This issue of Democratic Theory aims to contribute to critical social science by bridging the gap between democratic theory and critical political economy (CPE). Despite a common grounding in a normative commitment to emancipation, these fields have lately spoken past each other. Democratic theory is relatively voluntarist, focusing on the realization of normative principles through institutional design. However, it has often overlooked capitalism's influence on democracy, and accepted the artificial separation of the political and economic realms in ways that constrain the possibilities for democratic expansion. CPE, on the other hand, has developed realist and historical analyses of capitalist constraint and dynamism. It can offer a structural compass for democratic theories’ interventionist energies, while also being moved beyond pure critique by them. The central theme of this issue, “democratizing the economy,” shifts the focus toward a deeper exploration of the potential for democratic designs to transform economic structures.

Our article sheds light on two enduring debates within the cooperative literature: the degeneration thesis and the spillover thesis. While the degeneration thesis suggests cooperatives are doomed to failure, the spillover thesis suggests otherwise, contending that the experience of democratic control furthers social change beyond the cooperative itself. By turning to critical theory, we are able to bring new insights into these conversations. The early Frankfurt School placed a primacy on the subjectivity of social actors, arguing that capitalism serves to impact the consciousness, rationality, and depth-psychology of subjects, acculturating them to market societies. By exploring this in conjunction with the literature on cooperatives, we are able to add weight to the degeneration thesis and to demand further concessions from advocates of the spillover thesis. Ultimately, the article stresses the lack of importance placed to date on subjectivity within cooperative studies and argues that this needs to be remedied.

This article assesses the constraints and capacities for Canadian state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to enhance economic democracy. Constraints include the democratic deficit produced by the commercialization of SOEs, which shifted away from historically privileging the social outcomes of public enterprise, together with the construction of a global governance architecture with binding and enforceable trade agreements that constrain democratic decision-making and state activity. Capacities include opportunities for SOEs to address deleterious economic outcomes through a rejuvenation of the socially oriented public enterprise tradition in areas of vexing policy concern. The article argues that SOEs can be an important component of enhanced extended state democracy through their redistributive outcomes that provide non-market income support for social infrastructure and services.

The increasingly obvious unsustainability of neoliberal capitalism creates an urgent need to understand how societies can meet their needs in a just and sustainable fashion. The new theoretical framework of the “Foundational Economy” may provide answers, as it explores a holistic transformation of essential reliance systems, such as food provision, energy, care, and housing. However, its conceptualization of democratic agency needs to be strengthened.

This article addresses this need by expanding the Foundational Economy framework with insights from the literature on social reproduction theory (SRT) and the solidarity economy (SE). SRT highlights the gendered and racialized hierarchies of essential reliance systems as key targets for transformation, while the SE encompasses participatory and non-capitalist practices that can democratize those systems. This expanded framework is applied to the UK agroecology movement, which aims to build democratic, sustainable, and non-capitalist alternatives to the food system, while subverting its classed, gendered, and racialized inequalities.

We argue for consideration of deliberative democratic pathways to governing infrastructure systems to enable a planned reduction in economic activity. Given the dominant perspective is “infrastructure facilitates growth”, we first consider contemporary criticisms of growth. We critique the large-scale, complex infrastructures implied, and the forms of democratic governance envisaged. Such infrastructures drive forms of economic activity that advocates of degrowth demonstrate are incompatible with attempts to reduce resources consumed by contemporary economies and their emissions. We argue any deliberation on infrastructures must acknowledge they are not simply physical objects but rather bundles of relationships. With dominant economic relationships challenged by the view that infrastructures ought to be managed as commons we argue that the relational perspective sets the stage for deliberation over physical, social, and environmental infrastructure that escapes what are incorrectly assumed to be insurmountable path dependencies.

This conversation with Nancy Fraser explores her work on the crises of capitalism, democracy, and participation. Fraser has argued that much scholarship in political science and democratic theory on these issues is hampered by “politicism”—an inclination to view the political in separation from other social spheres, which fails to appreciate the structural nature of contemporary crises. Fraser argues that the political arena is important because it is here that collective regulatory powers are exercised, however it needs to be situated within a broader understanding of the social totality to understand how it is affected by crisis dynamics in other spheres and how it might contribute to attenuating, or resolving, these. Our conversation begins by exploring these arguments in relation to Fraser's recent work on the critique of capitalism, and then traces how this relates to her work on the public sphere, participatory parity, and utopian thought.