Normative Orientation from Political Theory

  • Dorothea BaurEmail author
Part of the Issues in Business Ethics book series (IBET, volume 36)


The third chapter introduces the political models of liberalism and deliberative democracy as potential perspectives for assessing the legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations. It gives a brief overview over economic and political liberalism and over the most relevant strands of deliberative democracy, namely the liberal-constitutionalist and the discursive strand. It also argues that the political models of communitarianism and republicanism are not suitable for assessing the interaction between NGOs and corporations, since they rest on presumptions such as shared values, strong communities, etc. which are often missing in the postnational constellation.


Liberalism Deliberative democracy Republicanism Communitarianism 


  1. Abizadeh, A. “Does Liberal Democracy Presuppose a Cultural Nation? Four Arguments”. American Political Science Review 96 (3) (2002): 495–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benhabib, S. “Deliberative Rationality and Models of Democratic Legitimacy”. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory 1 (1) (1994): 26–52.Google Scholar
  3. Bohman, J. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996a.Google Scholar
  4. Bohman, J. “Survey Article: The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy”. Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (4) (1998): 400–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, G., and L. Lomasky. “Against Reviving Republicanism”. Politics Philosophy Economics 5 (2) (2006): 221–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chambers, S. “Deliberative Democratic Theory”. Annual Review of Political Science 6 (1) (2003): 307–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy”. In The Good Polity, edited by A. Hamlin and B. Petit, 17–34. New York et al.: Basil Blackwell, 1989.Google Scholar
  8. Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Emanuel, E.J. “Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy Meet”. The Hastings Center Report 26 (6) (1996): 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fishkin, J.S., R.C. Luskin, and R. Jowell. “Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation”. Parliamentary Affairs 53 (4) (2000): 657–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forst, R. “The Rule of Reasons. Three Models of Deliberative Democracy”. Ratio Juris 14 (4) (2001): 345–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fung, A. “Deliberative Democracy and International Labor Standards”. Governance 16 (1) (2003a): 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fung, A. “Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences”. Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (3) (2003b): 338–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaus, G.F. Contemporary Theories of Liberalism: Public Reason as a Post-enlightenment Project. London: Sage, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. “Three Normative Models of Democracy”. In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by S. Benhabib, 21–30. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996a.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge (UK): Polity Press, 1996b.Google Scholar
  17. Hendriks, C.M. “Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society’s Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy”. Political Studies 54 (3) (2006): 486–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keane, J. Global Civil Society? Cambridge (UK) et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kymlicka, W. Liberalism, Community and Culture. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  20. Maak, T. Die Wirtschaft in der Bürgergesellschaft. Bern et al.: Haupt, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. Macpherson, C.B. Die politische Theorie des Besitzindividualismus von Hobbes bis Locke. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1980.Google Scholar
  22. Manin, B. “On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation”. Political Theory 15 (3) (1987): 338–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCarthy, T. “Kantian Constructivism and Reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in Dialogue”. Ethics 105 (1) (1994): 44–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Montpetit, É., F. Scala, and I. Fortier. “The Paradox of Deliberative Democracy: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women and Canada’s Policy on Reproductive Technology”. Policy Sciences 37 (2) (2004): 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mouffe, C., and P. Holdengraber. “Radical Democracy: Modern or Postmodern?” Social Text 21 (1989): 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noonan, J. “Modernization, Rights and Democratic Society: The Limits of Habermas’s Democratic Theory”. Res Publica 11 (2) (2005): 101–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nozick, R. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.Google Scholar
  28. Palazzo, G., and A.G. Scherer. “Corporate Legitimacy as Deliberation: A Communicative Framework”. Journal of Business Ethics 66 (1) (2006): 71–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pettit, P. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  30. Talisse, R.B. “Deliberative Democracy Defended: A Response to Posner’s Political Realism”. Res Publica 11 (2) (2005): 185–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ulrich, P. Integrative Economic Ethics. Foundations of a Civilized Market Economy. Cambridge (UK) et al.: Cambridge University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Warren, M.E. “Deliberative Democracy and Authority”. American Political Science Review 90 (1) (1996): 46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warren, M.E. “Conclusion”. In Democracy and Trust, edited by M.E. Warren, 346–60. Cambridge (UK) et al.: Cambridge University Press, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Whaites, A. “Let’s Get Civil Society Straight: NGOs, the State and Political Theory (re-worked version of two papers by A. Whaites, which appeared in Development in Practice Volume 6, Number 3, 1996 and Development in Practice Volume 8, Number 3, 1998).” 2000. First Accessed October 10, 2007.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. Gallen, Institute for Business EthicsSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations