Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7f7b94f6bd-745jg Total loading time: 0.375 Render date: 2022-06-30T07:12:22.960Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Voting with Your Feet: Exit-based Empowerment in Democratic Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2011

MARK E. WARREN*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
*
Mark E. Warren is Harold and Dorrie Merilees Chair in the Study of Democracy, Department of Political Science, University of British Columbia, C425-1866 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada (warren@politics.ubc.ca).

Abstract

Democracy is about including those who are potentially affected by collective decisions in making those decisions. For this reason, contemporary democratic theory primarily assumes membership combined with effective voice. An alternative to voice is exit: Dissatisfied members may choose to leave a group rather than voice their displeasure. Rights and capacities for exit can function as low-cost, effective empowerments, particularly for those without voice. But because contemporary democratic theory often dismisses exit as appropriate only for economic markets, the democratic potentials of exit have rarely been theorized. Exit-based empowerments should be as central to the design and integrity of democracy as distributions of votes and voice, long considered its key structural features. When they are integrated into other democratic devices, exit-based empowerments should generate and widely distribute usable powers for those who need them most, evoke responsiveness from elites, induce voice, discipline monopoly, and underwrite vibrant and pluralistic societies.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackermann, Bruce, and Fishkin, James S.. 2002. “Deliberation Day.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10: 129–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, Lee J., and Ferrie, Joseph P.. 1993. “Paternalism in Agricultural Labor Contracts in the U.S. South: Implications for the Growth of the Welfare State.” American Economic Review 83 (4): 852–76.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1974. “Review Article: Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.” British Journal of Political Science 4: 79107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Ulrich. 1996. The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 2002. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bobbio, Norberto. 1987. The Future of Democracy: A Defence of the Rules of the Game. Trans. Griffin, Roger. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, James. 2007. Democracy across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bowles, Samuel, and Gintis, Herbert. 1987. Democracy and Capitalism: Property, Community, and the Contradictions of Modern Social Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brandom, Robert. 2000. Articulating Reasons: An Introduction to Inferentialism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James. 1975. The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burnham, Walter Dean. 1970. Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Cai, Hongbin, and Treisman, Daniel. 2004. “State Corroding Federalism.” Journal of Public Economics 88: 819–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Dalton, Russell, and Scarrow, Susan. 2003. New Forms of Democracy? The Reform and Transformation of Democratic Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2006. “In Depth: Health Care.” CBC News Online, August 22. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/ (accessed July 13, 2011).Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean A., and Arato, Andrew. 1992. Civil Society and Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert, and Tufte, Edward. 1973. Size and Democracy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2007. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American Politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Jonathan S. 2007. “The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion.” Political Studies 55: 779800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deveaux, Monique. 2006. Gender and Justice in Multicultural Liberal States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Disch, Lisa. 2002. The Tyranny of the Two-party System. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domar, Evsey. 1970. “The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom: A Hypothesis.” Journal of Economic History 30 (1): 1832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, Keith, and Dunleavy, Patrick. 1996. “Production, Disbursement, and Consumption: The Modes and Modalities of Goods and Services.” In Consumption Matters, eds. Edgell, Stephan, Hetherington, Kevin, and Warde, Alan. Oxford: Blackwell, 3665.Google Scholar
Dowding, Keith, and John, Peter. 2008. “The Three Exit, Three Voice and Loyalty Framework: A Test with Survey Data on Local Services.” Political Studies 56: 288311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, Keith, John, Peter, Mergoupis, Thanos, and Van Vugt, Mark. 2000. “Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Analytic and Empirical Developments.” European Journal of Political Research 37: 469–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Michael. 2009. Civil Society. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Elster, Jon. 1997. “The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, eds. Bohman, James and Rehg, William. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 334.Google Scholar
Gastil, John. 2000. By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy through Deliberative Elections. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert. 2003. “Democratic Accountability: The Third Sector and All.” Working Paper No. 19. Cambridge, MA: Hauser Center, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35: 4068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Leslie. 1998. “Rights of Exit.” Legal Theory 4: 165–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guinier, Lani. 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy. NewYork: Free Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Trans. Rehg, William. Cambridge, MA: MIT University Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich A. 1944. The Road to Serfdom. London: George Routledge and Sons.Google Scholar
