We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In democratic theory, two frequently occurring ideas are that deliberation and direct voting in referendums can increase perceived legitimacy of democratic procedures. To evaluate this claim, we conducted a controlled field experiment in which 215 high school students participated by being subject to a decision on a collective issue. The decision was made either by direct voting or as a non-voting procedure (decision made by the teacher). Additionally, we manipulated the opportunities for deliberation prior to the decision. Our primary finding is that both voting and deliberation significantly increase perceived legitimacy compared with a procedure in which these components are absent. However, applying both voting and deliberation does not yield significantly higher perceived legitimacy than applying voting without deliberation. We also found that perceived influence in the decision-making process mediates the effect of both voting and deliberation, whereas the epistemic quality of the decision, which is heavily emphasized in deliberative democratic theory, gained no support as a mediator.
For fifty years European integration has been pursued according to an operational code based on rules which have never been publicly discussed. This book demonstrates the far-reaching consequences of the prioritisation of integration over competing values, fait accompli and other implicit rules of action. The willingness to sacrifice democracy on the altar of integration is demonstrated by the monopoly of legislative initiative granted to the non-elected Commission. Monetary union preceding, rather than following, political integration is a striking example of fait accompli, and the reason behind many holes in the EU system of economic governance. Until now, academics have avoided radical criticism; Giandomenico Majone argues that only an open acknowledgement of the obsolescence of the traditional methods can stem the rising tide of Euro-scepticism.
What are the consequences of globalization for the structure of political conflicts in Western Europe? How are political conflicts organized and articulated in the twenty-first century? And how does the transformation of territorial boundaries affect the scope and content of political conflicts? This book sets out to answer these questions by analyzing the results of a study of national and European electoral campaigns, protest events and public debates in six West European countries. While the mobilization of the losers in the processes of globalization by new right populist parties is seen to be the driving force of the restructuring of West European politics, the book goes beyond party politics. It attempts to show how the cleavage coalitions that are shaping up under the impact of globalization extend to state actors, interest groups and social movement organizations, and how the new conflicts are framed by the various actors involved.
This article builds on previous research on Europeanization and political opportunity structures (POS) for mobilization, to explore the processes of transnational LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) mobilization in the European Union (EU). In the case of LGBT activism, European integration affects contentious politics by altering POS – both vertically and horizontally – for mobilization and changing the tactics of LGBT activism. Using the cases of Germany and Poland to trace cross-border connections between norm entrepreneur and target state, the findings suggest that LGBT activism relies on transnational resources – primarily, social spaces and organizational capacity – that are scarce in many member states but readily available in others. These horizontal opportunities among member states, alongside top-down vertical ones provided by Brussels, serve as mobilizing structures that bring together distinct groups of international actors. Europeanization also alters the tactics that transnational actors use when engaging with authorities in the target state. Employing socialization mechanisms that highlight appropriate behavior, actors tactically frame their demands in a European discourse by associating the issue of LGBT acceptance with democratic responsibilities as members of the EU community.