000			02067naa a2200181uu 4500
001			0032409144437
003			OSt
005			20190211170622.0
008			100324s2009 xx ||||gr |0|| 0 eng d
100	1		_aSARETZKI, Thomas _939122
245	1	0	_aFrom bargaining to arguing, from strategic to communicative action? Theoretical distinctions and methodological problems in empirical studies of deliberative policy processes
260			_aOxon : _bRoutledge, _cJuly 2009
520	3		_aIn debates on public policy and deliberative democracy, the conceptual distinctions of communicative vs. strategic action and of arguing vs. bargaining play a prominent role. In many contributions to the deliberative turn these distinctions have often been interpreted and treated almost like synonyms. Understood as equivalent dichotomies projected on a one-dimensional scale, people taking the deliberative turn seemed to have only one way to go: from bargaining to arguing, from strategic to communicative action. Yet the distinction of strategic vs. communicative action stems from the theory of action of Jrgen Habermas, while the juxtaposition of bargaining vs. arguing was introduced by Jon Elster as a distinction of two modes of communication. These different theoretical backgrounds and perspectives notwithstanding, one finds converging references to both distinctions when authors tried to get a clue as to what it means to be 'truly deliberative'. Still, in many cases the conceptual relation of the two distinctions seems to be far from clear. The article discusses the interrelations of these different theoretical backgrounds and perspectives with conceptual and methodological problems that matter when one tries to use the two distinctions in empirical studies of deliberation or suggests possible practical perspectives for deliberative democracy.
773	0	8	_tCritical Policy Studies _g3, 2, p. 153-183 _dOxon : Routledge, July 2009 _xISSN 19460171 _w
942			_cS
998			_a20100324 _b0914^b _cDaiane
998			_a20100326 _b1505^b _cCarolina
999			_aConvertido do Formato PHL _bPHL2MARC21 1.1 _c32056 _d32056
041			_aeng