Circular Economic System Under Political Economy Through Institutional Participation and Good Governance: In Search of Attainment of Dynamics of Macroeconomic Stability
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online June, 2024
Circular Economic System Under Political Economy Through Institutional Participation and Good Governance: In Search of Attainment of Dynamics of Macroeconomic Stability
The political economy plays an important role in good governance with institutionalisation and environmental scanning. This can assist in alleviating social injustice and reducing income inequality in an emerging economy, alongside an expanded formal sector and equitable growth. Macroeconomic stability can lead to favourable outcomes for the overall socio-economic landscape of a country, depending upon the effectiveness of a circular economy. Implementation of SDG-10 is vital for the social and financial inclusion of the people. This study examines whether the circular economy can contribute to achieving a substantial, planned and participatory democracy, thereby advancing institutional participation through good governance to attain macroeconomic stability. We found that contributory and participatory governance arrangements are essential for pro-people government and can be regarded as a criterion for effective participation. This can be facilitated through the circular economy to achieve macroeconomic stability dynamics in an emerging economy like Bangladesh.
AcemogluD., NaiduS., RestrepoP., & RobinsonJ. A. (2019). Democracy does cause growth. Journal of Political Economy, 127(1), 47–100.
2.
AndersonB. (1991). Imagined communities. Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (2nd ed.). Verso.
3.
AnheierH. K., ListR. A., KononykhinaO., & Leong CohenJ. (2017). Cultural participation and inclusive societies. A thematic report based on the Indicator Framework on Culture and Democracy. Council of Europe.
4.
AwanU., & SroufeR. (2022). Sustainability in the circular economy: Insights and dynamics of designing circular business Models. Applied Sciences, 12(3), 1521. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12031521
5.
BächtigerA., DryzekJ. S., MansbridgeJ., & WarrenM. E. (Eds.) (2018). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 1–31). Oxford University Press.
6.
BarberB. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. University of California Press.
7.
BatsonB. (1994). ‘Foreword’. In WilcoxD. (Ed.), The guide to effective participation. Delta Press.
8.
BaumgartnerF. R., & JonesB. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. The University of Chicago Press.
9.
BeierleT., & CayfordJ. (2002). Democracy in practice: Public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future.
10.
BirklandT. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events. Georgetown University Press.
11.
BowlerS., & DonovanT. (2002). Democracy, institutions and attitudes about citizen influence on government. British Journal of Political Science, 32(02), 371–390.
12.
BradyA. M. (2022). SDG 10: The politics and policies of inequality in the West, 1800–2015. In MartinGutmann & DanielGorman (Eds.), Before the UN sustainable development goals: A historical companion. Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192848758.003.0011
13.
CohenN. (1995). Technical assistance for citizen participation: A case study of New York city’s environmental planning process. American Review of Public Administration, 25(2), 119–136.
14.
CreightonJ. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. Jossey-Bass.
15.
DahlR. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.
16.
Dellepiane-AvellanedaS. (2010). Good governance, institutions and economic development: Beyond the conventional wisdom. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 195–224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123409990287
17.
DenielssonM., HerttingN., & KlijnE. H. (2018). Institutionalizing local participatory governance in representative Democracy. HerttingN., & KugelbergC. (Eds.), Local participatory governance and representative democracy. Routledge.
18.
DuttaP. K. (2023, 18March). Kuki-Chin-Mizo. The Daily Sun. Retieved, 1st April, 2023, fromhttps://www.daily-sun.com/printversion/details/679728#:~:text=Kuki%2DChin%2DMizo,Pradip%20Kumar%20Dutta
19.
ElliottJ. E. (1994). Joseph A. Schumpeter and the theory of democracy. Review of Social Economy, 52(4), 280–300. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/29769747
20.
EnglA. (2014.) Zusammenhalt und Vielfalt in Europas Grenzregionen. Der Europäische Verbund für territoriale Zusammenarbeit in normativer und praktischer Dimension. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
21.
FischerF. (2006). Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment. The cultural politics of discursive space. American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19–40.
22.
FischerF. (2012). Participatory governance: From theory to practice. In:Levi-FaurD.(Ed), The Oxford handbook of governance (pp. 457–471). Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560530.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199560530-e-32
23.
FlyvbjergB. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press.
24.
FungA., & WrightE. O. (2003). Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In FungA. and Olin WrightE. (Eds.), Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance (The real utopias project IV, pp. 3–45). Verso.
25.
GastilJ., & Wright E.O. (2018). Legislature by lot: Envisioning Sortition within a bicameral system. Politics & Society, 46(3), 303–330.
26.
GaventaJ., McGeeR., & ZipfelT. (2007). How do Local governments support citizen engagement?Background note for the International Workshop for Champions of Participation in Local Government, Institute of Development Studies, May 29–June 4, 2007. Institute of Development Studies.
27.
GualiniE. (2003). Cross-border governance: Inventing regions in a transnational multi-level polity. The Planning Review, 152(2), 43–52.
28.
