没有异化的官僚主义

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Colin Grey
{"title":"没有异化的官僚主义","authors":"Colin Grey","doi":"10.3138/utlj-2020-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:In The Public’s Law, Blake Emerson proposes a ‘Progressive theory’ of administrative law that fuses Hegelian and democratic elements. The Progressive theory calls on administrators to make autonomous ethical and political judgments as opposed to restricting themselves to the instrumental application of statutory mandates. Such judgments are to respond to a diffuse process of deliberative engagement with the public. This review essay expounds the Progressive theory and discusses its relevance for administrative law debates in Canada. It closes with consideration of an important challenge to the theory – namely, whether it relies on an overly comprehensive conception of democracy.","PeriodicalId":46289,"journal":{"name":"University of Toronto Law Journal","volume":"71 1","pages":"126 - 143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bureaucracy without alienation\",\"authors\":\"Colin Grey\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/utlj-2020-0060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:In The Public’s Law, Blake Emerson proposes a ‘Progressive theory’ of administrative law that fuses Hegelian and democratic elements. The Progressive theory calls on administrators to make autonomous ethical and political judgments as opposed to restricting themselves to the instrumental application of statutory mandates. Such judgments are to respond to a diffuse process of deliberative engagement with the public. This review essay expounds the Progressive theory and discusses its relevance for administrative law debates in Canada. It closes with consideration of an important challenge to the theory – namely, whether it relies on an overly comprehensive conception of democracy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Toronto Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"126 - 143\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Toronto Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj-2020-0060\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Toronto Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj-2020-0060","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:在《公法》一书中,爱默生提出了一种融合了黑格尔和民主元素的行政法“进步论”。进步理论呼吁行政人员做出自主的道德和政治判断,而不是将自己限制在法定授权的工具应用上。这样的判断是为了回应与公众进行协商的分散过程。本文阐述了进步理论,并讨论了它对加拿大行政法辩论的意义。最后,它考虑了对该理论的一个重要挑战,即它是否依赖于过于全面的民主概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bureaucracy without alienation
Abstract:In The Public’s Law, Blake Emerson proposes a ‘Progressive theory’ of administrative law that fuses Hegelian and democratic elements. The Progressive theory calls on administrators to make autonomous ethical and political judgments as opposed to restricting themselves to the instrumental application of statutory mandates. Such judgments are to respond to a diffuse process of deliberative engagement with the public. This review essay expounds the Progressive theory and discusses its relevance for administrative law debates in Canada. It closes with consideration of an important challenge to the theory – namely, whether it relies on an overly comprehensive conception of democracy.
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
×
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