Can democracy truly flourish in a capitalist system?
In Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons, Peter Barnes argues that “…government puts the interests of private corporations first. This is a systemic problem of capitalist democracy, not just a matter of electing new leaders.”
Essentially, the people who have money have power, so government – while perhaps intended to level the playing field – will ultimately end up favoring those with power.
A recent political cartoon from Ted Rall gets to a similar point, asking with more than a little snark, “Is poverty a feature or a bug?”
Even proponents of capitalism eye our widening economic gap with growing concern. Perhaps (or perhaps not) America was once a place where anyone could grow up to be anything and where pulling yourself up by your bootstraps was a viable strategy. But if such an America ever existed, it’s becoming increasing clear that it is no more.
Childhood poverty is an indicator of adult poverty, particularly if you are black. A longitudinal study by Caroline Ratcliffe and Signe-Mary McKernan showed that “while 4 percent of individuals in nonpoor families at birth go on to spend at least half their early adult years living in poverty, the comparable number for individuals born into poverty is 21 percent. This 18 percentage-point difference is driven by blacks; the difference for blacks is 24 percentage points, while the difference for whites does not differ significantly from zero.”
So if the current system is broken, what is the solution?
Conservatives might argue that our system of capitalism has been corrupted – that lessening government regulation and lowering taxes would create a purer form of capitalism which would then naturally correct our inequities.
Liberals might argue that our system has been corrupted by capitalism – that increasing government regulation and bolstering social programs would create a society that would be more fair.
Barnes argues that both market and state solutions are half-right and half-wrong. Instead he advocates for a “commons sector” a twin-engine to the corporate sector that would be composed of “institutions that preserve shared inheritances, charge corporations for degrading nature, or boost the ‘demanding’ power of people whose basic needs are ignored.”
In his vision, this sector would balance the power of corporations with power for the people – and power for future generations. It would keep corporations, and government regulation, in check, and lead to a relatively equitable system where everyone can prosper.
Efforts like this are underway in the real world.
Independent Sector is a coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and corporate giving programs committed to advancing the common good in America. Third Sector New England provides capacity building programs and services for individual nonprofits and the nonprofit sector. New Profit Inc is a venture philanthropy fund that invests in social entrepreneurs.
The White House’s Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation is tasked with engaging the social sector – individuals, non-profits, foundations – as well as business and government – to find new ways to solve old problems and drive collaboration to make greater and more lasting progress in meeting the challenges our Nation faces.
These are good efforts, lead by thoughtful people and showing promising results.
And yet I remain skeptical.
As someone said to me today, the commons sector solution feels like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. It might be good, but it is not enough.
There is staggering inequality in this country, and that inequality is deeply entrenched. Being born in poverty doesn’t just impact how much financial capital you have access to later in life, it impacts how you see yourself, how you advocate – or don’t advocate – for yourself. How you share your opinions in public settings, how you participate – or don’t participate in democracy.
Poor people are treated as invisible, and there’s only so much of that you can take before you begin to believe it yourself.
Adults who think their opinion doesn’t matter have no value to a democracy. But they do have a value to capitalism,
And, perhaps, adults who think their opinions do matter – while the life blood of democracy – present a real threat to capitalism.
An Introduction to Civic Studies: Theories for a Better World
Overview: “Civic studies” is a nascent discipline that looks at social problems from the perspective of a citizen and asks tough questions about what we should do, taking into account values (ethics), facts (empirical evidence), and strategies. It originated with a joint statement written by a distinguished group of scholars in 2008. Since then, it has produced a special issue of a journal, an annual conference, a book, and–most importantly–the annual Summer Institute of Civic Studies at Tufts. The Summer Institute has drawn about 100 graduate students, leaders, and professors from Bhutan, Singapore, China, Mexico, South Africa, and numerous other countries and backgrounds. This course will be the first-ever undergraduate version of the Summer Institute. We will contribute to building “civic studies.”
Thursday, 1/16 Oriqentation and Inspirations
Introductions, overview of the syllabus and purpose of the course.
