogue as one of its strategic objectives. The social dialogue would be used to broaden the discussion of economic and social policies, enabling the construction of alternatives and concerted solutions. Within this context of domination of neoliberal ideology, it has been seen the creation of Economic and Social Councils in Spain, Portugal and Brazil. In Spain and Portugal, the creation occurred at a time when they were needed to do major reforms to adapt these countries to the dictates of the European Union, especially given the proximity of the monetary union. In Brazil, the creation was presented as a tool to counter to that ideological predominance and it was placed, as one of its functions, the construction of a new social pact. Considering this reality, the study aims to analyze if the social dialogue institutionalized in the Economic and Social Councils of these countries actually served as an instrument for a greater social participation and for the creation of concerted alternatives for economic and social development. The hypothesis to be worked is that the practice of these Councils in Spain, Portugal and Brazil is similar, in order to give legitimacy to economic and social policies or the government, despite the difference of speech in their creation. To enable this study, the second chapter provides the linkage of democracy to capitalism, especially during the period of ideological domination of neoliberalism. The third chapter makes a historical overview from the democratization process until the creation of the Councils. In the fourth, the institutional characteristics and evolution of the social dialogue with the creation of the Councils are showed. To display this evolution, it was used articles about the social dialogue in those countries and primary documentation provided by each of the Councils, that being the opinions made by the plenary of the Councils of Spain and Portugal and the minutes and speeches of the regular meetings of the Council of Brazil. In the fifth chapter, it is singled out problems seen in the process of the institutionalized social participation. After that, it is presented the conclusion that the institutionalization of social dialogue was not used to the democratic expansion as thought.

The diploma thesis deals with the historical development of the attitude of the Church social doctrine towards the phenomenon of democracy. It compares the values of modern democracy and social doctrine. Implicit historical attitudes to democracy derive from the theses obtained by analyzing all the essential documents of social doctrine. The theses related to democracy explicitly are placed in the context and comments of other authors. In conclusion, it summarizes the genesis of the attitude of the Church's social doctrine to democracy in a systematic overview with the links. The summary distinguishes the level of the value starting-points of the Church social doctrine and the level of attitude towards democracy as such.

La tesi è stata intitolata “Change the System From Within”. La participatory democracy e le riforme istituzionali negli Stati Uniti degli anni Sessanta e si compone di cinque capitoli. Nel primo capitolo si riprende l’idea di participatory democracy emersa in seno alla New Left e ai movimenti sociali dei lunghi anni Sessanta. In questo contesto il concetto di participatory democracy assunse due principali accezioni: da una parte rappresentava la rivendicazione politica di un maggior coinvolgimento attivo della cittadinanza nelle politiche - locali, statali e federali - frutto della crisi di legittimità che la democrazia americana stava attraversando in quegli anni; dall’altra, il concetto venne adottato come principio organizzativo all’interno dei gruppi stessi di attivisti, con la funzione di prefigurare quelle riforme politico-istituzionali cui gli stessi militanti aspiravano. Dalla stessa temperie di contestazione sorse del resto anche la critica che alcuni studiosi mossero alla teoria liberale pluralista e alla sua esemplificazione nella coeva democrazia americana. Nel primo capitolo si mostra proprio come da quelle rielaborazioni critiche degli anni Sessanta emerse anche il primo modello di participatory democracy in seno alla teoria politica, sviluppato pienamente negli anni Settanta e Ottanta da Carole Pateman, Crawford B. Macpherson e Benjamin Barber. Questa parte del lavoro di tesi si propone quindi di accostare alle pratiche partecipative introdotte dai movimenti anche la ricostruzione dello sviluppo graduale di una teoria politica della participatory democracy. Tale riflessione è completata da un’analisi storica di ampio raggio, necessaria a meglio contestualizzare il fenomeno e ad includere le nuove richieste democratiche nell’ambito di una tradizione democratico-rappresentativa già dotata di istituti partecipativi di democrazia diretta. Chiarito il quadro storico-politico degli anni Sessanta, il secondo capitolo analizza la ricezione dell’idea di participatory democracy nelle politiche federali. A questo proposito si