The Role of Self-Interest in Deliberation: A Theory of Deliberative Capital

Afsahi, Afsoun

doi:10.1177/0032321720981491

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 101 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Theories of deliberative democracy have, in the past, emphasized that the exclusion of self-interest from the deliberative process facilitates the identification of the best possible solutions based on reasons ( Mansbridge et al. , 2010 ; Afsahi, 2022 ). However, recent accounts of deliberative democracy have questioned whether absolute impartiality is a reasonable requirement on all forms of participation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The expression and pursuit of self-interest can be constrained to a certain extent by principles of good deliberative behaviour. Moreover, adherence to these constraints can be in the interest of each participant, if they can be assured that others will abide by them too, and if they see the value of a fair deliberative process ( Afsahi, 2022 ). In addition, other criteria on procedural fairness, such as equality, reason-giving, transparency and inclusiveness play an important role in ensuring that self-interest of the powerful does not dominate the decision-making process ( Gibson et al.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Dale,

Peacocke,

Movik

et al. 2023

Health Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework’s four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Dale,

Peacocke,

Movik

et al. 2023

Health Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One step that may help overcome these barriers in the future is to persuade as many stakeholders as possible that, if others are willing to do so too, it is in their long-term interest to start investing in ‘deliberative capital’. This capital consists in mutual understanding, a willingness to listen, a willingness to move beyond narrow self-interest and social norms that codify and help incentivize these attitudes ( Afsahi, 2022 ). Investing in technical capacity of medical professional associations, local academic institutions and CSOs would create an enabling environment for creation of such deliberative capital.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Procedural fairness and the resilience of health financing reforms in Ukraine

Dzhygyr,

Dale,

Voorhoeve

et al. 2023

Health Policy and Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2017, Ukraine’s Parliament passed legislation establishing a single health benefit package for the entire population called the Programme of Medical Guarantees,‎ financed through general taxes and administered by a single national purchasing agency. This legislation was in line with key principles for financing universal health coverage. However, health professionals and some policymakers have been critical of elements of the reform, including its reliance on general taxes as the source of funding. Using qualitative methods and drawing on deliberative democratic theory and criteria for procedural fairness, this study argues that the acceptance and sustainability of these reforms could have been strengthened by making the decision-making process fairer. It suggests that three factors limited the extent of stakeholders’ participation in this process: first, a perception among reformers that fast-paced decision-making was required because there was only a short political window for much needed reforms; second, a lack of trust among reformers in the motives, representativeness, and knowledge of some stakeholders; and third, an under-appreciation of the importance of dialogic engagement with the public. These findings highlight a profound challenge for policymakers. In retrospect, some of those involved in the reform’s design and implementation believe that a more meaningful engagement with the public and stakeholders who opposed the reform might have strengthened its legitimacy and durability. At the same time, the study shows how difficult it is to have an inclusive process in settings where some actors may be driven by unconstrained self-interest or lack the capacity to be representative or knowledgeable interlocutors. It suggests that investments in deliberative capital (the attitudes and behaviours that facilitate good deliberation) and in civil society capacity may help overcome this difficulty.

show abstract

“…In other words, do citizens normally think and make choices about their mode of discursive engagement? Afsahi (2021) convincingly argues that willingness to deliberate is often a function of one’s perceived self-interest. Actors strategically assess and respond to the relevant incentive structures when deciding to deliberatively engage with others.…”

Section: Digital Domination Is Quasi-public Dominationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Domination: Social Media and Contestatory Democracy

Aytaç

2022

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues that social media companies’ power to regulate communication in the public sphere illustrates a novel type of domination. The idea is that, since social media companies can partially dictate the terms of citizens’ political participation in the public sphere, they can arbitrarily interfere with the choices individuals make qua citizens. I contend that social media companies dominate citizens in two different ways. First, I focus on the cases in which social media companies exercise direct control over political speech. They exercise quasi-public power over citizens because their regulation of speech on social media platforms implies the capacity to arbitrarily interfere with citizens’ democratic contestation in the political system. Second, companies’ algorithmic governance entails the capacity to interfere with citizens’ choices about what mode of discursive engagement they endorse in their relationships with fellow citizens. By raising the cost of deliberative engagement, companies narrow citizens’ choice menu.

show abstract

The Role of Self-Interest in Deliberation: A Theory of Deliberative Capital

Cited by 5 publications

References 101 publications

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Criteria for the procedural fairness of health financing decisions: a scoping review

Procedural fairness and the resilience of health financing reforms in Ukraine

Digital Domination: Social Media and Contestatory Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About