直接民主和平等:语境是关键

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Brigitte Geißel, Anna Krämling, Lars Paulus
{"title":"直接民主和平等:语境是关键","authors":"Brigitte Geißel, Anna Krämling, Lars Paulus","doi":"10.1057/s41269-023-00316-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Direct democratic instruments are increasingly applied in many European countries. They are subject to an ongoing public—and often highly controversial—debate. The question of how direct democracy relates to equality, i.e. if direct democratic instruments have the potential to foster equality or if they lead to more inequality, is crucial in this debate. Research has struggled to come up with a general answer to this question with scholars assuming equality as well as inequality-promoting effects of direct democratic outputs. In this paper, we try to shed new light on this controversial debate and argue that the impact of direct democracy on equality essentially depends on the social and political context in which the decisions take place. In order to examine the impact of context factors on direct democratic outputs, we first analyze the influence of country-specific variables such as the level of equality and the age of democracy—applying large-N multilevel logistic regressions. Yet, these statistical analyses offer no clear results: the effects of the country-specific variables are rather blurry and hard to make meaning of. The result suggests that other factors than the ones we included in the regressions are decisive for the effect of direct democratic instruments on equality. Therefore, in a second step, we demonstrate how country-and case-specific variables such as social and political characteristics impact the outcomes of direct democracy, using the same-sex marriage referendums in Ireland and Slovenia in 2015 as examples. We conclude that context factors are too complex to be grasped in a large-N, statistical analysis. This means that to understand how context influences the effects of direct democratic instruments on equality, for now, one has to go beyond the lens of statistical analysis and look at the respective cases in great depth and detail.","PeriodicalId":47211,"journal":{"name":"Acta Politica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Direct democracy and equality: context is the key\",\"authors\":\"Brigitte Geißel, Anna Krämling, Lars Paulus\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41269-023-00316-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Direct democratic instruments are increasingly applied in many European countries. They are subject to an ongoing public—and often highly controversial—debate. The question of how direct democracy relates to equality, i.e. if direct democratic instruments have the potential to foster equality or if they lead to more inequality, is crucial in this debate. Research has struggled to come up with a general answer to this question with scholars assuming equality as well as inequality-promoting effects of direct democratic outputs. In this paper, we try to shed new light on this controversial debate and argue that the impact of direct democracy on equality essentially depends on the social and political context in which the decisions take place. In order to examine the impact of context factors on direct democratic outputs, we first analyze the influence of country-specific variables such as the level of equality and the age of democracy—applying large-N multilevel logistic regressions. Yet, these statistical analyses offer no clear results: the effects of the country-specific variables are rather blurry and hard to make meaning of. The result suggests that other factors than the ones we included in the regressions are decisive for the effect of direct democratic instruments on equality. Therefore, in a second step, we demonstrate how country-and case-specific variables such as social and political characteristics impact the outcomes of direct democracy, using the same-sex marriage referendums in Ireland and Slovenia in 2015 as examples. We conclude that context factors are too complex to be grasped in a large-N, statistical analysis. This means that to understand how context influences the effects of direct democratic instruments on equality, for now, one has to go beyond the lens of statistical analysis and look at the respective cases in great depth and detail.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Politica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Politica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-023-00316-4\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Politica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-023-00316-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

许多欧洲国家越来越多地采用直接民主手段。它们受到公众持续不断的争论,而且往往极具争议性。直接民主与平等之间的关系,即直接民主手段是否有可能促进平等,或者是否会导致更多的不平等,这一问题在这场辩论中至关重要。学者们一直在努力为这个问题找到一个笼统的答案,他们假设直接民主产出的平等和促进不平等的作用。在本文中,我们试图为这一有争议的辩论提供新的视角,并认为直接民主对平等的影响本质上取决于决策发生的社会和政治背景。为了检验背景因素对直接民主产出的影响,我们首先分析了国家特定变量的影响,如平等水平和民主年龄——应用大n多水平逻辑回归。然而,这些统计分析没有提供明确的结果:具体国家变量的影响相当模糊,难以理解。结果表明,除了我们在回归中包含的因素之外,其他因素对直接民主工具对平等的影响具有决定性作用。因此,在第二步中,我们以2015年爱尔兰和斯洛文尼亚的同性婚姻公投为例,展示了国家和案例特定变量(如社会和政治特征)如何影响直接民主的结果。我们的结论是,上下文因素太复杂,无法在大n的统计分析中掌握。这意味着,要了解背景如何影响直接民主手段对平等的影响,目前必须超越统计分析的镜头,深入和详细地研究各自的案例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Direct democracy and equality: context is the key
Abstract Direct democratic instruments are increasingly applied in many European countries. They are subject to an ongoing public—and often highly controversial—debate. The question of how direct democracy relates to equality, i.e. if direct democratic instruments have the potential to foster equality or if they lead to more inequality, is crucial in this debate. Research has struggled to come up with a general answer to this question with scholars assuming equality as well as inequality-promoting effects of direct democratic outputs. In this paper, we try to shed new light on this controversial debate and argue that the impact of direct democracy on equality essentially depends on the social and political context in which the decisions take place. In order to examine the impact of context factors on direct democratic outputs, we first analyze the influence of country-specific variables such as the level of equality and the age of democracy—applying large-N multilevel logistic regressions. Yet, these statistical analyses offer no clear results: the effects of the country-specific variables are rather blurry and hard to make meaning of. The result suggests that other factors than the ones we included in the regressions are decisive for the effect of direct democratic instruments on equality. Therefore, in a second step, we demonstrate how country-and case-specific variables such as social and political characteristics impact the outcomes of direct democracy, using the same-sex marriage referendums in Ireland and Slovenia in 2015 as examples. We conclude that context factors are too complex to be grasped in a large-N, statistical analysis. This means that to understand how context influences the effects of direct democratic instruments on equality, for now, one has to go beyond the lens of statistical analysis and look at the respective cases in great depth and detail.
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
Acta Politica
Acta Politica POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Political Science with an Edge Acta Politica is one of the few truly international political science journals with a broad scope across the discipline. In the past we have published theoretical and empirical articles, comparative and single-country studies and even some methodological notes. In times of an ever-increasing specialisation in political science, we however strongly believe a broad-ranging political science journal is as important as ever for the international scientific community. As Editors, we have a strong preference for articles that will attract a wide audience within the broader field of political science, no matter what the precise topic of the article might be. Despite this broad scope Acta Politica is very selective about the quality of the articles that it publishes. Acta Politica has always been committed to publishing articles with an ''edge''; providing new insights or new approaches in political science. At the end of the review process, we always ask the question: ''What did we learn from this article?'' Our aim is to provide an exciting read, whether you are interested in political theory or quantitative research methods. Our goal is to select those articles that bring with them a substantive theoretical background, while demonstrating how these ideas can be used in empirical research. On the other hand, we welcome empirical articles introducing new ways to incorporate or to test theoretical discussions which are highly interesting to our readers. Acta Politica follows a double blind review policy, and our acceptance rate stands at about 35 per cent, ensuring that all the articles we publish meet high academic standards. These standards are, and will remain, our ultimate criteria of judgment for inclusion in the journal. We welcome articles on a broad range of topics, and using a wide array of methods. While in the past most authors publishing in Acta Politica tended to come from Europe, we now also attract more articles from the United States, Canada and the rest of the world. Our aim is to provide authors with substantive feedback within three months of receipt of manuscript. Acta Politica is committed to publishing relevant political science research, and we invite you to share that commitment, either by subscribing to the journal or recommending it to your library, or by considering Acta Politica when choosing a journal to publish your own research. Potential authors are invited to contact the Editors at acta.politica@fsw.leidenuniv.nl with informal enquiries regarding suitability of their manuscript.
×
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