Advertisement

An Agonistic Notion of Political CSR: Melding Activism and Deliberation

  • Cedric E. DawkinsEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Flagging labor governance in far-flung supply networks has prompted greater scrutiny of instrumental CSR and calls for models that are tethered more closely to accountability, constraint, and oversight. Political CSR is an apt response, but this paper seeks to buttress its deliberative moorings by arguing that the agonist notion of ‘domesticated conflict’ provides a necessary foundation for substantive deliberation. Because deliberation is more viable and effective when coupled with some means of coercion, a concept of CSR solely premised on reciprocal corporate-stakeholder engagement is pre-mature; efforts should first be directed toward the antecedents of reciprocity and how it is to be achieved, and only then does deliberation become a reliably substantive exercise. The resulting account of agonistic CSR is generated through agonistic principles of realism, pro-action, contestation, and countervailence, and illustrated by the Bangladesh Accord.

Keywords

Political CSR Stakeholder engagement Activism 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

There are no potential conflicts of interest.

Informed Consent

There is no applicability for informed consent.

Research Involved in Human or Animal Rights

The research does not involve Human Participants and/or Animals.

References

  1. Abdullah, C., Karpowitz, C. F., & Raphael, C. (2016). Affinity groups, enclave deliberation, and equity. Journal of Public Deliberation,12(2), 6.Google Scholar
  2. Anner, M. (2018). Binding power: The sourcing squeeze, workers’ rights, and building safety in Bangladesh since Rana Plaza. Research Report. Center for Global Workers’ Rights. Penn State University.Google Scholar
  3. Anner, M., Bair, J., & Blasi, J. (2013). Toward joint liability in global supply chains: Addressing the root causes of labor violations in international subcontracting networks. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal,35, 1.Google Scholar
  4. Appelbaum, R., & Lichtenstein, N. (2016). Achieving workers’ rights in the global economy. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Aratani, L. (2017). NAACP issues travel advisory, cautioning African Americans about flying American Airlines. Washington Post, Online ed.Google Scholar
  6. Arendt, H. (2004). Philosophy and politics. Social Research,71, 427–454.Google Scholar
  7. Banerjee, S. B. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bangladesh Accord.org. (2017). Annual report 2016. Retrieved on March 10, 2018, http://bangladeshaccord.org/wp-content/uploads/Annual-Report-Bangladesh-Accord-Foundation-2016.pdf.
  9. Bartley, T., & Egels-Zandén, N. (2015). Responsibility and neglect in global production networks: The uneven significance of codes of conduct in Indonesian factories. Global Networks,15(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bellante, D., & Porter, P. K. (1992). Agency costs, property rights, and the evolution of labor unions. Journal of Labor Research,13(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Briscoe, F., Gupta, A., & Anner, M. S. (2015). Social activism and practice diffusion: How activist tactics affect non-targeted organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,60(2), 300–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, A. D., Ainsworth, S., & Grant, D. (2012). The rhetoric of institutional change. Organization Studies,33(3), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown, J., & Dillard, J. F. (2012). Critical accounting and communicative action: On the limits of consensual deliberation. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,24, 176–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carroll, A. B., & Shabana, K. M. (2010). The business case for corporate social responsibility: A review of concepts, research and practice. International Journal of Management Reviews,12(1), 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chan, J., Pun, N., & Selden, M. (2013). The politics of global production: Apple, Foxconn and China’s new working class. New Technology, Work and Employment,28(2), 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clawson, D. (2003). The next upsurge: Labor and the new social movements. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Clegg, S., Geppert, M., & Hollinshead, G. (2018). Politicization and political contests in and around contemporary multinational corporations: An introduction. Human Relations,71(6), 745–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(3), 425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Connolly, W. E. (1995). The ethos of pluralization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  20. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Corporations and citizenship: Business, responsibility and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Creed, W. E. D., Hudson, B. A., Okhuysen, G. A., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2014). Swimming in a sea of shame: Incorporating emotion into explanations of institutional reproduction and change. Academy of Management Review,39(3), 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Croucher, R., & Cotton, E. (2009). Global unions, global business: Global union federations and international business. London, UK: Middlesex University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Curato, N., Dryzek, J. S., Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus,146(3), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. David, P., Bloom, M., & Hillman, A. J. (2007). Investor activism, managerial responsiveness, and corporate social performance. Strategic Management Journal,28(1), 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davies, S., Hammer, N., Williams, G., Raman, R., Ruppert, C. S., & Volynets, L. (2011). Labour standards and capacity in global subcontracting chains: Evidence from a construction MNC. Industrial Relations Journal,42(2), 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dawkins, C. E. (2015). Agonistic pluralism and stakeholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly,25(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Delbridge, R. (2010). The critical future of HRM research. In E. Blyton, E. Heery, & P. Turnbull (Eds.), Reassessing the employment relationship (pp. 21–40). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Devers, C. E., Dewett, T., Mishina, Y., & Belsito, C. A. (2009). A general theory of organizational stigma. Organization Science,20(1), 154–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Donaghey, J., & Reinecke, J. (2018). When industrial democracy meets corporate social responsibility—A comparison of the Bangladesh Accord and Alliance as responses to the Rana Plaza Disaster. British Journal of Industrial Relations,56(1), 14–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. (2006). Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals. American Journal of Political Science,50(3), 634–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Edward, P., & Willmott, H. (2008). Corporate citizenship: Rise or demise of a myth? Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 771–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Egels-Zandén, N., & Hyllman, P. (2006). Exploring the effects of union-NGO relationships on corporate responsibility: The case of the Swedish clean clothes campaign. Journal of Business Ethics,64(3), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Egels-Zandén, N., & Hyllman, P. (2007). Evaluating strategies for negotiating workers’ rights in transnational corporations: The effects of codes of conduct and global agreements on workplace democracy. Journal of Business Ethics,76, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ehrnström-Fuentes, M. (2016). Delinking legitimacies: A pluriversal perspective on political CSR. Journal of Management Studies,53(3), 433–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fichter, M., Helfen, M., & Sydow, J. (2011). Employment relations in global production networks: Initiating transfer of practices via union involvement. Human Relations,64(4), 599–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fichter, M., & McCallum, J. K. (2015). Implementing global framework agreements: The limits of social partnership. Global Networks,15(s1), S65–S85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Empowering civil society: Habermas, Foucault and the question of conflict. In M. Douglass & J. Friedmann (Eds.), Cities for citizens, planning and the rise of civil society in a global age (pp. 185–211). Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Fogelin, R. (1985). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic,7(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ford, L. (2011). Global witness quits Kimberley Process in protest at ‘diamond laundering’. London, UK: The Guardian.Google Scholar
  40. Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Fung, A. (2005). Deliberation before the revolution: Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory,33(3), 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Galbraith, J. K. (1952). American capitalism: The concept of countervailing power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  43. Global Witness. (2011). Why we are leaving the kimberley process—A message from global witness Founding Director Charmian Gooch. Press Release, December 3.Google Scholar
  44. Glover, R. W. (2012). Games without frontiers? Democratic engagement, agonistic pluralism, and the question of exclusion. Philosophy & Social Criticism,38(1), 81–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Goodman, J., & Arenas, D. (2015). Engaging ethically: A discourse ethics perspective on social shareholder engagement. Business Ethics Quarterly,25(2), 163–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Greenhouse, S., & Harris, E. A. (2014). Battling for a safer Bangladesh. The New York Times, April 21 ed.Google Scholar
  47. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2000). Why deliberative democracy is different. Social Philosophy and Policy,17(01), 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Habermas, J. (1996a). Between facts and norms (W. Regh, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Habermas, J. (1996b). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Hammadi, S., & Taylor, M. (2010). Workers jump to their deaths as fire engulfs factory making clothes for Gap. The Guardian, December 14 ed.Google Scholar
  52. Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1990). Property rights and the nature of the firm. Journal of Political Economy,98(6), 1119–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Henn, S. (2013). Factory audits and safety don’t always go hand in hand. NPR Morning Edition.Google Scholar
  54. Hickman, M. (2010). 21 workers die in fire at H&M factory. Independent, March 1 ed.Google Scholar
  55. Honig, B. (1993). Political theory and the displacement of politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Hsieh, N.-H. (2008). Workplace democracy, workplace republicanism, and economic democracy. Revue de Philosophie Économique, 9(1), 57–78.Google Scholar
  57. Human Rights Watch. (2015). Whoever raises their head suffers the most: Workers’ rights in bangladesh’s garment factories. Human Rights Watch, April 22 ed.Google Scholar
