Deliberation in representative institutions: an analytical framework for a systemic approach

This article presents a novel analytical account of the relationship between deliberation and representation by reconstructing the specific institutional logics that guide deliberative action in parliaments. In contrast to the dominant generalised paradigm in empirical deliberation research it develops a contextualised-systemic approach. The article argues that the parliamentary context is characterised by a tension between two equally legitimate institutional logics: a discursive one, institutionalised through parliamentary procedures, and a positional one, constituted by relations of representation. The resulting theoretical model links the specific institutional and situational conditions to different forms and functions of deliberation. Depending on the specific balance between both logics deliberation fulfils functions of either integration or contestation. The model is applied to a comparative analysis of different cases of parliaments demonstrating how this account can advance both the comparative analysis of deliberation in representative institutions and the development of deliberative democracy after the systemic turn.     

Design als ‘mediating interface’ Zur Zeugen‐ und Zeichenhaftigkeit des Radioapparates

Design as Mediating Interface: Historical Evidence and Symbolic Enunciation of the Radio Set. – Based on a case study on the invention of the radio station scale in the late 1920's and early 1930's, this article pleads for an interdisciplinary look at the importance of design as a mediating interface in the production‐consumption junction. In this cultural history perspective on technology, the material artifact matters both as a witness of and a sign for the symbolic meaning and appropriation of the technical object, which transgresses the functional logic of instrumental rationality. In presenting five different perspectives on design offering some alternative looks for a cultural history of technology, this theoretically inspired essay wants to sound the critical potential of a multilayered semantic approach to the radio apparatus as a prominent representation of a radical innovation in media technology.     

The European Spatial Development Perspective - What Next?

In May 1999, ministers of the Member States of the European Union responsible for spatial planning approved the European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP). The document is the product of Member States and the European Commission co-operating on the Committee on Spatial Development (CSD). The ESDP is the work of a small band of European planners. Between them they have succeeded in putting European spatial development on the agenda. This is no mean achievement. However, the visualization of spatial policies in the ESDP is weak. The problem has not been lack of imagination but divergences between European planning traditions. Also, attitudes towards European planning cannot be divorced from those towards European integration. And, even if there was consensus on the 'high politics' involved, planning in the European system of 'multi-level governance' raises difficult issues. The paper proposes strategies, not for 'solving' problems, the solution of which eludes us at present, but for sustaining the momentum. The first evolves around INTERREG II C (soon: INTERREG III B). There should be provisions for teasing out the implications for a future ESDP. Attention should focus on the 'spatial visions' that some programmes include. A Northwest European cluster seems a good point to start with. Another strategy is for the European Commission to make explicit its own views, if necessary specifying where the Commission differs from the Member States. These strategies should provide the impetus for a sustained commitment to the ESDP process.     

Positioning European Spatial Planning

The European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) is being described as 'inter-governmental'. The original initiative was for a Community spatial strategy for the delivery of the Structural Funds. Coming from France, it met with opposition. So it was that the successive six-monthly Presidencies of the EU took turns in managing the process. In truth, however, without Commission support the ESDP would not have come about. Now that the ESDP is on the books, the Commission is claiming a leadership role. Taking a position on this, one needs to view spatial planning against the backdrop of general thinking about European integration. Positions in the literature are often presented as polar opposites, like that of 'neo-functionalists' putting faith in integration on the one hand and that of 'realists' emphasizing the continuing dominance of nation states on the other hand. However, a growing body of literature is not about these 'grand theories', but about the actual workings of European institutions. It takes a middle ground and invokes concepts which planning writers are accustomed to, like networks, discourses and governance. From this literature it appears that mutual learning, a feature also of the ESDP process, is common in European integration. European spatial planning must be seen as part and parcel of an emergent system of European multi-level governance. In it, power is exerted at multiple levels of government. Denying the Community a spatial planning role is not realistic, therefore.