illustra come il principio di citizen participation fosse stato recepito già con la War on Poverty promossa da Lindon B. Johnson alla metà degli anni Sessanta e fu mantenuto, con esiti istituzionali differenti, almeno fino alla fine della presidenza Carter. Si dimostra inoltre che, malgrado il dettato legislativo federale fosse spesso approssimativo sulle modalità operative, quel principio ebbe in realtà un notevole impatto sulle relazioni intergovernative. Tale principio favorì ad esempio l’intraprendenza di molti amministratori locali nel promuovere il decentramento amministrativo e politico su base di quartiere. Nel terzo capitolo l’analisi affronta le principali trasformazioni in senso partecipativo avvenute nei sistemi di governo statali e locali negli anni Settanta, mettendole in relazione anche alle dinamiche intergovernative di più lungo periodo. Il capitolo è strutturato in modo tale da evidenziare il tendenziale recupero e rafforzamento di istituti già esistenti, come l’initiative, i public hearing e gli school district come strumenti di rivendicazione del community control in alcune città di grandi dimensioni. Mentre il secondo e terzo capitolo tendono a osservare le riforme istituzionali degli anni Settanta in senso partecipativo in seno al governo federale, statale e locale, i due successivi capitoli mirano ad osservare l’impatto della participatory democracy nel confronto tra attivismo militante e pratiche amministrative tradizionali degli anni Settanta. Il quarto capitolo è infatti dedicato all’ingresso della nuova generazione di politici progressisti nelle amministrazioni locali e statali fra la fine degli anni Sessanta e la prima metà degli anni Settanta. Per analizzarlo si è deciso di analizzare come principale caso di studio la Conference on Alternative State and Local Policy (CASLP), una organizzazione e forum nazionale che mirava proprio ad unire alle istanze dei progressisti una expertise di governo. Nell’ambito della CASLP, la cosiddetta Coalizione progressista di Berkeley, CA, fornì un caso esemplare di strategia di confronto con le istituzioni locali e per questo il capitolo le dedica una attenta disanima. La pluriennale esperienza di azione collettiva dei progressisti di Berkeley nell’arena istituzionale è infatti rilevante sia per l’innovazione nella strategia istituzionale, sia per attestare una evoluzione dell’idea di participatory democracy nel tempo. Il quinto capitolo ricostruisce ed analizza la carriera politica di Tom Hayden negli anni in cui passò dall’attivismo alla politica istituzionale, con la campagna elettorale per diventare Senatore della California in Congresso (1975-1976) e la successiva Campaign for Economic Democracy (1976-1982), confermando la spiccata propensione del leader all’innovazione istituzionale in senso partecipativo. In particolare, nella campagna elettorale per il Senato del Congresso del 1976 Hayden riuscì a implementare forme di decision-making partecipato in seno allo staff. Nella gestione del personale cercò inoltre di favorire l’empowerment di volontari e cittadini senza perdere di vista i requisiti essenziali per la sopravvivenza della campagna: fundraising e propaganda. In linea con la sua battaglia contro le distorsioni economiche del big business, scelse di non accettare fondi da corporation e banche e riuscì nell’intento di essere sostenuto per gran parte da small donors. Hayden dunque introdusse pratiche di participatory democracy in seno alla campagna elettorale e continuò a rivendicare la sua fiducia nella forza dei movimenti grass-roots. L’analisi storica, ad ogni modo, evidenzia anche le criticità che derivavano dall’uso di pratiche partecipative nella governance della campagna elettorale. Atttraverso l’analisi teorica e politico-istituzionale della democrazia partecipativa americana fra gli anni Sessanta e Settanta su vari livelli istituzionali (federale, statale e locale), questo progetto di ricerca tenta quindi di colmare un vuoto storiografico e, al tempo stesso intende contribuire alla definizione storico-istituzionale della participatory democracy in seno alla democrazia rappresentativa degli Stati Uniti. Infine, la presente ricerca mira a inserirsi nel dibattito pubblico contemporaneo sulla participatory democracy, offrendo una visione storico-istituzionale importante per meglio comprendere il fenomeno e che, finora, non ha ricevuto l’attenzione che meriterebbe. / Chapter 1 retrieves the idea of participatory democracy stemmed from the Long 1960s New Left and the following social movements. Indeed, the concept of participatory democracy mainly acquired two slightly different shapes in that historical framework. From one hand, it meant the broad political call for common citizens’ greater involvement in the policy-making - at the local, state and federal level. That request was in fact a reply to the ongoing crisis of the American democracy, in terms of political legitimacy and social representation of minorities and poor people. In the other hand, participatory democracy represented the organizing