Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Section
3. Experimental Design
3.1. Experimental Setup
3.1.1. Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma Game
- MV (base group treatment): Three members in a generation are asked to cast their anonymous and independent votes for option A or option B. The members in a generation see the faces of each other, but they are not allowed to communicate before they vote. After each member’s voting, the generation decision between options A and B is made by majority rule. Specifically, the majority rule means that the generation decision is made as A (or B) if two or all three members vote for option A (or option B).
- DMV: Three members in a generation are asked to deliberate over choosing between options A and B up to 10 min before they vote. After that, the members cast their anonymous and independent votes for option A or option B. The generation decision is made by majority rule as in MV.
- MVDA: Three members in a generation are asked to deliberate and collectively provide reasons and advice for their possible generation decision to the subsequent generations over choosing between options A and B up to 10 min. When the generations are not the 1st one, they receive reasons and advice from the previous generation(s) before deliberation. After that, the members cast their anonymous and independent votes for option A or option B. The generation decision is made by majority rule as in MV and DMV.
3.1.2. Social Value Orientation (SVO) and Psychological Factors
3.2. Experimental Procedures
4. Results
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Przeworski, A.; Stokes, S.; Manin, B. Democracy, Accountability and Representation, Volume 2; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Fiorino, D. Can Democracy Handle Climate Change? Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- MacKenzie, M.; Caluwaerts, D. Paying for the future: Deliberation and support for climate action policies. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2021, forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
- Shearman, D.; Smith, J. The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy; Praeger Publishers: Westpost, CT, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Gonzalez-Ricoy, I.; Gosseries, A. Institutions for Future Generations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, G.; Imrohoroglu, S. Fiscal reform and government debt in Japan: A neoclassical perspective. Rev. Econ. Dyn. 2016, 21, 201–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Steffen, W.; Rockstrom, J.; Richardson, K.; Lenton, T.; Folke, C.; Liverman, D.; Summerhayes, C.; Barnosky, A.; Cornell, S.; Crucifix, M.; et al. Trajectories of the Earth system in the anthropocene. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 8252–8259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Caney, S. Justice and future generations. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2018, 21, 475–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bamber, J.; Oppenheimer, M.; Kopp, R.; Aspinall, W.; Cooke, R. Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 11195–11200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Thompson, D. Representing future generations: Political presentism and democratic trusteeship. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Political Philos. 2010, 13, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKenzie, M. Deliberation and long-term decisions: Representing future generations. In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, G. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment; Routledge: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- MacKenzie, M.; O’Doherty, K. Deliberating future issues: Minipublics and salmon genomics. J. Public Delib. 2011, 7, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKenzie, M. Institutional design and sources of short-termism. In Institutions for Future Generations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2016; pp. 24–47. [Google Scholar]
- Saijo, T. Future design: Bequeathing sustainable natural environments and sustainable societies to future generations. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, A.; Matthews, J. Why do citizens discount the future? Public opinion and the timing of policy consequences. Br. J. Political Sci. 2012, 42, 903–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- List, C.; Luskin, R.; Fishkin, J.; McLean, I. Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: Evidence from deliberative polls. J. Politics 2013, 75, 80–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mansbridge, J. Rethinking representation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2003, 97, 515–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogacki, J.; Letmathe, P. Representatives of future generations as promoters of sustainability in corporate decision processes. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021, 30, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strandberg, K. Public deliberation goes on-line? Javnost Public 2008, 15, 71–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishkin, J. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Gronlund, K.; Strandberg, K.; Himmelroos, S. The challenge of deliberative democracy online—A comparison of face-to-face and virtual experiments in citizen deliberation. Inf. Polity 2009, 14, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geissel, B.; Newton, K. Evaluating Democratic Innovations; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Dangelico, R.; Pontrandolfo, P. Being ‘green and competitive’: The impact of environmental actions and collaborations on firm performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 24, 413–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoiciu, V.; Gherghina, S. Intra-party deliberation, under-represented groups, and candidate selection: The case of demos in Romania. Political Stud. Rev. 2021, 19, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahen, M.; Kotani, K.; Saijo, T. Intergenerational sustainability is enhanced by taking the perspective of future generations. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 2437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elstub, S.; Escobar, O. Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Allegretti, G. Participatory democracies: A slow march toward new paradigms from Brazil to Europe? In Cities into the Future; Les Classiques des Sciences Sociales: Chicoutimi, QC, Canada, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Pickering, J.; Backstrand, K.; Schlosberg, D. Between environmental and ecological democracy: Theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2020, 22, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gronlund, K.; Setala, M.; Herne, K. Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 2010, 2, 95–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kamijo, Y.; Komiya, A.; Mifune, N.; Saijo, T. Negotiating with the future: Incorporating imaginary future generations into negotiations. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shahrier, S.; Kotani, K.; Saijo, T. Intergenerational sustainability dilemma and the degree of capitalism in societies: A field experiment. Sustain. Sci. 2017, 12, 957–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levitt, S.; List, J. What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? J. Econ. Perspect. 2007, 21, 153–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Alatas, V.; Cameron, L.; Chaudhuri, A.; Erkal, N.; Gangadharan, L. Subject pool effects in a corruption experiment: A comparison of Indonesian public servants and Indonesian students. Exp. Econ. 2008, 12, 113–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roe, B.; Just, D. Internal and external validity in economics research: Tradeoff’s between experiments, filed experiments, natural experiments, and field data. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 91, 1266–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Falk, A.; Heckman, J. Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 2009, 326, 535–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- May, J. Defining democracy: A bid for coherence and consensus. Political Stud. 1978, 26, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, J. Joseph A. Schumpeter and the theory of democracy. Rev. Soc. Econ. 1994, 52, 280–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahl, R. On Democracy; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Diamond, L.; Plattner, M. Electoral Systems and Democracy; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Warren, M. A problem-based approach to democratic theory. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2017, 111, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haas, M. Why Democracies Flounder and Fail; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Austen-Smith, D.; Banks, J. Information aggregation, rationality, and the condorcet jury theorem. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 1996, 90, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Austen-smith, D.; Feddersen, T. Deliberation, preference uncertainty, and voting rules. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 2006, 100, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, M.; Tan, X. Deliberation, disclosure of information, and voting. J. Econ. Theory 2013, 148, 2–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- List, C. Democratic deliberation and social choice: A review. In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 497–538. [Google Scholar]
- Perote-Pena, J.; Piggins, A. A model of deliberative and aggregative democracy. Econ. Philos. 2015, 31, 93–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Estlund, D. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Mercier, H.; Landemore, H. Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychol. 2012, 33, 243–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Landemore, H. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intellengence and Rule of Many; Princetion University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Elster, J. The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reasons and Politics; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 3–34. [Google Scholar]
- Habermas, J. Three normative models of democracy. Constellations 1994, 1, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chambers, S. Deliberative democratic theory. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2003, 6, 307–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Delli Carpini, M.; Cook, F.; Jacobs, L. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 2004, 7, 315–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mansbridge, J.; Bohman, J.; Chambers, S.; Estlund, D.; Follesdal, A.; Fung, A.; Lafont, C.; Manin, B.; Matri, J. The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. J. Political Philos. 2010, 18, 64–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dietz, T.; Stern, P.; Dan, A. How deliberation affects stated willingness to pay for mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions: An experiment. Land Econ. 2009, 85, 329–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goeree, J.; Yariv, L. An experimental study of collective deliberation. Econometrica 2011, 79, 893–921. [Google Scholar]
- Gherghina, S.; Geissel, B. Linking democratic preferences and political participation: Evidence from Germany. Political Stud. 2017, 65, 24–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gherghina, S.; Geissel, B. Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: Understanding the difference. Political Res. Exch. 2020, 2, 1809474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Setala, M. Connecting deliberative mini-publics to representative decision making. Eur. J. Political Res. 2017, 56, 846–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Setala, M.; Christensen, H.; Leino, M.; Strandberg, K.; Back, M.; Jaske, M. Deliberative mini-publics facilitating voter knowledge and judgement: Experience from a Finnish local referendum. Representation 2021, forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
- Luskin, R.; Fishkin, J.; Jowell, R. Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. Br. J. Political Sci. 2002, 32, 455–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simon, A.; Sulkin, T. Discussion’s impact on political allocations: An experimental approach. Political Anal. 2002, 10, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Persson, M.; Esaiasson, P.; Gilljam, M. The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs: An experimental study of small group decision-making. Eur. Political Sci. Rev. 2012, 5, 381–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Caluwaerts, D.; Reuchamps, M. The Legitimacy of Citizen-Led Deliberative Democracy: The G1000 in Belgium; Routledge: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Harris, C. Looking to the Future: Including Children, Young People and Future Generations in Deliberations on Climate Action. 2021. Available online: https://constdelib.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/WP11-2021-CA17135.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2021).
- Dalton, R.; Burklin, W.; Drummond, A. Public opinion and direct democracy. J. Democr. 2001, 12, 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jeydel, A.; Steel, B. Public attitudes toward the initiative process in Oregon. State Local Gov. Rev. 2002, 34, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, S. COMUNIX WhatsAppers: The community school in Portugal and Spain. Political Stud. Rev. 2021, 19, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, M.; Irlenbusch, B.; Sadrieh, A. An intergenerational common pool resource experiment. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2004, 48, 811–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Setala, M.; Gronlund, K.; Herne, K. Citizen deliberation on nuclear power: A comparison of two decision-making methods. Political Stud. 2010, 58, 688–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Himmelroos, S.; Christensen, H. Deliberation and opinion change: Evidence from a deliberative mini-public in Finland. Scand. Political Stud. 2013, 37, 41–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauser, O.; Rand, D.; Peysakhovich, A.; Nowak, M. Cooperating with the future. Nature 2014, 511, 220–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sherstyuk, K.; Tarui, N.; Ravago, M.; Saijo, T. Intergenerational games with dynamic externalities and climate change experiments. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2016, 3, 247–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fochmann, M.; Sachs, F.; Sadrieh, A.; Weimann, J. The two sides of public debt: Intergenerational altruism and burden shifting. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kamijo, Y.; Hizen, Y.; Saijo, T.; Tamura, T. Voting on behalf of a future generation: A laboratory experiment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nakagawa, Y.; Kotani, K.; Matsumoto, M.; Saijo, T. Intergenerational retrospective viewpoints and individual policy preferences for future: A deliberative experiment for forest management. Futures 2019, 105, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dryzek, J.; Niemeyer, S. Deliberative democracy and climate governance. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2019, 3, 411–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katsuki, S.; Hizen, Y. Does voting solve the intergenerational sustainability dilemma? Sustainability 2020, 12, 6311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pandit, A.; Nakagawa, Y.; Timilsina, R.; Kotani, K.; Saijo, T. Taking the perspectives of future generations as an effective method for achieving sustainable waste management. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1526–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Timilsina, R.; Kotani, K.; Nakagawa, Y.; Saijo, T. Concerns for future generations in societies: A deliberative analysis of the intergenerational sustainability dilemma. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2021, 90, 101628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahrier, S.; Kotani, K.; Saijo, T. Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma and a Potential Solution: Future Ahead and Back Mechanism; Working Paper SDES-2017-9; Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology: Kochi, Japan, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Timilsina, R.; Kotani, K.; Nakagawa, Y.; Saijo, T. Accountability as a Resolution for Intergenerational Sustainability; SDES-2019-2; Research Institute for Future Design, Kochi University of Technology: Kochi, Japan, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Tetlock, P. Accountability and the preseverance of first impressions. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1983, 46, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tetlock, P. Accountability: A social check on the fundamental attribution error. Soc. Psychol. Q. 1985, 85, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vodova, P.; Voda, P. The effects of deliberation in Czech Pirate Party: The case of coalition formation in Borno (2018). Eur. Political Sci. 2020, 19, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gad, N. A “new political culture”: The challenges of deliberation in Alternativet. Eur. Political Sci. 2020, 19, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gherghina, S.; Stoiciu, V. Selecting candidates through deliberation: The effects for Demos in Romania. Eur. Political Sci. 2020, 19, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tzoumis, K.; Finegold, L. Looking at the quality of draft environmental impact statements over time in the United States. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2000, 20, 557–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glasson, J.; Therivel, R.; Chadwick, A. Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, 3rd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- McKelvey, R.; Palfrey, T. An experimental study of the centipede game. Econometrica 1992, 60, 803–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binmore, K. Game Theory and the Social Contract, Volume 1: Playing Fair; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Ochs, J. Games with unique, mixed strategy equilibria: An experimental study. Games Econ. Behav. 