In political theory, descriptive representation as a corrective to structural asymmetries within society is usually debated against the background of formal political institutions. It is discussed in this paper as a means to enhance the declining legitimacy of Dutch works councils as important sites of democratic decision-making in their own right. The aim is to show that the moral requirements of democratic inclusion have to be weighed against the functional requirements of effective representation, concluding that in some cases the costs in terms of effectiveness exceed the gains in terms of inclusiveness. Hence, the debate about descriptive representation is clearly in need of a more contextualized assessment of its pros and cons.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherR. (1995) Economic Democracy: The Politics of Feasible Socialism.Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2.
BaderV. M.EngelenE. R. (2003) ‘Taking Pluralism Seriously: Arguing for an Institutional Turn in Political Philosophy’, Philosophy & Social Criticism, 29 (4), 375–406.
3.
BohmanJ. (1998) ‘The Coming of Age of Deliberative Democracy’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (4), 400–25.
4.
DahlR. (1985) A Preface to Economic Democracy.Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
5.
De VriesR.Schins DerksenE. (2000) Onderzoek Samenstelling Ondernemingsraden.The Hague: Elsevier's Bedrijfsinformatie.
6.
DoviS. (2002) ‘Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?’, American Political Science Review, 96 (4), 729–43.
7.
DubielH. (1994) Ungewissheit und Politik.Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.
8.
DubielH. (1998) ‘Cultivated Conflicts’, Political Theory, 26 (2), 209–20.
9.
DworkinR. (1981a) ‘What Is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10 (3/4), 185–246.
10.
DworkinR. (1981b) ‘What Is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10 (3/4), 283–345.
11.
EngelenE. (2002) ‘Corporate Governance, Property, and Democracy: A Conceptual Critique of Shareholder Ideology’, Economy & Society, 31 (3), 391–413.
12.
van EwijkM.Van der HalstM. (2001) ‘Monitor Medezeggenschap: Analyse Bestaande Bronnen tot Mei 2001. Eindrapport’, Research voor Beleid, Leiden.
13.
GrapperhausF.VerburgL. (2002) Employment Law and Works Councils of the Netherlands.The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
14.
HarawayD. (1988) ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies, 14 (3), 575–99.
15.
HirschmanA. (1995) A Propensity to Self-Subversion.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
16.
KymlickaW. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
MansbridgeJ. (2000) ‘What Does a Representative Do? Descriptive Representation in Communicative Settings of Distrust, Uncrystallized Interests, and Historically Denigrated Status’, in KymlickaW.NormanW. (eds), Citizenship in Diverse Situations.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 99–123.
18.
OffeC. (1995) ‘Some Skeptical Considerations on the Malleability of Representative Institutions’, in WrightE. O. (ed.), Associations and Democracy.London: Verso, pp. 114–32.
19.
PatemanC. (1970) Participation and Democracy.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
20.
PhillipsA. (1995) The Politics of Presence.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
21.
PhillipsA. (1998) ‘Democracy and Representation. Or, Why Should It Matter Who Our Representatives Are?’, in PhillipsA. (ed.), Feminism and Politics.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 224–40.
22.
PioreM. (1995) Beyond Individualism.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
PitkinH. (1967) The Concept of Representation.Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
24.
ScharpfF. (1970) Demokratietheorie zwischen Utopie und Anpassung.Constance: Universitätsverlag.
25.
ScharpfF. (1999) Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
SchmitterP.StreeckW. (1999) ‘The Organization of Business Interests: Studying the Associative Action of Business in Advanced Industrial Societies’ [1981], discussion paper, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne.
27.
SlootB. P. (1986) Positieve Discriminatie: Maatschappelijke Ongelijkheid en Rechtsontwikkeling in de Verenigde Staten en Europa.Zwolle: T'eenk Willink.
28.
van der VeenJ.EngelenM.Van der AalstM. (2002) ‘Naleving van de Wet op de Ondernemingsraden: Stand van Zaken 2002. Eindrapport’, Research voor Beleid, Leiden.
29.
WeeningH.TeulingsS. (2001) Betrokkenheidgroeit met de Tijd: Veranderingen in de Agenda van Ondernemingsraden.The Hague: Elsevier's Bedrijfsinformatie.
30.
WilliamsM. S. (1998) Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation.Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
WilliamsM. (2000) ‘The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative Democracy’, in KymlickaW.NormanW. (eds), Citizenship in Diverse Societies.Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 124–54.
32.
YoungI. M. (1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
YoungI. M. (2000) Inclusion and Democracy.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