Does democracy promote development? Despite a large number of empirical studies of this question, the evidence remains inconclusive since it is difficult to establish causality running from democracy to development: democracy is likely to be endogenous to socio-economic factors that also affect development (Lipset 1959). As democracy at the national level is clearly not randomly assigned across countries, the empirical challenge is to disentangle the effect of democracy from other confounding factors to the largest possible extent. This paper revisits this question in the context of human development in sub-Saharan Africa. Specifically, I investigate whether the democratization sweeping the region in the 1990s has reduced infant mortality.
(…)
My findings are as follows. After democratization in sub-Saharan Africa since 1990, infant mortality drops by 1.2 percentage points (12% of the sample mean). This result is robust to controlling for country-specific linear trends in the birth year of babies, country-specific birth-order dummies, country-specific quadratic trends in the mother’s age at birth, and country-level covariates such as per capita GDP, the incidence of wars, and the amount of foreign aid. Except for a couple of outlying cases, there is no such reduction in infant mortality in countries where the dictator holds multiparty elections and stays in power by winning them or where leadership change takes place in a nondemocratic way.
We are pleased to share the announcement below from the League of Extraordinary Trainers (LET), an NCDD Organizational Member, about three great trainings they are offering this Spring. Make sure to note that dues-paying NCDD members can receive a 10-20% discount on all LET trainings – just one of the many great benefits that you get from becoming an NCDD member!
2014 IAP2 Training Events, presented by The League of Extraordinary Trainers
If you work in communications, public relations, public affairs, planning, public outreach and understanding, community development, advocacy, or lobbying, this training will help you to increase your skills and to be of even greater value to your employer. This is your chance to join the many thousands of practitioners worldwide who have completed the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) certificate training.
LET Event Dates, Locations, and On-Line Registration are always available at to viewwww.extraordinarytrainers.com/schedules. You can also download detailed brochures about the trainings at the League of Extraordinary Trainers’ website.
2014 IAP2 Certificate Program (composed of 3 classes):
Planning for Effective Public Participation (2 days)
Communications for Effective Public Participation (1 day)
Techniques for Effective Public Participation (2 days)
The next certificate program training dates and locations are as follows:
Austin, TX April 14 – 18, 2014
Kansas City, MO April 21 – 25, 2014
Nashville, TN April 28 – May 2, 2014
Please check our website periodically as we are working to confirm additional 2014 event locations in Massachusetts, Illinois, and Oregon.
LET offers Early Bird Registration Discounts. Dues-paying NCDD members receive a 10% discount ($315 per training day) on all trainings — and a 20% ($280 per training day) discount if you register by the Early Bird Deadline. Email us directly to take advantage of your NCDD member discount info@extraordinarytrainers.com.
You always can find out more about other training, conference, and course discounts that are available to NCDD members by visiting www.ncdd.org/discounts.
We are excited to announce that the Sustained Dialogue Campus Network will be hosting its annual conference this March 7th – 9th, and NCDD members, especially those working in higher education, are invited! This year’s gathering is being hosted at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and promises to be a great opportunity to deepen our work on campus and connect with campus dialogue practitioners from around the country.
The conference will be attended by NCDD members like Phil Neisser, Jacob Hess, Mark Gerzon, Carolyn Lukensmeyer, and Len & Libby Traubman, and hopefully, you! In addition, our very own NCDD director, Sandy Heierbacher, will be offering a dialogue and deliberation workshop AND hosting a breakfast or dinner for NCDD members who attend the gathering, so make sure to email Sandy at sandy@ncdd.org to let her know you plan on attending.
Whether or not your are doing sustained dialogue work on campus, this conference has a lot to offer:
The Sustained Dialogue Conference is an unparalleled opportunity to come together as a Network and learn from student leaders, administrators, alumni, and supporters from across the country. This year’s Conference, featuring expert guest speakers from social justice, dialogue, and civic engagement fields, will energize you for a strong semester of “dialogue-to-action” and will prepare you to meet your 2014 goals.