  58. Hussain, W., & Moriarty, J. (2016). Accountable to whom? Rethinking the role of corporations in Political CSR. Journal of Business Ethics,149(3), 519–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. ILO. (2002). Health and safety at work: A trade union priority, Labour Education (Vol. 1/126). Geneva: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  60. ILO. (2007). International framework agreements: A global tool for supporting rights at work. Geneva: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  61. Jauch, H. (2009). Attracting foreign investment at all costs? The case of export processing zones (EPZs) and Ramatex in Namibia. International Journal of Labour Research,1(1), 73–84.Google Scholar
  62. Kashyap, A. (2017). Bangladesh Accord: New phase should protect unions. Human Rights Watch, May 11 ed.Google Scholar
  63. King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care programs. Academy of Management Journal,43(4), 698–716.Google Scholar
  64. King, B. G., & Pearce, N. A. (2010). The contentiousness of markets: Politics, social movements, and institutional change in markets. Annual Review of Sociology,36, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kobrin, S. J. (2009). Private political authority and public responsibility: Transnational politics, transnational firms, and human rights. Business Ethics Quarterly,19(3), 349–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Koopman, C. (2016). Unruly pluralism and inclusive tolerance: The normative contribution of jamesian pragmatism to non-ideal theory. Political Studies Review,14(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Korab-Karpowicz, J. W. (2006). How international relations theorists can benefit by reading Thucydides. The Monist,89(2), 231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kovacs, W. L., Johnson, J. J., Crenshaw, J., & Bird, R. (2017). Taming the Administrative State: Identifying regulations that impact jobs and the economy. Environment, Technology & Regulatory Affairs Division: U.S. Chamber of Commerce.Google Scholar
  69. Laclau, E. (2001). Democracy and the question of power. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical and Democratic Theory,8(1), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Landemore, H., & Page, S. A. (2015). Deliberation and disagreement: Problem solving, prediction, and positive dissensus. Politics, Philosophy & Economics,14(3), 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lenox, M. J., & Nash, J. (2003). Industry self-regulation and adverse selection: A comparison across four trade association programs. Business Strategy and the Environment,12(6), 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Levy, D. L. (2008). Political contestation in global production networks. Academy of Management Review,33(4), 943–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Levy, D., Reinecke, J., & Manning, S. (2016). The political dynamics of sustainable coffee: Contested value regimes and the transformation of sustainability. Journal of Management Studies,53(3), 364–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2005). Negotiation. Toronto: Irwin.Google Scholar
  75. Lüthje, B., & Butollo, F. (2017). Why the Foxconn model does not die: Production networks and labour relations in the IT industry in South China. Globalizations,14(2), 216–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mäkinen, J., & Kourula, A. (2012). Pluralism in political corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly,22(4), 649–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). The effects of contracts on interpersonal trust. Administrative Science Quarterly,47(3), 534–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mansbridge, J. (1996). Using power, fighting power: The polity. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference (pp. 44–54). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., et al. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Follesdal, A., Fung, A., et al. (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy,18(1), 64–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Martin, H. (2017). American Airlines and NAACP meet to discuss allegations of racism. Los Angeles Times, Nov 2 ed.Google Scholar
  82. McCarthy, T. (1990). The critique of impure reason: Foucault and the Frankfurt School. Political Theory,18(3), 437–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. S. (2011). Creating and capturing value: Strategic corporate social responsibility, resource-based theory, and sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management,37(5), 1480–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Mehrpouya, A., & Willmott, H. (2018). Making a Niche: The marketization of management research and the rise of ‘Knowledge Branding’. Journal of Management Studies,55(4), 728–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly,22(3), 527–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review,22(4), 853–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Moog, S., Spicer, A., & Böhm, S. (2015). The politics of multi-stakeholder initiatives: The crisis of the Forest Stewardship Council. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(3), 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism. Social Research,66, 745–758.Google Scholar
  89. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  90. Owen, D., & Smith, G. (2015). Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn. Journal of Political Philosophy,23(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Palazzo, G., & Scherer, A. G. (2008). Corporate social responsibility, democracy, and the politicization of the corporation. Academy of Management Review,33(3), 773–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Papadakis, K. (2011). Introduction and overview. In K. Papadakis (Ed.), Shaping global industrial relations: The impact of international framework agreements (pp. 1–13). Hampshire, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Pettit, P. (2000). Democracy, electoral and contestatory. Nomos,42, 105–144.Google Scholar
