Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:41:39.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rousseau's Anti–Agenda-Setting Agenda and Contemporary Democratic Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2005

JOHN T. SCOTT
JOHN T. SCOTT
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In his recent article, “Rousseau on Agenda-Setting and Majority Rule” (2003), Ethan Putterman examines how the democratic principle of popular majority rule might be reconciled with agenda-setting by legislative experts through an analysis of Rousseau's political theory. He argues that Rousseau accomplishes this reconciliation through a novel separation of powers between the legislative and the executive powers where the sovereign people delegates the exclusive power to initiate laws to the executive. Putterman thereby identifies as a solution to the problem of democratic self-legislation what Rousseau sees as the most important danger to it. At issue is not merely the correct interpretation of Rousseau's theory, for Putterman's argument raises far-reaching questions concerning the compatibility of democratic principles and institutions. After demonstrating that Putterman is incorrect that the sovereign people in Rousseau's state delegate the power of legislative initiative, I examine how Rousseau anticipates and addresses a related question central to contemporary democratic and social choice theory: the problem of preference aggregation through voting in the absence of agenda-setting institutions.

Type
FORUM
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 99 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 137 - 144
Copyright
© 2005 by the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrow Kenneth J. 1963. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Barber Benjamin R. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barry Brian. 1965. Political Argument. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bertram Christopher. 2004. Rousseau and “The Social Contract.” London: Routledge.
Coleman Jules, and John Ferejohn. 1986. “Democracy and Social Choice.” Ethics 97 (October): 6– 25.Google Scholar
Cullen Daniel E. 1993. Freedom in Rousseau's Political Philosophy. De Kalb: Northern Illinois University Press.
Dryzek John S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Conservatives, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fralin Richard. 1978. Rousseau and Representation: A Study of the Development of His Concept of Political Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.
Gildin Hilail. 1983. Rousseau's “Social Contract”: The Design of the Argument. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grofman Bernard, and Scott L. Feld. 1988. “Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective.” American Political Science Review 82 (June): 567– 76.Google Scholar
Gutmann Amy, and Thompson Dennis. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Johnston Steven. 1999. Encountering Tragedy: Rousseau and the Project of Democratic Order. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kelly Christopher. 2003. Rousseau as Author: Consecrating One's Life to the Truth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Knight Jack, and James Johnson. 1994. “Aggregation and Deliberation: On the Possibility of Democratic Legitimacy.” Poltitical Theory 22 (May): 277– 96.Google Scholar
Masters Roger D. 1968. The Political Philosophy of Rousseau. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Melzer Arthur M. 1990. The Natural Goodness of Man: On the System of Rousseau's Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Montesquieu Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de. [1748] 1951. “De l'Esprit des lois.” In Oeuvres complètes, ed. Roger Callois. Paris: Gallimard.
Pateman Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Putterman Ethan. 2003. “Rousseau on Agenda-Setting and Majority Will.” American Political Science Review 97 (August): 459– 69.Google Scholar
Rawls John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Riker William H. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Riker William H., and Peter C. Ordeshook. 1973. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.
Rousseau Jean-Jacques. 1959–95. Oeuvres complètes. 5 vols. Paris: Gallimard.
Rousseau Jean-Jacques. 1978. On the Social Contract with Geneva Manuscript and Political Economy, ed. Roger D. Masters. Trans. Judith R. Masters. New York: St. Martin's.
Rousseau Jean-Jacques. 1990–. The Collected Writings of Rousseau. 9 vols. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College/University of New England Press.
Runciman W. G., and Amartya K. Sen. 1965. “Games, Justice and the General Will.” Mind 74 (October): 554– 62.Google Scholar
Shklar Judith N. 1969. Men and Citizens: A Study of Rousseau's Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trachtenberg Zev. 1993. Making Citizens: Rousseau's Political Theory of Cultural. London: Routledge.
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.