Specifically, at the Summit, you will:
Learn from and be inspired by the diverse network of individuals engaging in SD across the nation
Build your skill-set around moving from dialogue to action using the SD model
Exchange practices for tools to build more inclusive communities
Create a work plan of how to maximize Sustained Dialogue as a student group on your campus
Not doing SD? You’re invited too! We welcome those who are engaged in other dialogue and conflict resolution programs as well as those who are interested in starting SD in their context.
The registration deadline is this Saturday, February 15th, so make sure to register today! NCDD members should register as “Community Members” for $65 per day you attend.
You can find more information on the Sustained Dialogue Conference at their website by clicking here, or by checking out the conference trailer that SDCN created:
Ultimately, social theory comes down to core questions about the nature of mankind. One such question is whether people are inherently self-interested or inherently altruistic. Rational choice theory tends to dominate this discussion, pointing generally to self-interest as a core human motivator.
This issue comes up frequently in the work of Elinor Ostrom, a pioneer in commons research who showed that people can work together to successfully sustain limited, shared resources. As Thomas Dietz, Nives Dolsak, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul Stern write in Drama of the Commons:
All of the analyses just sketched presume that self-interest is the only motivator and that social mechanisms to control self-interest, such as communication, trust, and the ability to make binding agreements, are lacking or ineffective. These conditions certainly describe some interactions. People, sometimes do, however, move beyond individual self-interest. Communication, trust, the anticipation of future interactions, and the ability to build agreements and rules sometimes control behavior well enough to prevent tragedy. So the drama of the commons does not always play out as tragedy.
I find this passage intriguingly skeptical.
Ostrom traveled the world, finding communities where groups of people successfully self-governed resources for centuries. She of course also found many examples of unsuccessful governance, but somehow those stories seem less surprising.
So dominate is the narrative of rational self-interest, that – with good reason – people often refer to Ostrom’s work with a sense of renewed hope in humanity. Collaboration can work!
Compared to this tone, it seems almost pessimistic to say that certain factors “control behavior well enough to prevent tragedy.” As if tragedy is indeed the norm, but carefully constructed contexts and prevent it.
Jurgan Habermas, on the other hand, is exceeding optimistic about people’s capacity. As James Finlayson describes, to Habermas the model of self-interest results in
A false picture of society as an aggregate of lone individual reasoners, each calculating the best way of pursuing their own ends…In Habermas’ eyes, such approaches neglect the crucial role of communication and discourse in forming social bonds between agents, and consequently have an inadequate conception of human association.
To Habermas, communication was a moral imperative. It wasn’t just a tool that could “control behavior” and keep people in line. It was a way of learning, of growing, of deeply changing who you are.
If you enter a conversation intentionally committed to not being self-interested, if you are genuinely interested in learning about others and understanding their points of view, then the act of communication changes you.
And if we all entered conversations open-minded and intentionally not self-interested, then we’d all change together. Not in a creepy, Borg collective, we’re all the same person kind of way, but in a deeply bonded fellowship kind of way.
We’d all still be ourselves, all individual and unique, but the sum of our collective reasoning would be greater then an aggregate of each of us alone.
In her brilliant new book, Mary Christina Wood, a noted environmental law scholar at the University of Oregon, Eugene, courageously sweeps aside the bland half-truths and evasions about environmental law. In Nature’s Trust: Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age(Cambridge University Press), Wood argues: “That ancient membrane of law that supposedly functions as a system of community restraint [is] now tattered and pocked with holes.” Our current regulatory system will never solve our problems. She continues:
"A major source of administrative dysfunction arises from the vast discretion [environmental] agencies enjoy – and the way they abuse it to serve private, corporate and bureaucratic interests. As long as the decision-making frame presumes political discretion to allow damage, it matters little what new laws emerge, for they will develop the same bureaucratic sinkholes that consumed the 1970s laws. Only a transformational approach can address sources of legal decay."
Wood’s mission in Nature’s Trust is to propose a new legal framework to define and carry out government’s ecological obligations. For Wood, a huge opportunity awaits in reinvigorating the public trust doctrine, a legal principle that goes back millennia. She explains how the doctrine could and should guide a dramatically new/old approach to protecting land, water, air and wildlife.
In 1970, Professor Joseph Sax inaugurated a new era of legal reforms based on the public trust doctrine with a famous law review article. For a time, Sax’s essay sparked energetic litigation to protect and reclaim waters that belong to everyone. The focus was especially on beachfronts, lakes and riverbanks, and on wildlife. But as new environmental statutes were enacted, some courts and scholars began to balk and backtrack and hedge. They complained that the public trust doctrine should take a backseat to environmental statutes. Or that the doctrine should apply only to states. Or that it applies only to water and wildlife, and not to other ecological domains. And so on.
(Syracuse, NY) My father, Joseph M. Levine, collected more than 20,000 books as a working library of a professional historian. Many were published before 1800. I am a sort of trustee for this collection, happily responsible for its long-term future.
James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, collected a library of books that informed his thoughts about the Constitution. In his case, the next generation meant his ne’er-do-well son-in-law, John Payne Todd, whose gambling debts cost the family all their property, including the books.
Now the Madison home at Montpelier has been restored to look as it did in James Madison’s day. But Montpelier needs appropriate books to display beside the president’s desk. By mutual arrangement, ten feet of my father’s collection are going there on permanent loan. I am in Syracuse to pick out books that might have belonged in Madison’s personal collection ca. 1820.
This, for example, is the same edition of Montaigne on which James Madison took notes when he was a student. Those notes were the very first substantive writings Madison produced in his life.
My father was a Jewish boy from Brooklyn, New York; a Dodgers fan; an FDR liberal. James Madison was a slave-holding Tidewater planter. My Dad studied English intellectual history and was something of an Anglophile. James Madison led the US in a war against Great Britain, yet he was very far from an immigrant New Yorker. How do all these pieces fit together?
The answer is a certain version of liberalism. Dad grew up in a liberal family and neighborhood, but an additional formative experience was studying at Cornell during the McCarthy period. Cornell was stocked with great thinkers, including refugees from totalitarianism and veterans of struggles at home. During Dad’s undergraduate years, Vladimir Nabokov, Frances Perkins, Edwin Arthur Burtt, Buckminster Fuller, Clinton Rossiter, and Richard Neustadt all served on the faculty. They pursued rich cultural ideas, developed the inner life, and fought for social reform. Cornell broadened and liberated minds. The Constitution and the fundamental principles of the American Republic stood with the university and against its enemies.
Dad became an historian to join this community of free inquiry, and also to understand the origins of the modern liberal world. He began his graduate studies interested in the founding period of the US Republic, but he soon moved backwards to explore its origins in Tudor and Stuart England. That period became his lifelong interest and caused him to spend many years in England and to ship literally tons of books and other artifacts back from there.
English history is morally complex, as is the legacy of James Madison. England was a monarchy and a colonial power. But England was also the birthplace of individual rights, representative government, and rule-of-law–at least as those institutions have come to the US. It not only gave us our liberal traditions but also our more radical currents. From the Agitators and Levellers of 1647 to the Commonwealthmen and Whigs of 1750 to the Chartists of 1838, English thinkers developed the idea that political liberty and equality should come first, with cultural equality and economic reform to follow. As the MP Thomas Rainsborough argued in the mid-1600s:
For really I think that the poorest hee that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest hee; and therefore truly, Sr, I think itt clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under.
Madison would certainly have qualified that populism in many ways. The poorest in Virginia were slaves, and Madison wanted to send them back to Africa rather than admit them as equals to the commonwealth. Federalist 10 presents Madison’s objections to “a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person.” He feared that “a common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole ….” But Madison constructed a political order that–when we honor its design–preserves individual liberties, defends minorities, promotes the “mild voice of reason,” and creates an important place for the “republican principle” of political equality.
It seems perfectly fitting that my father’s books should sit by the desk of the man who introduced the Bill of Rights and served as the second Rector of the University of Virginia.
[PS: I shouldn't have written "desk," as I believe the books are destined for a small room outside Madison's study that he used as a library.]
Looking ahead, 2014 is going to be a big year for democracy. According to The Economist, around 40 countries representing over 40% of the world’s population, and more than 50% of global GDP, will participate in elections this year.
