英国自由民主中的公众参与和公共服务:科林·沃德的无政府主义批判

P. Wilkin, Carole Boudeau
{"title":"英国自由民主中的公众参与和公共服务:科林·沃德的无政府主义批判","authors":"P. Wilkin, Carole Boudeau","doi":"10.1068/c1367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this paper is to set out a critique of the prevailing academic and government accounts of ‘public participation’. This critique is drawn from the work of the British anarchist Colin Ward, which we argue is significant because it provides an alternative to state-led or market-led models of public participation. Both of the latter models subject individuals to external forms of authority (state or market). By contrast, Ward reminds us that the working-class tradition of free and autonomous associations, illustrated notably by the friendly societies, established a different understanding of public participation, one which presupposes the actual running and maintaining of the very services that the public relied upon through the key values of mutual aid and self-help. We describe the nature of these associations and suggest that, historically, they have been the most accomplished alternatives to state-led and market-led approaches to public participation.","PeriodicalId":232420,"journal":{"name":"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public participation and public services in British liberal democracy: Colin Ward's anarchist critique\",\"authors\":\"P. Wilkin, Carole Boudeau\",\"doi\":\"10.1068/c1367\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this paper is to set out a critique of the prevailing academic and government accounts of ‘public participation’. This critique is drawn from the work of the British anarchist Colin Ward, which we argue is significant because it provides an alternative to state-led or market-led models of public participation. Both of the latter models subject individuals to external forms of authority (state or market). By contrast, Ward reminds us that the working-class tradition of free and autonomous associations, illustrated notably by the friendly societies, established a different understanding of public participation, one which presupposes the actual running and maintaining of the very services that the public relied upon through the key values of mutual aid and self-help. We describe the nature of these associations and suggest that, historically, they have been the most accomplished alternatives to state-led and market-led approaches to public participation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":232420,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1068/c1367\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1068/c1367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文的目的是对流行的学术和政府对“公众参与”的描述进行批判。这一批评来自英国无政府主义者科林•沃德(Colin Ward)的著作,我们认为其意义重大,因为它为国家主导或市场主导的公众参与模式提供了另一种选择。后两种模式都使个人受制于外部形式的权威(国家或市场)。相比之下,沃德提醒我们,工人阶级自由和自治协会的传统,尤其是友好协会,建立了对公众参与的不同理解,这种理解以实际运行和维护公共服务为前提,这些服务是通过互助和自助的关键价值观来实现的。我们描述了这些关联的性质,并提出,从历史上看,它们是国家主导和市场主导的公众参与方式之外最成功的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Public participation and public services in British liberal democracy: Colin Ward's anarchist critique
The aim of this paper is to set out a critique of the prevailing academic and government accounts of ‘public participation’. This critique is drawn from the work of the British anarchist Colin Ward, which we argue is significant because it provides an alternative to state-led or market-led models of public participation. Both of the latter models subject individuals to external forms of authority (state or market). By contrast, Ward reminds us that the working-class tradition of free and autonomous associations, illustrated notably by the friendly societies, established a different understanding of public participation, one which presupposes the actual running and maintaining of the very services that the public relied upon through the key values of mutual aid and self-help. We describe the nature of these associations and suggest that, historically, they have been the most accomplished alternatives to state-led and market-led approaches to public participation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信