Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Legitimacy (3) (remove)
Institute
Highlights
• Pathways for a circular economy towards the EU goals require policy support that, in turn, requires legitimacy.
• Legitimacy is often contested in the public discourse at all phases in the technological innovation system.
• Legitimacy remains poorly understood for ‘in-between’ technologies that struggle to move from the formative to the growth stage.
• The article explores legitimacy for chemical recycling primarily based on evidence from the UK, Germany, and Italy.
Abstract
The European Commission aims to increase the recycling of plastic packaging to 60% by 2025, requiring fundamental changes towards a more circular economy. Pathways for this transition require policy support that largely depends on their legitimacy in the public discourse. These normative aspects remain poorly understood for ‘in-between’ technologies, i.e., technologies that are no longer novel but struggle to move to the growth phase within the technological innovation system. Therefore, we ask: How do discourses shape technology legitimacy for in-between technologies? Drawing on the empirical example of chemical recycling, the analysis renders two principal findings. First, legitimising and delegitimising storylines present contesting views on in-between technologies regarding their technological aspects, environmental and social impacts, and economic and policy implications. Second, how discourses contribute to technology legitimacy depends on the actors and interests that drive the prevalent storylines in particular contexts.
Disagreement among philosophers over the proper justification for political institutions is far from a new phenomenon. Thus, it should not come as a surprise that there is substantial room for dissent on this matter within democratic theory. As is well known, instrumentalism and proceduralism represent the two primary viewpoints that democrats can adopt to vindicate democratic legitimacy. While the former notoriously derives the value of democracy from its outcomes, the latter claims that a democratic decision-making process is inherently valuable. This article has two aims. First, it introduces three variables with which we can thoroughly categorise the aforementioned approaches. Second, it argues that the more promising version of proceduralism is extrinsic, rather than intrinsic, and that extrinsically procedural accounts can appeal to other values in the justification of democracy without translating into instrumentalism. This article is organised as follows. I present what I consider to be the ‘implicit view’ in the justification of democracy. Then, I analyse each of the three variables in a different section. Finally, I raise an objection against procedural views grounded in relational equality, which cannot account for the idea that democracy is a necessary condition for political legitimacy.
Can be a world order shaped by equivalents in the framework of the supranational model of Europe with the same legitimacy and with the same effectiveness? In this study was argued that Civilizing World Order (CWO) by Transnational Norm-Building Networks (TNNs) should have the legitimacy and effectiveness of the European Union supranational order. In this context, the concept of decentration (supra: centralization and infra: decentralization) which includes the nexus of voice (democratic participation) and entitlement (legal-social rights and duties) was examined. In this study as methodology published secondary data, online resources were used in order to reinforce the hypothesis.