Yet the pervasive mood in countries facing impending elections as well as those embroiled in people-led protest movements is that of disillusionment with politicians and (sometimes) elections. The calls for political accountability are becoming ever more emphatic. And in many cases the disenchantment is accompanied by an extreme polarization in voters’ choices.
It is interesting then to note that while the American voter seems to share this sense of disillusionment with politicians, it is not accompanied by a similar polarization in terms of political choices. If at all, the American voter seems to be losing interest in classic party affiliations.
What does the average American think about US efforts to promote democracy abroad? A recent survey by the Pew Research Center shows that only 18% of those interviewed believe that democracy promotion is a key foreign policy objective. This wariness with democracy promotion as a tool of foreign policy can partially be explained with the failed experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan and the prevailing conditions in the Middle East where many promising pro-democracy movements have disintegrated into chaos.
A key lesson is that any effort to promote or strengthen democracy without regard for political and cultural context is never a good idea. While increased participation, transparency and accountability remain goals worth pursuing, the practice of seeking to transplant Western-style democracy anywhere and everywhere is fraught with problems.
One aspect of this sort of ‘democratization’ is the creation of democratic institutions to replace existing well-functioning and popular traditional institutions. Replacing traditional institutions with propped-up institutions often leads to a diffusion of authority and accountability.
Lack of clarity in terms of roles and responsibilities perpetuates and even exacerbates the very corruption, inequity and injustice that democracy promotion programs intend to eradicate. Read more about an example from Afghanistan and another from Ghana, where consideration for context made all the difference.
Whether the efforts to strengthen democratic governance are endogenous or exogenous, it is important to remember that each case is distinct. The year has barely begun and the news is full of the events in Ukraine, Thailand, Egypt and elsewhere. Contextual nuance will be the key to understanding the many democratic (and undemocratic) twists and turns countries over the world negotiate in the coming year. 2014 will indeed be a big year for democracy.
Are for-profit colleges worth the cost? Students and employers seem ambivalent, according to Public Agenda research, summarized in this 2014 report.
Current and former for-profit students are satisfied with the quality of their schools. But they also consider the financial burden of these schools high, and alumni in particular aren't certain their degree was worth it.
Many employers perceive no differences between for-profit and public sector institutions, and some are actually unfamiliar with for-profit schools. Among those who do see a difference, most say community colleges and four-year public universities do a better job than for-profits at preparing students for the workplace.
Generally, students – prospective, current and graduates – and employers also seem quite distanced from the enthusiastic policy conversation about for-profit colleges. For-profit colleges dominate headlines (most recently because of federal government scrutiny) and are a top concern for education leaders and policymakers. But most students and employers are actually unfamiliar with the term. Many for-profit students don't even realize that the school they're attending is a for-profit.
Moreover, leaders in higher education, the federal government and philanthropy invest time and effort to make comparative information about colleges more easily accessible and engaging so that students can make informed – and presumably better – decisions about their education. These findings suggest that for-profit students are not comparative shoppers. Just 39 percent considered more than one school before attending, and 20 percent considered a not-for-profit.
The findings from this study also bolster those from on our companion report, "Is College Worth It for Me?" which suggests that efforts and information to help students choose the college that's right for them are not connecting with prospective students. While for-profit alumni say incoming students should pay "a great deal" of attention to statistics like graduation rates and the types of jobs graduates get, most current students do not know this information about their own schools.
The research was funded by The Kresge Foundation and is based on representative surveys with employers, current for-profit undergraduates, for-profit alumni, and prospective students between the ages of 18 and 55. The report also includes findings from focus groups with employers and adult prospective students.
We explore the findings in more depth below. Be sure to download the report for the full story.
Current Students and Alumni Are Enthusiastic About Their Schools' Quality
Students and alumni are clearly enthusiastic about their schools on a number of quality measures. For example, they agree that their schools have caring instructors, keep class sizes small, and give effective guidance (though alumni are slightly less enthusiastic). Current students also say their schools allow them to make good progress in their course of study.
