Economic Participation Rights and the All-Affected Principle

Annette Zimmermann

Abstract

The democratic boundary problem raises the question of who has democratic participation rights in a given polity and why. One possible solution to this problem is the all-affected principle (AAP), according to which a polity ought to enfranchise all persons whose interests are affected by the polity’s decisions in a morally significant way. While AAP offers a plausible principle of democratic enfranchisement, its supporters have so far not paid sufficient attention to economic participation rights. I argue that if one commits oneself to AAP, one must also commit oneself to the view that political participation rights are not necessarily the only, and not necessarily the best, way to protect morally weighty interests. I also argue that economic participation rights raise important worries about democratic accountability, which is why their exercise must be constrained by a number of moral duties.


Keywords

all-affected principle, democratic boundary problem, economic participation, non-citizens, transnational democratic inclusion.

Full Text:

pp. 1-21 PDF

References

Abizadeh, Arash, ‘Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders,’ Political Theory 36 (2008), pp.37–65.

Arneson, Richard, ‘Discrimination, Disparate Impact, and Theories of Justice,’ in Sophia Moreau and Deborah Hellman (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Discrimination Law (Oxford: OUP, 2014), pp. 87-111.

Beckman, Ludvig and Jonas Hultin Rosenberg, ‘Freedom as Non-domination and Democratic Inclusion,’ Res Publica (2017), pp. 1-18.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Christiano, Thomas, ‘Political equality and the independent power of private property,’ in Problems for Democracy, ed. John H. Kultgen, Mary Lenzi (Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, 2006), pp. 119-138.

Dahl, Robert A., Democracy and Its Critics (Yale University Press, 1989).

Feinberg, Joel, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Volume 3, Harm to Self (New York ; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

Feinberg, Joel, The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law. Volume 4, Harmless Wrongdoing (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

Fung, Archon and Erik Olin Wright, ‘Countervailing Power in Empowered Participatory Governance,’ in Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright (eds.), Deepening Democracy (London: Verso, 2003).

Fung, Archon and Erik Olin Wright, ‘Thinking about Empowered Participatory Governance,’ in Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright (eds.), Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (London: Verso, 2003).

Ganuza, Ernesto and Gianpaolo Baiocchi, ‘The Power of Ambiguity: How Participatory Budgeting Travels the Globe,’ Journal of Public Deliberation 8/2 (2012).

Goodin, Robert E., 'Exploiting a Situation and Exploiting a Person' Essex Papers in Politics and Government, no. 22 (1985).

Goodin, Robert E., ‘Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives,’ Philosophy & Public Affairs 35/1 (2007), pp. 40-68.

Goodin, Robert E., Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2008).

Goodin, Robert E., ‘Enfranchising all subjected, worldwide,’ International Theory 8/ 3 (2016), pp. 365-389.

Gould, Carol, Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights (Cambridge: CUP, 2004).

Green, Leslie, ‘The Forces of Law: Duty, Coercion and Power,’ Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper, 12 (2015).

Immigration Rules 2014 (United Kingdom), §344B and §360,

Kramer, Matthew and Hillel Steiner, ‘Theories of Rights: Is There a Third Way?’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27/2 (2007), pp. 281-310.

Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet (2007) C-341/05,

Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper, Born Free and Equal? A Philosophical Inquiry Into the Nature of Discrimination (Oxford: OUP, 2014).

Mansbridge, Jane, ‘A “Selection Model” of Political Representation,’ The Journal of Political Philosophy 17/4 (2009), 369–398.

Miller, David, National Responsibility and Global Justice (Oxford: OUP, 2007).

Miller, David, ‘Democracy’s Domain,’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 37/3 (2009), pp. 201–228.

Nickel, James, “Economic Liberties” in The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls, ed. Victoria Davion (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000), pp. 155 – 76.

Owen, David, ‘Constituting the Polity, Constituting the Demos: On the Place of the All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and in Resolving the Democratic Boundary Problem,’ Ethics and Global Politics 5/3 (2012), 129-152, pp. 140-3.

Pettit, Philipp, On the People's Terms: A Republican Theory and Model of Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Sample, Ruth J., Exploitation: What It Is and Why It’s Wrong (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003).

Smith, Graham, Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Cambridge: CUP, 2009).

Valentini, Laura, ‘No Global Demos, No Global Democracy? A Systemization and Critique,’ Perspectives on Politics 12/4 (2014), pp. 789–807.

Warren, Mark E., ‘The All Affected Interests Principle in Democratic Theory and Practice,’ IHS Political Science Series Working Paper 145 (June 2017).

Wenar, Leif, 2008, “The Analysis of Rights,” The Legacy of H.L.A. Hart: Legal, Political, and Moral Philosophy, ch. 14 (eds. Matthew H. Kramer, Claire Grant, Ben Colburn, and Antony Hatzistavro).

Wertheimer, Alan , Coercion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).

Whelan, Frederick G., ‘Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem,’ in J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapman (eds.) NOMOS XXV, Vol. 25: Liberal Democracy (NYU Press, 1983), 13-47.

Young, Iris M., Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: OUP, 2002).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21248/gjn.10.2.144

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.