1995, 10, 202–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goeree, J.; Holt, C. Stochastic game theory: For playing games, not just for doing theory. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1999, 96, 10564–10567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Charness, G.; Rabin, M. Understanding social preferences with simple tests. Q. J. Econ. 2002, 117, 817–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Holt, C.; Roth, A. The Nash equilibrium: A perspective. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 3999–4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Garcia-Pola, B.; Iriberri, N.; Kovarik, J. Non-equilibrium play in centipede games. Games Econ. Behav. 2020, 120, 391–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belot, M.; Duch, R.; Miller, L. A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2015, 113, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frechette, G. Laboratory experiments: Professionals versus students. In Handbook of Experimental Economic Methodology; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, K. Formal versus informal system to mitigate non-point source pollution: An experimental investigation. J. Agric. Econ. 2020, 71, 838–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, R.; Ackermann, K.; Handgraaf, M. Measuring social value orientation. Judgement Decis. Mak. 2011, 6, 771–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Lange, P.; Bekkers, R.; Schuyt, T.; Vugt, M. From games to giving: Social value orientation predicts donations to noble causes. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 29, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brosig-Koch, J.; Helbach, C.; Ockenfels, A.; Weimann, J. Still different after all these years: Solidarity behavior in East and West Germany. J. Public Econ. 2011, 95, 1373–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Croson, R.; Gneezy, U. Gender differences in preferences. J. Econ. Lit. 2009, 47, 448–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Angrist, J.; Pischke, J. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Timilsina, R.; Kotani, K.; Kamijo, Y. Sustainability of common pool resources. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Inoue, Y.; Himichi, T.; Mifune, N.; Saijo, T. People prefer joint outcome prosocial resource distribution towards future others. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 5373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kirman, A.; Teschl, M. Selfish or selfless? The role of empathy in economics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 303–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Artinger, F.; Exadaktylos, F.; Koppel, H.; Saaksvuori, L. In others’ shoes: Do individual differences in empathy and theory of mind shape social preferences? PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Font, X.; Garay, L.; Jones, S. A social cognitive theory of sustainability empathy. Ann. Tour. Res. 2016, 58, 65–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sapolksy, R. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst; Penguin Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Pettit, P.; Rabinowicz, W. Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philos. Issues 2001, 11, 268–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- List, C. The discursive dilemma and public reason. Ethics 2006, 116, 362–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Charness, G.; Dufwenberg, M. Promises and partnership. Econometrica 2006, 74, 1579–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fox, M.; Tost, L.; Wade-Benzoni, K. The legacy motive: A catalyst for sustainable decision-making in organizations. Bus. Ethics Q. 2010, 20, 153–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wade-Benzoni, K. Legacy motivations & the psychology of intergenerational decisions. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2019, 26, 19–22. [Google Scholar]
- Kotre, J. Outliving the Self: Generativity an the Interpretation of Lives; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Kotre, J. Make It Count: How to Generate a Legacy That Gives Meaning to Your Life; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Self, W.; Mitchell, G.; Mellers, B.; Tetlock, P.; Hildreth, A. Balancing fairness and efficiency: The impact of identity-blind and identity-conscious accountability on applicant screening. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0145208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gherghina, S.; Soare, S.; Jacquet, V. Deliberative democracy and political parties: Functions and consequences. Eur. Political Sci. 2020, 19, 200–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gherghina, S.; Mokre, M.; Miscoiu, S. Introduction: Democratic deliberation and under-represented groups. Political Stud. Rev. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roser, M. Democracy. Our World in Data. 2018. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/democracy (accessed on 20 December 2020).
