, especially their failure to win the consent of affected subjects and constituencies. This chapter sets out our theoretical approach to address this anomaly by using the resources of PDT to clarify the dialectics of politicisation and depoliticisation, and their impact on the struggle for policy hegemony. We begin by intervening in contemporary debates about the concept of depoliticisation, which discloses a number of questions for further investigation and clarification, after which we develop our core assumptions, showing how the interacting logics of politicisation and
171 Policy & Politics • vol 42 • no 2 • 171-88 • © Policy Press 2014 • #PPjnl @policy_politics Print ISSN 0305 5736 • Online ISSN 1470 8442 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557313X13868593346016 Depoliticisation, governance and political participation Paul Fawcett, paul.fawcett@canberra.edu.au David Marsh, david.marsh@canberra.edu.au University of Canberra, Australia This article critically examines the linkages between the literatures on depoliticisation, governance and political participation. To do so, it is divided into three substantive sections. The
47 CHAPTER THREE Depoliticisation, governance and political participation Paul Fawcett and David Marsh Introduction The study of governance has become almost a growth industry, particularly in public policy discussion and research (Chhotray and Stoker, 2009; Levi- Faur, 2012). There has also been an increase, which is clearly not unrelated, in work on political participation, looking particularly at the way in which traditional forms have declined, while new forms have emerged (Dalton, 2008; Bang, 2009a, 2009b, 2010, 2011; Norris, 2011). Both these sets of
proponents of divestment. It argued that those in favour of humanitarian assistance were being naive and depoliticizing aid by using terminology such as ‘crisis’, which absolved the Myanmar government from direct responsibility. It argued that the military benefitted financially from foreign assistance, that it withheld aid from ethnic nationalities in areas of ongoing conflict and that it inhibited transparency, accountability and adequate monitoring of humanitarian work. By not bearing witness, ALTSEAN-Burma (2002 : 48) argued, ‘international agencies are responsible
introduction SPECIAL ISSUE • Depoliticisation, governance and the state 135 Policy & Politics • vol 42 • no 2 • 135-49 • © Policy Press 2014 • #PPjnl @policy_politics Print ISSN 0305 5736 • Online ISSN 1470 8442 • http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655873 Depoliticisation, governance and the state Matthew Flinders, m.flinders@sheffield.ac.uk Matt Wood, m.wood@sheffield.ac.uk University of Sheffield, UK Depoliticisation refers to the narrowing of the boundaries of democratic politics. It is therefore intertwined with concerns about ‘the end of politics’ and
of public deliberation as if they have suddenly become identified as issues of collective, rather than individual or private, wellbeing. This is a politicisation of Type 2 and it too may take many forms (the consciousness-raising activities of feminists, environmentalists, anti-globalisation protestors or any other Realm of neccessity (‘non- political’) Depoliticization 1 Depoliticization 2 Depoliticization 3 Politicization 3 Politicization 2 Politicization 1 Governmental sphere Public sphere Private sphere Figure 1: Politicisation and depoliticisation Source
job seekers as professional workers: The depoliticizing work–game of job searching, Qualitative Sociology, 30, 4, 403–416 Shin, M, 2001, The politicisation of place in Italy, Political Geography, 20, 3, 331–52 Smith, J, T, 1849, Government by commissions illegal and pernicious, London: S, Sweet Smith, M, 1991, From policy community to issue network: Salmonella in eggs and the new politics of food, Public Administration, 69, 2, 235–255 Swanson, J, 2007, Economic common sense and the depoliticisation of the economic, Political Research Quarterly, 61, 1, 56
1 CHAPTER ONE Depoliticisation, governance and the state Matthew Flinders and Matt Wood Introduction Crisis and contingency; delegation and democracy; exceptions and excuses; fate and fear; autonomy and apathy; control and contradictions: these are just some of the issues that underpin this special edition, and which serve to shed new perspectives on the changing constellation of relationships that concern depoliticisation, governance and the state in the twenty-first century. The need for new perspectives can hardly be denied. These – as we are constantly
, crisis and the international state system, in W Bonefeld, J Holloway (eds) Global capital, national state and the politics of money, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 92–115 Burnham, P, 2001, New Labour and the politics of depoliticization, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 3, 2, 127–49 Burnham, P, 2006, Depoliticisation: a reply to Buller and Flinders, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 8, 2, 303–6 Burnham, P, 2007, The politicisation of monetary policy-making in postwar Britain, British Politics, 2, 3, 395–419 Burnham, P, 2010
ideology and thus ‘bring down the already fragile legitimating basis of advanced capitalism, which rest only on depoliticization’ (Habermas, 1971, 122). By the early 1970s his agency-centred hopes for social change were dashed but systems theory functionalism prevailed in his attempt to develop a typology of crisis-tendencies within advanced capitalism (Habermas, 1976). In terms of the theory of depoliticisation, Habermas distinguishes between political crisis tendencies that can be sub-divided in terms of their form of appearance into output (sovereignly