principle adopted by most of the grass-roots groups of that period, with a clear prefigurative function. Indeed, making the activist groups’ inner decision-making participatory was a way for the collectives to anticipate the institutional changes they aspired to. In the meantime, because of the same disaffection against the raising social and political inequalities, some political science scholars elaborated a critique to the pluralist version of the liberal democracy - then the most praised one, as well as credited as it was embodied in the American democracy. Those 1960s critiques were eventually used to conceive the first political theory of participatory democracy in the 1970s and 1980s, as Chapter 1 shows. The participatory democracy’s canon was in fact mostly developed by Carole Pateman, Crawford B. Macpherson and Benjamin Barber. Beside the intellectual history of participatory democracy from 1960s to 1980s, Chapter 1 allows to contextualize ideas and practices of common citizens’ participation into the wider history of the American Political Development. According to that, chapter 1 also provides a detailed analysis of the participatory political institutions that were traditionally part of the United States representative democracy. Chapter 2 verifies whether the 1960s idea of participatory democracy actually affected the federal public policies of the late 1960s and 1970s. Indeed the principle of “citizen participation” was introduced in some of the War on Poverty legislations, promoted by Lyndon B. Johnson since the mid-1960s. Although the heterogeneous institutional effects, that principle was maintained in some grant-in-aid projects until the end of the Carter administration, through the Nixon and Ford administrations. Therefore, the political meanings assumed by the idea of “citizen participation” and its institutional consequences from 1964 to 1980 are carefully analyzed in chapter 2. Moreover, chapter 2 shows that the principle of citizen participation had such a strong impact on the intergovernmental relations. It thus brought forward, for instance, the local public officers’ entrepreneurship towards the local devolution, shifting the administrative and political power base from the center to the neighborhood. Chapter 3 deals with the 1970s main institutional reforms aimed at introducing the common citizens’ participation in the government decision-making at the state and local levels. Those reforms are deeply related to some long-lasting intergovernmental dynamics and this relationship is also argued. The same chapter’s lay-out is vowed to underline the 1970s general trend of retrieval and enhancing of traditional institutions, such as the initiative (direct democracy), the public hearings and the school districts. The school board was indeed reevaluated and reshaped as a means of community control in the biggest cities. As chapters 2 and 3 aim at exploring the implementation of participatory reforms in the federal, state and local level of government, chapters 4 and 5 aim at inquiring the participatory democracy’s impact on the 1970s boundary of polity - the space where activism meets political institutions. Chapter 4 inquires the new generations of progressive politicians entering the local and state administrations from the late 1960s to the mid-1970s. To frame that national phenomenon, the historical analysis use the Conference of Alternative States and Local Policies (CASLP) as a case study. CASLP was indeed a national organization born in 1975 to give voice to the progressive public officers around the country and allowed them sharing their government experiences for a more effective institutional impact. Inside CASLP, the progressive coalition of Berkeley, CA (called Berkeley Citizens’ Action, BCA) was especially spotted for its exemplary strategy to confront local political institutions. The 1970s BCA’s political actions are thus specifically analyzed. In fact, the institutional approach of the Berkeley progressive coalition resulted to be innovative in terms of strategy as well as successful in introducing new forms of participatory democracy into the local government, assessing the 1970s evolution of the participatory democracy political theory and practices. Chapter 5 retraces the political career of the former New Left leader Tom Hayden during the years of turning from activism to institutional politics. Especially, the analysis focuses on the 1975-1976 U.S. Senate Campaign and the following Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED), a coalition project and organization led by Hayden with the goal of mobilizing activists and public officers around the issues of economic justice, environmental and economic public policies (1976-1982). That period - just before Hayden was elected representative at the California Legislature in 1982 - is thus analyzed as a testing ground to verify his long-lasting commitment towards participatory democracy. The historical and political analysis, based on original archival findings, confirms Hayden’s inclination for institutional innovation in the participatory realm. In particular, during the 1975-1976 electoral campaign for the U.S. Senate in California Hayden introduced participatory forms of decision-making involving staff people, volunteers and supporting grass-roots groups. Moreover, that campaign’s staff and people management was conceived in order to directly empower citizens and volunteers, without losing track of the campaigning basic requirements (e. g. fundraising and propaganda). As he stood against big business and economic inequalities, he chose to reject fundings from corporations and banks. Therefore his electoral campaign was mostly sustained by small donors. Hayden successfully made the campaigning more open, accountable and participatory and kept on sponsoring his trust in community organizing and grass-roots social movements even in his following political endeavour, CED. Eventually, the investigation casts lights on the strengths, as well as the critical issues, produced by the Hayden’s participatory governance of campaigning. By the means of analysing the intellectual history and the institutional implementation of participatory democracy during late 1960s-1970s United States, this research project firstly aims at making up the lack of historiography about the topic. In the second stance, grounding the institutional and political history of participatory democracy in the United States representative democracy - where the concept was born - this research project intends to provide a first genealogy of the participatory democracy’s institutional implementation. In this sense, the research projects wants also to contribute to the contemporary debate on the participatory democracy. It is indeed a compelling and popular issue in many worldwide political arenas, but it is still rarely defined by its historical and institutional terms.

A democratic workplace is one where workers as a body have the right to determine the internal organization and future direction of the firm. Worker co-operatives are a type of democratic firm. In a worker co-operative employees are joint-owners of the firm and participate democratically in workplace governance. Much has been written about the supposed benefits of worker co-operatives for workers and for society. One thread of this research, originating with Carole Pateman’s theoretical work (Pateman 1970), argues that worker co-operatives act as sites of political learning for workers. By participating democratically in workplace decisions, individuals are thought to learn the skills and psychological dispositions needed to participate in political democracy. A second thread argues that co-operatives will improve worker well-being. Democratic governance will give workers control over work organization, increasing autonomy in their daily lives, and leading to an increase in non-material work rewards such as job satisfaction. Worker ownership will equalize the material rewards from work and improve job security. These arguments are premised on the idea that democratic governance structures and worker ownership will lead to widespread, effective worker participation in decision-making and the equalization of power at work. However, insufficient attention is given to the contextual factors beyond formal governance and ownership structures that shape the internal dynamics of workplace democracy. I conduct an in-depth, mixed-methods case study of a worker co-operative with 158 employees in the UK cycling retail industry. Using survey research, social network analysis, in-depth interviews and direct observation, I show how individual differences, firm-level contextual factors such as the social composition of the organization, and macro-level factors such as economic and cultural context, lead to unequal participation opportunities and different outcomes for different groups of workers within the firm. My research leads to three conclusions. First, the outcomes of workplace democracy for workers are highly context-dependent. They will differ across groups of workers within co-operatives, across different democratic firms, and across cultures. Second, the relationship between workplace democracy and political participation is more complex than the Pateman thesis suggests. It is contingent on the political identities of workers, which are themselves shaped by wider political economic context. Political identity affects both participation behaviour at work, and how workplace experience shapes political views. Third, the subjective well-being outcomes of workplace democracy depend on workers’ expectations about work. Expectations are shaped by the same forces that mould political identity. Workplace democracy raises expectations for certain groups of workers, leading to well-being harms when expectations are not met. Overall, the benefits of workplace democracy for workers and for society are overstated. In the UK context, co-ops are unlikely to realize the benefits attributed to them without large-scale public policy interventions.