- Hill, L. Deliberative democracy and compulsory voting. Elect. Law J. Rules Politics Policy 2013, 12, 454–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ban, R.; Jha, S.; Rao, V. Who has voice in a deliberative democracy? Evidence from transcripts of village parliaments in South India. J. Dev. Econ. 2012, 99, 428–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warren, M.; Gastil, J. Can deliberative Minipublics address the cognitive challenges of democratic citizenship? J. Politics 2015, 77, 562–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Parthasarathy, R.; Rai, V. Deliberative Democracy in India; Policy Research Working Paper Series 7995; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Davies, H. The well-being of future generations Wales Act 2015: Duties or aspirations? Environ. Law Rev. 2016, 18, 41–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, H. The well-being of future generations Wales Act 2015—A step change in the legal protection of the interests of future generations? J. Environ. Law 2017, 29, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saijo, T. Future design. In The Future of Economic Design; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 253–260. [Google Scholar]
Variables | Definitions and Descriptions | |
---|---|---|
Dependent variables | ||
Choice B | A dummy variable that takes 1 if a generation chooses option B; otherwise, 0. | |
Independent variables | ||
Treatment dummies (base group = MV) | ||
DMV | A dummy variable that takes 1 if a generation is in DMV treatment; otherwise, 0. | |
MVDA | A dummy variable that takes 1 if a generation is in MVDA treatment; otherwise, 0. | |
Sociodemographic and psychometric variables | ||
Prosocial | A number of members in a generation whose social value orientation is categorized as “prosocial”. | |
Gender | A number of female members in a generation. | |
Empathic concern | Summation of a subject’s empathic concern measured in 5-points Likert scale, ranging from 0 to 28 points. | |
Personal distress | Summation of a subject’s personal distress measured in 5-points Likert scale, ranging from 0 to 28 points. | |
Critical thinking disposition | Summation of subject’s critical thinking dispositional scale measured from 5-points Likert scale, ranging from 13 to 65 points. |
Frequency and Percentage of Option B Choice | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Choices A or B | MV (N = 35) | DMV (N = 33) | MVDA (N = 36) | Overall (N = 104) |
A | 33 (%) | 29 (%) | 26 (%) | 88 (%) |
B | 2 (%) | 4 (%) | 10 (%) | 16 (%) |
Subtotal | 35 (%) | 33 (%) | 36 (%) | 104 (100%) |
Option B Choice | |||
---|---|---|---|
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | |
Independent variables | |||
Treatment dummies (base group = MV) | |||
DMV | * | ** | * |
() | () | () | |
MVDA | *** | *** | *** |
() | () | () | |
Sociodemographic and psychometric variables | |||
Prosocial | *** | *** | |
() | () | ||
Gender | |||
() | |||
Empathic concern | *** | ||
() | |||
Personal distress | ** | ||
() | |||
Critical thinking disposition | 1.964 | ||
() | |||
Observations (generations) | 104 | 104 | 104 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Koirala, P.; Timilsina, R.R.; Kotani, K. Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7377. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137377
Koirala P, Timilsina RR, Kotani K. Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma. Sustainability. 2021; 13(13):7377. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137377
Chicago/Turabian StyleKoirala, Pankaj, Raja Rajendra Timilsina, and Koji Kotani. 2021. "Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma" Sustainability 13, no. 13: 7377. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137377
APA StyleKoirala, P., Timilsina, R. R., & Kotani, K. (2021). Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma. Sustainability, 13(13), 7377. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137377