  94. Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2006). Trade unions and CSR: A European research agenda. Journal of Public Affairs (14723891),6(3/4), 256–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rahman, Z., & Langford, T. (2012). Why labor unions have failed Bangladesh’s garment workers. In L. Mosoetsa & M. Williams (Eds.), Labour in the global south: Challenges and alternatives for workers. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  96. Rancière, J. (2010). Dissensus: On politics and aesthetics. London, UK: Continuum.Google Scholar
  97. Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2016). Taming wicked problems: The role of framing in the construction of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Management Studies,53(3), 299–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Reinecke, J., & Donaghey, J. (2015). After Rana Plaza: Building coalitional power for labour rights between unions and (consumption based) social movement organisations. Organization,22(5), 720–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Riisgaard, L. (2005). International framework agreements: A new model for securing worker’s right? Industrial Relations,44, 707–737.Google Scholar
  101. Rushe, D. (2018). Unions reach $2.3 m settlement on Bangladesh textile factory safety. London: The Guardian.Google Scholar
  102. Sabadoz, C., & Singer, A. (2017). Talk ain’t cheap: Political CSR and the challenges of corporate deliberation. Business Ethics Quarterly,27(2), 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review,32(4), 1096–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Scherer, A. G., Rasche, A., Palazzo, G., & Spicer, A. (2016). Managing for political corporate social responsibility: New challenges and directions for PCSR 2.0. Journal of Management Studies,53(3), 273–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Scherrer, C., Greven, T., & Ascoly, N. (2001). Global rules for trade: Codes of conduct, social labeling, workers’ rights clauses. Munster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  107. Short, J. L., & Toffel, M. W. (2010). Making self-regulation more than merely symbolic: The critical role of the legal environment. Administrative Science Quarterly,55(3), 361–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Simon, H. (1951). A formal theory of the employment relationship. Econometrica,19, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Slater, D. (2004). Geopolitics and the post-colonialz: Rethinking North-South relations. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Soundararajan, V., & Brown, J. A. (2016). Voluntary governance mechanisms in global supply chains: Beyond CSR to a stakeholder utility perspective. Journal of Business Ethics,134(1), 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Soundararajan, V., Brown, J. A., & Wicks, A. C. (2019). Can multi-stakeholder initiatives improve global supply chains? Improving deliberative capacity with a stakeholder orientation. Business Ethics Quarterly,29, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Stansbury, J. (2009). Reasoned moral agreement: Applying discourse ethics within organizations. Business Ethics Quarterly,19(1), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Stevis, D. (2010). International framework agreements and global social dialogue: Parameters and prospects. ILO employment working paper no. 47. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Organization.Google Scholar
  114. Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology,24, 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. The Economist. (2013). Accord, alliance or disunity? The Economist, July 13 ed. Retrieved March 10, 2016, from http://www.economist.com/news/business/21581752-transatlantic-divide-among-big-companies-may-hinder-efforts-improve-workers-safety.
  116. Thompson, D. F. (2008). Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science,11, 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Tilly, C. (2008). Contentious performances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2013). The destabilisation of existing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry. Research Policy,42(10), 1749–1767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Valentini, L. (2012). Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass,7(9), 654–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Venard, B. (2009). Organizational isomorphism and corruption: An empirical research in Russia. Journal of Business Ethics,89(1), 59–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Vogel, D. (2010). The private regulation of global corporate conduct. Business & Society,49(1), 68–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Waldman, P. (2017). Inside Alabama’s auto jobs bloom: Cheap wages, little training, crushed limbs. Bloomberg Business Week, March 23 ed.Google Scholar
  123. Whelan, G. (2012). The political perspective of corporate social responsibility: A critical research agenda. Business Ethics Quarterly,22(4), 709–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Williams, O. F. (2014). The United Nations global compact: What did it promise? Journal of Business Ethics,122(2), 241–251.Google Scholar
  125. Williams, G., Davies, S., & Chinguno, C. (2015). Subcontracting and labour standards: Reassessing the potential of international framework agreements. British Journal of Industrial Relations,53(2), 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Wittgenstein, L. (1980). Culture and value. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  127. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  128. Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory,29(5), 670–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations