CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 329Political Theory and DemocracyPolitical Philosophy and EthicsGlobalization and political ideologies

The boundary problem in democratic theory: why the demos should be bounded by the state

Open access
Song, Sarah·2012·International Theory
DOI 10.1017/s1752971911000248
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Democracy is rule by the demos, but by what criteria is the demos constituted? Theorists of democracy have tended to assume that the demos is properly defined by national boundaries or by the territorial boundaries of the modern state. In a recent turn, many democratic theorists have advanced the principles of affected interests and coercion as the basis for defining the boundaries of democracy. According to these principles, it is not co-nationals or fellow citizens but all affected or all subjected to coercion who constitute the demos. In this paper, I argue that these recent approaches to the boundary problem are insufficiently attentive to the conditions of democracy . Democracy is not merely a set of procedures; it also consists of substantive values and principles. Political equality is a constitutive condition of democracy, and solidarity is an instrumental condition of democracy. The affected interests and coercion principles create serious problems for the realization of these conditions – problems of size and stability. Building on this critique, this paper presents democratic considerations for why the demos should be bounded by the territorial boundaries of the state, grounded in the state's role in (1) securing the constitutive conditions of democracy, (2) serving as the primary site of solidarity conducive to democratic participation, and (3) establishing clear links between representatives and their constituents. I examine and reject a third alternative, a global demos bounded by a world state, and conclude by considering some practical implications of my argument.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1752971911000248

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Members of the demos should have an equal opportunity to influence the decisions reached.

    “Beyond this, they should have an equal opportunity to influence the decisions reached (see Erman, 2014, pp. 539-42;Song, 2012, pp. 45-46; for a longer discussion of the role that the idea of equal influence plays in justifying democracy, see; Kolodny, 2014).”

    From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Song, 2012

  • The political equality argument will often speak in favour of existing territorial states as sites of democracy, since it is within such states that the interlinking of interests supporting equality is most likely to be found.

    “Such cases aside, the political equality argument will often speak in favour of existing territorial states as sites of democracy, since it is within such states that we are most likely to see the interlinking of interests that supports equality (see Song, 2012, pp. 58-62).”

    From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Song, 2012

  • AAIP seems to indicate that ideally the decision-making body should be constituted afresh for each new decision, since a different set of interests will be at stake.

    “Contrast here, the approach suggested by AAIP, which, as critics have pointed out, seems to indicate that ideally the decision-making body should be constituted afresh for each new decision, since a different set of interests will be at stake (Song, 2012, pp. 56-58;Whelan, 1983, pp. 18-19).”

    From Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem (2020) · cites this paper as Song, 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. Abizadeh, Arash. 2008. ''Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control your own Borders.'' Political Theory 36(1):37-65.
  2. --2010. ''Democratic Legitimacy and State Coercion: A Reply to David Miller.'' Political Theory 38(1):121-30.
  3. Agne ´, Hans. 2010. ''Why Democracy must be Global: Self-Founding and Democratic Inter- vention.'' International Theory 2(3):381-409.
  4. Bartelson, Jens. 2008. ''Globalizing the Democratic Community.'' Ethics & Global Politics 1(4):159-74.
  5. Beckman, Ludvig. 2009. The Frontiers of Democracy: The Right to Vote and Its Limits. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
  6. Beitz, C.R. 1989. Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  7. Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. ''Toward a Deliberative Model of Democratic Legitimacy.'' In Democracy and Difference, edited by Seyla Benhabib. . Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  8. Blais, Andre ´. 2006. ''What Affects Voter Turnout?'' Annual Review of Political Science 9:111-25.
  9. Blais, Andre ´, and Agnieszka Dobrzynska. 1998. ''Turnout in Electoral Democracies.'' European Journal of Political Research 33:239-61.
  10. Blake, Michael. 2002. ''Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy.'' Philosophy and Public Affairs 30(3):257-96.
  11. Bohman, James. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Brighouse, Harry and Marc Fleurbaey. 2010. ''Democracy and Proportionality.'' The Journal of Political Philosophy 18(2):137-55.
  13. Christiano, Thomas. 2006. ''A democratic Theory of Territory and some Puzzles about Global Democracy.'' Journal of Social Philosophy 37(1):81-107.
  14. --2008. The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. Cohen, Joshua. 1989. ''Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.'' In The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, edited by Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit, 17-34. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  16. --1996. ''Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy.'' In Democracy and Differnence: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by Seyla Benhabib. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  17. Dahl, Robert A. [1970] 1990. After the Revolution?: Authority in a Good Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  18. --1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  19. --2006. On Political Equality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  20. Dahl, Robert A., and E.R. Tufte. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
  21. Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  22. Gould, Carol. 2004. Globalizing Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  23. Habermas, Ju ¨rgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, translated by W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  24. Hayward, Clarissa. 2011. ''What can Political Freedom Mean in a Multicultural Democracy? On Deliberation, Difference, and Democratic Governance.'' Political Theory 39(4):468-97.
  25. Held, David. 1995. Democracy and the Global Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  26. Kant, Immanuel. 1991. ''Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.'' In Political Writings, 2d ed., translated by H.B. Nisbet, edited by H. Reiss, 93-130. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  27. Knight, Jack, and James Johnson 1997. ''What Sort of Political Equality does Deliberative Democracy Require?'' In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  28. Koenig-Archibugi, Mathias. 2010. ''Is Global Democracy Possible?'' European Journal of International Relations 17(3):519-42.
  29. --2011. ''Fuzzy Citizenship in Global Society.'' The Journal of Political Philosophy 20:1-25.
  30. Lo ´pez-Guerra, Claudio. 2005. ''Should Expatriates Vote?'' The Journal of Political Philosophy 13(2):216-34.
  31. MacDonald, Terry. 2003. ''Boundaries beyond Borders: Delineating Democratic 'Peoples' in a Globalizing World.'' Democratization 10(3):173-94.
  32. --2008. Global Stakeholder Democracy: Power and Representation beyond Liberal States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  33. Marchetti, Raffaele. 2008. Global Democracy: For and Against. London: Routledge.
  34. Mason, Andrew. 2000. Community, Solidarity, and Belonging: Levels of Community and Their Normative Significance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Miller, David. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  36. --2006. ''Multiculturalism and the Welfare State: Theoretical Reflections.'' In Multi- culturalism and the Welfare State: Recognition and Redistribution in Contemporary Democracies, edited by K. Banting and W. Kymlicka. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  37. Miller, David. 2009. ''Democracy's Domain.'' Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(3):201-28.
  38. Na ¨sstro ¨m, Sofia. 2007. ''The Legitimacy of the People.'' Political Theory 35(5):624-58.
  39. Oliver, J. Eric 2000. ''City Size and Civic Involvement in Metropolitan America.'' American Political Science Review 94:361-73.
  40. Rawls, John. [1971] 1999. A Theory of Justice, rev. ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  41. Rawls, Jean-Jacques. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  42. Raz, Joseph. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  43. Rose, Andrew K. 2006. ''Size Really Doesn't Matter: In search of a National Scale Effect.'' Journal of the Japanese and International Economies 20(4): 482-507.
  44. Saward, Michael. 2000. ''A Critique of Held.'' In Global Democracy: Key Debates, edited by B. Holden. London: Routledge.
  45. Schmitter, Philippe C. 1997. ''Exploring the Problematic Triumph of Liberal Democracy and Concluding with a Modest Proposal for Improving its International Impact.'' In Democracy's Victory and Crisis, edited by Axel Hadenius, 297-310. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  47. Shapiro, Ian. 1999. Democratic Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  48. Simmons, A. John. 1979. Moral Principles and Political Obligations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  49. --2001. Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Smith, Rogers M. 2008. ''The Principle of Constituted Identities and the Obligation to Include.'' Ethics & Global Politics 1(3):139-53.
  51. --2011. ''Living in a Promiseland?: Mexican Immigration and American Obligations.'' Perspectives on Politics 9(3): 545-58.
  52. Song, Sarah. 2009. ''Democracy and Noncitizen Voting Rights.'' Citizenship Studies 13(6):607-20.
  53. --2011. ''Three Models of Civic Solidarity.'' In Citizenship, Borders, and Human Needs, edited by Rogers M. Smith. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
  54. Taylor, Charles. 1993. ''Shared and Divergent Values.'' In Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism, edited by G. Laforest. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.
  55. --1999. ''Democratic exclusion (and its remedies?).'' In Multiculturalism, Liberalism, and Democracy, edited by A. Bagchi, R. Bhargava and R. Sudarshan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  56. Tilly, Charles. 2007. Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  57. --2004. Arguing about War. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  58. Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  59. Wendt, Alexander. 2003. ''Why a World State is Inevitable.'' European Journal of International Relations 9(4):491-542.
  60. Whelan, Frederick G. 1983. ''Prologue: Democratic Theory and the Boundary Problem.'' In Nomos 25: Liberal Democracy, edited by J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman, 13-47. New York: New York University Press.
  61. Wolf, Klaus Dieter. 1999. ''The New Raison d'Etat as a Problem for Democracy in World Society.'' European Journal of International Relations 5(3):333-63.
  62. Young, I.M. 2000. Democracy and Inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Song, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Berkeley (US)
Corresponding author
Song, Sarah
ORCID
Song, Sarah
Venue
International Theory
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2012-03-15
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
39-68
ISSN
  • 1752-9719 (ISSN-L)
  • 1752-9727
DOI
10.1017/s1752971911000248
OpenAlex
W2092829147
Cited by
329
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
38.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
  • International Theory (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
  • bepress Legal Repository (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • Berkley Law Scholarship Repository (University of California, Berkeley) (submittedVersion)
Funders
American Political Science Association
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Globalization and political ideologies
Keywords
boundary problem, democratic theory, DEMO, territorial boundaries, political equality, solidarity, representative democracy, constituent representation, global democracy, world state

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