This is the first of four chapters on value democracy, and focuses on ‘input democracy’, which aims to give everyone (or, alternatively, every distinct affected interest) a ‘voice’, rather than necessarily an equal (understood as ‘equally effective’) ‘say’ over the ultimate outcome, and stands in contrast to ‘output democracy’. The two terms (or models) mark a distinction between a concern with the early and late stages of the political process, and can be viewed as who gets a vote versus how votes are aggregated; they are, of course, causally connected; while the two models are thus empirically intertwined, they are analytically distinct, and the analytics can sometimes be of practical consequence as well. After sketching the central concerns of the two models generically, Schumpeter's model is presented as the paradigmatically output‐oriented account. What might be regarded as a paradigmatically input‐oriented model is then sketched to contrast with it; this, although an analytic construct, is loosely modelled on and represented by the sort of ‘consultative democracy’ characteristic of the Nordic countries and, indeed, of ‘corporatist’ and ‘consociational’ democracies worldwide. The different sections of the chapter are: Against a Preoccupation with Outputs; Institutional Embodiments: Contrasting the Limiting Cases—Schumpeterian democracy and consultative democracy; and Why Inputs Matter, Democratically.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.