Skip Navigation

Proceduralizing Regulation: Part II

  1. JULIA BLACK1
  1. 1 Centre for the Analysis of Risk and Regulation, Law Department, London School of Economics

    Abstract

    The first part of this article sets out two possible models of proceduralization. This second part of this article begins to develop one of those forms, «thick» proceduralization, building on but modifying Habermas's model of deliberative democracy in two important respects. First, it is argued that it is not sufficient simply to call for deliberation for there is a real likelihood that even if all deliberants can be brought together true communication will be blocked by difference; difference in the modes of discourse, the techniques of argument, language, and validity claims. Discourse may therefore have to be mediated through the adoption of strategies of translation, mapping, and dispute resolution. Whether regulators can or should perform such a mediating role remains however an open question. Second, it is argued that deliberative modes of policy formation and regulation are compatible with more pluralist and polyarchical arrangements than Habermas allows, and indeed that such arrangements may need to be adopted for thick proceduralization to become operative.

    | Table of Contents

    General Editor

    Professor Timothy Endicott

    Impact Factor: 0.887

    5-Yr impact factor: 0.718

    For Authors

    Open Access options for authors - visit Oxford Open RCUK Open Access

    Open access options for authors - visit Oxford Open

    Looking for your next opportunity?

    Looking for jobs...

    Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.