Rousseau on Agenda-Setting and Majority Rule
Abstract
This essay examines the tension between agenda-setting and majority rule in the writings of one of the earliest and most original theorists of participatory democracy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Exploring Rousseau's views on lawmaking and the complexities associated with legislative initiation, specifically, this essay challenges the notion that representatives or legislative experts in a democracy inevitably reduce popular participation to acclamation. Contrary to authors who believe that Rousseau surreptitiously devolves political power to an elected elite who predecide a legislative agenda for a passive majority to vote upon later, I argue that the philosopher delegates authority to initiate the laws to representatives without undermining either the sovereignty or the robustness of citizen self-rule. This argument reveals, in part, why contemporary participatory democracy is not inherently “immobile” owing to the self-reinforcing benefits of democratic participation within a well-balanced constitution.The author wishes to thank Mads Qvortrup, Benjamin Wong, and APSR's Reviewers.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The evidence from The Social Contract and elsewhere in Rousseau's writings does not support Putterman's claim that the government in Rousseau's state possesses the exclusive right to propose legislation.
“the evidence from The Social Contract and elsewhere in the author's writings does not support Putterman's claim that the government in Rousseau's state possesses the exclusive right to propose legisla- tion”
From Rousseau's Anti–Agenda-Setting Agenda and Contemporary Democratic Theory (2005) · cites this paper as Putterman (2003)
Rousseau does not delegate the agenda-setting power of legislative initiative to the government.
“Rousseau does not del- egate the agenda-setting power of legislative initiative to the government”
From Rousseau's Anti–Agenda-Setting Agenda and Contemporary Democratic Theory (2005) · cites this paper as Putterman (2003)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rousseau's Anti–Agenda-Setting Agenda and Contemporary Democratic Theory
SCOTT, J. T. (2005) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055405051543 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Theoretical Perspectives on Bureaucrats: A Quest for Democratic Agents
Železnik, A., & Fink-Hafner, D. (2023) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/00953997231165998 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
- Authors
- PUTTERMAN, E.
- Affiliations
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Corresponding author
- PUTTERMAN, ETHAN
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 03
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2042579042
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 15 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 4.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Rousseau and Enlightenment Thought
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Keywords
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, agenda setting, majority rule, participatory democracy, delegation, popular sovereignty, self-government, legislative process, representative democracy, acclamation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review