But They Worry About Cost and Long-Term Value
Both students and alumni say their schools are expensive, and nearly half (47 percent) of current students say they worry "a lot" about taking on too much debt.
Alumni in particular are skeptical about the value of their degree, with 32 percent saying their degree "really wasn't worth it." (Thirty-seven percent say their degree was "well worth it"; 30 percent say it "remains to be seen.")
Furthermore, 4 in 10 say their schools were more concerned about making money than about educating students (only 20 percent of current for-profit students feel this way.
We did speak with for-profit alumni during a down job market, which may have an effect on their perspective. Nevertheless, it is certainly the case in this study that many graduates from for-profit schools put some blame on their schools for not adequately preparing them for the job market.
These findings are illustrated in the video below:
Prospective students considering for-profit colleges have distinct priorities
Adult prospective students who are considering a for-profit college are more likely to say that qualities like the availability of online classes, accelerated programs and hands-on support services are absolutely essential when they are choosing a school.
The research doesn’t establish whether there is a causal relationship between these individuals’ priorities and the schools they are favoring. However, these findings, combined with the satisfaction we see among current for-profit undergraduates, certainly raise an important question that warrants further digging: Are for-profits better than public institutions at serving the needs of some students?
Employers Are Still on the Sidelines
About half of the employers surveyed see few differences between for-profit and not-for-profit colleges. The other half typically view public institutions as superior on a number of counts. For example, 41 percent say public universities do a better job preparing students to work at their organizations.
Students Are Unfamiliar with the Term "For-Profit College" – Even When They're Attending One
The research also reveals a startling lack of awareness among students about the overall concept of for-profit colleges, especially in contrast to the energetic debate about the sector among experts, policymakers and the media. Many students who are attending or graduated from a for-profit school say "nothing comes to mind" when they hear the term. Over half of adult prospective students considering attending a for-profit school say the same. Furthermore, a full 65 percent of current for-profit students and 63 percent of for-profit alumni are unsure whether their school is for-profit or not.
Click to enlarge
Employers also lack knowledge on for-profit schools. Seventy-six percent haven’t heard or don’t know much about local for-profit schools in their own metropolitan area and 50 percent don’t have an opinion about large national for-profits like the University of Phoenix or DeVry. But nearly nine in ten (87 percent) are familiar with and opinionated about their region’s public universities.
Incoming Students Not Well-Informed About College Choices
Students from for-profit schools – who often come from economically vulnerable populations – are not comparative shoppers. Many are selecting schools without having weighed different options. Just 39 percent of for-profit undergraduates and 32 percent of for-profit alumni had considered more than one school before they enrolled at their current institutions. Students are even less likely to compare for-profit with not-for-profit schools before enrolling, with just 20 percent of for-profit undergraduates and 11 percent of alumni having considered a not-for-profit college. Parallel research with community college students suggests that "comparative shopping" is uncommon among other types of college students as well. Many students seem to be drawn to either for-profit or not-for-profit schools, though rarely to both.
...the reality is that most students in this research are not really making comparisons at all.
As our Research Director, Carolin Hagelskamp, put it, "I think sometimes policymakers have this idealistic vision of students sitting down with spreadsheets, comparing colleges across columns and columns of data. But the reality is that most students in this research are not really making comparisons at all. They rely on recommendations from friends and families and hear about schools through ads or because they pass by the schools on the street."
The research also suggests that incoming students may not understand how existing data about average student debt and the jobs and salaries of typical graduates relate to their college searches. Even though current for-profit students worry about debt, 61 percent do not know how much debt the average student from their school graduates with. With the benefit of hindsight, for-profit alumni say this information is valuable. Seven in 10 alumni say students should pay a "great deal" of attention to student debt data before enrolling, and 72 percent recommend incoming students pay attention to the types of jobs and salaries graduates typically get before enrolling. The research indicates that these alumni's insights still need to be bestowed on prospective students.
This report is part of a larger project surveying the attitudes of various student and employer groups toward issues in higher education, including online education, for-profit colleges and the needs of nontraditional students. To read the findings from these surveys, see the reports Is College Worth It For Me? and Not Yet Sold.
