No CrossRef data available.
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.
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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2014
ALTHOUGH THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE WAS AT the centre of classical political thought it has been only intermittently addressed in more recent theoretical writings. To the degree that modern political writing has concerned itself with the question of the kind of knowledge appropriate and possible in politics, it has focused on the capacity of core decision-makers to absorb and assess the information presented to them by experts.
1 Sartori, G., The Theory of Democracy Revisited , Chatham, N.J., Chatham House Publishers, 1987, p. 432.Google Scholar
2 Sartori, op. cit., p. 433.
3 Self, P., Administrative Theories and Politics , London, Allen & Unwin, 1972, p. 149.Google Scholar
4 Sartori, op. cit., p. 432.
5 Parry, G. and Moyser, G., ‘Participants and Controllers’, in Kavanagh, D. and Peele, G. (eds), Comparative Government and Politics: Essays in Honour of S. E. Finer , London, Longman, 1984, pp. 169–94.Google Scholar
6 Schumpeter, J., Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , London, Allen & Unwin, 1943, pp. 263.Google Scholar
7 ibid., pp. 216–22.
8 Compare state‐centered theory which is much influenced by Schumpeter: Nordlinger, E., On the Autonomy of the Democratic State , Cambride, Mass., Havard University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
9 Plamenatz, J., Democracy and Illusion , London, Longman, 1973, p. 194.Google Scholar
10 ibid., p. 193.
11 Douglas, M., Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences , London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986.Google Scholar
12 Nelkin, D., ‘The Political Impact of Technical Expertise’, Social Studies of Science , 5, 1975, p. 40.Google Scholar
13 M. Douglas, op. cit., p. 22.
14 D. Nelkin, op. cit., p. 36.
15 M. Douglas, op. cit., p. 34.
16 Held, D., ‘Introduction: New Forms of Democracy?’, in Held, D. and Pollitt, C. (eds), New forms of Democracy , London, Sage, p. 7.Google Scholar
17 See Lively, J., The Social and Political Thought of Alexis de Tocqueuille , Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1962, p. 111 Google Scholar and passim. On the educative view of participation see Pateman, C., Participation and Democratic Theory , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Parry, G., ‘Participation and political styles’, in Chapman, B. and Potter, A. (eds), W.J.M.M. Political Questions: Essays in Honour of W.J.M. MacKenzie , Manchester, ManChester University Press, 1974, p. 200;Google Scholar Elster, J., Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Barber, B., Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age , Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984, p. 167;Google Scholar See also the discussion of ‘preceptoral politics’ in the final chapter of Marquand, D., The Unprincipled Society , London, Fontana, 1988.Google Scholar
20 Barber, , op. cit., p. 65. See also Botwinnick, A., Wittgenstein, Scepticism, and Political Participation: An Essay in the Epistemology of Democratic Theory , Lanham, N.Y., University Press of America, 1985.Google Scholar
21 Oakeshott, M., ‘Rational Conduct’, in his Rationalism in Politics , London, Methuen, 1962, pp. 80–110.Google Scholar
22 Blunkett, D. and Jackson, K., Democracy in Crisis: The Town Halls Respond , London, Hogarth Press, 1987.Google Scholar
23 Moyser, G., Parry, G. and Day, N., Participation and Democracy , Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
24 See Hadley, R. I. and Hatch, S., Social Welfare and the Failure of the State , London, Allen & Unwin, 1981, pp. 112–69.Google Scholar
25 Owen, D., Face the Future , London, Jonathan Cape, 1981, pp. 390–5.Google ScholarPubMed
26 Mansbridge, J., Beyond Adversary Democracy , New York, Basic Books, 1980.Google Scholar
27 This important implication of pluralism is discussed in McConnell, G., Private Power in American Democracy , New York, Knopf, 1966.Google Scholar
28 Parry, G., ‘Tradition, Community and Self‐Determination’, British Journal of Political Science , 12, 1982, pp. 399–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Sartori, op. cit., p. 431.
30 Weale, A., Political Theory and Social Policy , London, Macmillan, 1983, pp. 178–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Barber, , op. cit.; Mclean, I., ‘Mechanisms for democracy’, in Held, D. and Pollitt, C., (eds), New Forms of Democracy , pp. 135–57.Google Scholar
32 A judicious discussion of the potential and the limitations of the new technology can be found in Arterton, F., Teledemocrecy: Can Technology Protect Democracy ?, Newbury Park, Cal., Sage, 1987.Google Scholar
33 Beiner, R., Political Judgment , London, Methuen, 1983, p. 163.Google Scholar
34 Sartori, op. cit., p. 432.