HerttingN., & KlijnE. H. (2018). Institutionalization of local participatory governance in France, the Netherlands, and Sweden: Three arguments reconsidered. In HerttingN., KugelbergC. (Eds.), Local participatory governance and representative democracy. Routledge.
29.
InnesJ. E., & BooherD. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5, 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464935042000293170
30.
JessopB. (2000). The crisis of the national spatio-temporal fix and the tendential ecological dominance of globalizing capitalism. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 24(2), 323–360.
31.
KabeerN. (1999). Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Development and Change, 30, 435–464.
32.
KarpowitzC., & RaphaelC. (2019). Ideals of inclusion in deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 12(2). https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol12/iss2/art3
33.
KatunarićV. (2003). Decentralization in Southeast Europe: Objectives, instruments, practices. A methodological paper for (comparative) research on cultural policy. Policies for Culture. http://www.policiesforculture.org/dld/PfC_VKatunaric_SEEDecentralisation.pdf
34.
KawashimaN. (2004). Planning for equality?Decentralisation in cultural policy. Working Paper. University of Warwick, Centre for Cultural Policy Studies.
35.
KazepovY. (Ed.). (2005). Cities of Europe. Changing contexts, local arrangements and the challenge to social Cohesion. Oxford University Press.
36.
KeatingM. (2002). Territorial politics and the new regionalism. In HeywoodP. (Eds.), Development in West European politics (Vol 2, pp. 201–220). Springer.
37.
KeatingM. (1997). The invention of regions: Political restructuring and territorial government in western Europe. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 15, 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1068/c150383
38.
KingdonJ. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Harper Collins.
39.
KnippschildR. (2011). Cross-border spatial planning: Understanding, designing and managing cooperation processes in the German–Polish–Czech borderland. European Planning Studies, 19(4), 629–645.
40.
Knobloch K.R., & GastilJ. (2014). Civic (re)socialisation: The educative effects of deliberative participation. Politics, 35(2), 183–200.
41.
LaclauE. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. Verso.
42.
LevineD. P. (2014). Normative political economy subjective freedom, the market and the state. Routledge.
43.
MarkusseJ. (2004). Transborder regional alliances in Europe: Chances for ethnic Euroregions?Geopolitics, 9(3), 649–673.
44.
MedeirosE. (2011). (Re)defining the Euroregion concept. European Planning Studies, 19(1), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2011.531920
45.
MoeT. M. (1990). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In WilliamsonO. E. (Ed.), Organization theory: From Chester Barnard to the present and beyond (pp. 116–153). Oxford University Press.
46.
NicksonA. (2011). Where is local government going in Latin America? A comparative perspective. Working Paper 6. Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy.
47.
PaasiA. (1986). The institutionalization of regions: A theoretical framework for understanding the emergence of regions and the construction of regional identity. Fennia, 164(1), 105–146.
48.
PatemanC. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
49.
PerkmannM. (2007). Construction of new territorial scales: A framework and case study of the EUREGIO cross-border region. Regional Studies, 41(2), 253–266.
50.
PetakZ. (2006). Policy in a transitional context: Performing decentralization in Croatia. InColebathH. K.(Ed.), The work of policy (pp. 83–106). Lexington Books.
51.
PitkinH. F. (1970). The concept of representation. University of California Press.
52.
RayB. (1999). Good governance, administrative reform and socio-economic realities: A South Pacific perspective. International Journal of Social Economics, 26(1–3), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068299910229749
53.
SantosB. de S. (Ed.). (2005). Democratizing democracy: Beyond the liberal democratic Canon. Verso.
54.
SenecahS. L. (2004). The trinity of voice: The role of practical theory in planning and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental participatory processes. In DepoeS. P., DelicathJ. W. & Aelpi Elsen-beerM. F. (Eds.), Communication and public participation in environmental decision-making (pp. 13–33). State University of New York Press.
55.
SchumpeterJ. A. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge.
56.
SimrellK. C., & StiversC. (1998). Government is us. Sage.
StephensJ. B., & BernerM. (2011). Learning from your neighbor: The value of public participation evaluation for public policy dispute resolution. Journal of Public Deliberation, 7(1), 10.
59.
TwaP. S. (2021). Financial institutions must stand with the people of Myanmar. https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-financial-institutions-must-stand-with-the-people-of-myanmar-99510
60.
UNESCAP (2023). What is good governance. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf
61.
VidovićD. (2015). O Radnoj bilježnici za društveno-kulturne centre. In VidovićD. (Ed.), Radna bilježnica za društveno-kulturne centre: povodom Radnog skupa ‘Prema institucionalnom pluralizmu: Razvoj društveno-kulturnih centara’, Zagreb, 12–14. studenoga. Zagreb: Zaklada ‘Kultura nova’. 3–4.
62.
WarrenM. E. (2009). Governance-driven democratization. Critical Policy Studies, 3(1), 3–13.
63.
World Bank. (2022). Worldwide governance indicators. https://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/
64.
YoungI. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford University Press.