He, Baogang, and Warren, Mark E.. 2011. “Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development.” Perspectives on Politics 9 (2): 269–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, Mary. 2007. “School Choice, Brand Loyalty and Civic Loyalty.” Journal of Philosophy of Education 41: 743–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, David. 2006. Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1974. “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Further Reflections and a Survey of Recent Contributions.” Social Science Information 1: 726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1978. “Exit, Voice, and the State.” World Politics 31: 90107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirst, Paul. 1993. Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Hobson, Barbara. 1990. “No Exit, No Voice: Women's Economic Dependency and the Welfare State.” Acta Sociologica 33: 235–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Welzel, Christian. 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy: The Human Developmental Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. [1786] 1991. “What Is Orientation in Thinking.” In Political Writings, ed. Reiss, Hans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 237–49.Google Scholar
Kukathas, Chandran. 2003. The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, Charles. 2001. The Market System: What It Is, How It Works, and What to Make of It. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [1689] 1993. A Letter Concerning Toleration. In Political Writings of John Locke, ed. Wootton, David. New York: Penguin, 390435.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. 1977. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. “A ‘Selection Model’ of Political Representation.” Journal of Political Philosophy 17: 369–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. [1859] 1982. On Liberty, ed. Himmelfarb, Gertrude. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
Mintrom, Michael. 2003. “Market Organizations and Deliberative Democracy: Choice and Voice in Public Service Delivery.” Administration and Society 35: 5281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montanaro, Laura. 2008. “The Democratic Legitimacy of ‘Self-authorized’ Representatives.” Presented at a workshop entitled “Representation,” Princeton University Center for Human Values, December 5.Google Scholar
Näsström, Sofia. 2011. “The Challenge of the All-affected Principle.” Political Studies 59: 116–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Dwight G. 2007. “Exit, Voice, and ‘Exile’: Rights to Exit and Rights to Eject.” University of Toronto Law Journal 57: 4379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offe, Claus. 1996. Modernity and the State: East, West. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Okin, Susan M. 2002‘Mistresses of Their Own Destiny’: Group Rights, Gender, and Realistic Rights of Exit.” Ethics 112: 205–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, Kevin. 2006. Reflexive Democracy: Political Equality and the Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1971. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Good and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1975. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 1999. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, Anne. 2007. Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Philp, Mark. 2001. “Access, Accountability, and Authority: Corruption and the Democratic Process.” Crime, Law and Social Change 36 (4): 357–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pogge, Thomas. 2002. “Self-constituting Constituencies to Enhance Freedom, Equality, and Participation in Democratic Procedures.” Theoria: 99: 2654.Google Scholar
Poggi, Gianfranco. 1990. The State: Its Nature, Development, and Prospects. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 2010. Democracy and the Limits of Self-government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Stokes, Susan C., and Manin, Bernard. eds. 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D., Leonardi, Robert, and Nonetti, Raffaella Y.. 1994. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Henry. 2003. Democratic Autonomy: Public Reasoning about the Ends of Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. 1998. Membership and Morals: The Personal Uses of Pluralism in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy. 2008. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Verba, Sidney, and Brady, Henry E.. 2010. “Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet.” Perspectives on Politics 8: 487509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe. 2000. How to Democratize the European Union—And Why Bother? Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph, A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1994. The Wealth of Nations, ed. Cannan, Edwin. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Sørensen, Eva. 1997. “Democracy and Empowerment.” Public Administration 75: 553–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, John. 2000. Political Scandal: Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Tiebout, Charles. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1848] 1969. Democracy in America, trans. Lawrence, George. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Van Deth, Jan. 2000. “Interesting but Irrelevant: Social Capital and the Saliency of Politics in Western Europe.” European Journal of Political Research 37: 115–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Volunteerism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 1999. “Democratic Theory and Trust.” In Democracy and Trust, ed. Warren, Mark E.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 310–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2001. Democracy and Association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2003. “A Second Transformation of Democracy?” In Democracy Transformed: Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies, eds. Cain, Bruce, Dalton, Russell, and Scarrow, Susan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 223–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2006. “Democracy and the State.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, eds. Dryzek, John, Honig, Bonnie, and Phillips, Anne. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 382–99.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark E. 2009. “Governance-driven Democratization.” Critical Policy Studies 3: 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Mark R. 2001. Dry Bones Rattling: Community Building to Revitalize American Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. [1919] 1946. “Politics as a Vocation.” In From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, eds. and trans. Gerth, Hans and Mills, C. Wright. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yardley, Jim. 2010. “India Asks, Should Food Be a Right for the Poor?” New York Times, August 8. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/world/asia/09food.html (accessed January 21, 2010).Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
56
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Voting with Your Feet: Exit-based Empowerment in Democratic Theory
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Voting with Your Feet: Exit-based Empowerment in Democratic Theory
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Voting with Your Feet: Exit-based Empowerment in Democratic Theory
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *