for Journals by Title or ISSN
for Articles by Keywords
help
Followed Journals
Journal you Follow: 0
 
Sign Up to follow journals, search in your chosen journals and, optionally, receive Email Alerts when new issues of your Followed Journals are published.
Already have an account? Sign In to see the journals you follow.
Journal Cover Intergenerational Justice Review
  [0 followers]  Follow
    
  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
   ISSN (Print) 2190-6335
   Published by U of Tübingen Homepage  [1 journal]
  • Editorial

    • Authors: Bruce Auerbach, Maria Lenk, Antony Mason, Markus Rutsche
      Abstract: How should one balance placing some questions beyond the control of a simple majority in a constitutional system with the need to preserve for future generations the ability to modify the constitution they inherit from their ancestors' This, in essence, is the problem we posed to the authors in this two-volume edition of the IGJR. In the first volume, the authors focused on the disagreement between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison concerning the desirability of rewriting the US Constitution every generation. The authors sided with Madison, arguing that constitutional endurance was important for advancing the interests of future generations.The authors in this volume take constitutional endurance their starting point. The question they ask is how difficult it should be to alter constitutional provisions. They explore a wide range of options. At one end of the spectrum, the provisions of a constitution could be barely more difficult to alter than an ordinary statute. At the other end are eternity clauses, which seek to make specific provisions, or even the entire constitution, permanently unalterable. In between are many possible arrangements requiring different levels of supermajority support to change the provisions of a constitution.
      Constitutions seek to protect institutional arrangements and certain rights and privileges against the possibility that future generations may prefer to abandon those provisions. But what is at stake is not only the protection of cherished values and institutions, and the ability of future generations to exercise sovereignty, but also the survival of the constitution. Constitutions that are especially difficult to change may be more likely to be abandoned as unworkable, or to be overthrown in a revolution.
      Constitutions are valuable precisely because they remove some questions from the hands of electoral majorities. Yet, one needs to balance the  importance of placing some questions beyond the control of a simple majority with the need to preserve democratic rule and the ability of future generations to adapt the constitution they have inherited to their changing needs. How does one strike that balance'The authors in this volume of the IGJR are in agreement on two basic propositions. One is that it is important to place certain questions beyond the reach of simple majorities. They see restrictions on the choices of future generations as justified by the benefits that a constitution confers: greater stability in a political system, the protection of certain fundamental rights, the removal from the day-to-day political contention of certain vexing political questions. The authors also agree on a second proposition. They see eternity clauses as undesirable. It is one thing to bar changes temporarily until support for a constitution is established, quite another to seek to prevent changes in perpetuity. The former may be justified, the latter represents lack of faith in the integrity of the political institutions and traditions that a constitution is establishing, and in the judgement of future generations.If there is agreement on the contours of the provisions of constitutions, there is much less agreement on what types of restraints on constitutional changes are desirable. Should some parts of the constitution be more difficult to change than others' If so, which parts and which provisions' The question the authors of the papers in this volume ask is how to best to protect democracy and the interests of future generations in a constitutional system characterised by endurance.Jörg Tremmel is on leave as editor of the IGJR, and did not participate in the editorial decisions for this issue. This enabled him to submit an article, himself. In this article, Constitutions as Intergenerational Contracts: Flexible or fixed', Jörg Tremmel writes that, with regard to intergenerational justice, the endurance of constitutions gives rise to two concerns: the (forgone) welfare concern and the sovereignty concern. The difficulty of changing the provisions of a constitution may prevent future generations from changing provisions that are harmful to their welfare. He outlines a procedure for constitution-amending that he argues is intergenerationally just. Specifically, he makes the case that recurrent constitutional reform  commissions, in fixed intervals, strike the best balance between the rigidity required of constitutions and the flexibility necessary to ensure justice to future generations.In Constitutional Handcuffs, Richard Albert seeks to reinforce the theoretical foundations of constitutional entrenchment by defining degrees of constitutional permanence. Albert argues that absolute entrenchment undermines the participatory values essential to constitutionalism. He proposes an alternative to entrenchment, which he terms the entrenchment simulator. The entrenchment simulator retains the expressive value of the entrenchment of shared social and political values, while still allowing those rules to be amended, albeit with great difficulty.In the final paper, Constitutions as Chains', Konstantin Chatziathanasiou distinguishes between the challenge of establishing intergenerationally just constitutional provisions, and the challenge of creating a stable institution. He prioritises the stability. Chatziathanasiou discusses different ways of addressing the challenges of constitution-making, such as the amendability of a constitution, eternity clauses or recurring constitutional assemblies, concluding that a flexible approach towards existing constitutional provisions, that is open to future developments, is best.In the end, whether constitutional entrenchment is good or bad may depend as much on what procedures and rights are entrenched, as on the mechanisms by which entrenchment is carried out. One question to consider as you read the articles in this volume is whether there is any rea...
      PubDate: 2017-06-27
      DOI: 10.24357/igjr.10.1.582
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Constitutions as Intergenerational Contracts: Flexible or fixed'

    • Authors: Jörg Tremmel
      Abstract: : Constitutions enshrine the fundamental values of a people and build a framework for a state’s public policy. With regard to intergenerational justice, their endurance gives rise to two concerns: the (forgone) welfare concern and the sovereignty concern. In this paper, I outline a procedure for constitution-
      amending that is intergenerationally just. In its line of reasoning, the paper debates ideas such as perpetual constitutions, sunset constitutions, constitutional reform commissions and constitutional conventions both  historically and analytically. It arrives at the conclusion that recurrent constitutional reform commissions in fixed time intervals strike the best balance between the necessary rigidity and the necessary flexibility of constitutions.
      PubDate: 2017-06-27
      DOI: 10.24357/igjr.10.1.581
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Constitutional Handcuffs

    • Authors: Richard Albert
      Abstract: This article makes three contributions to the literature on constitutional change. First, it reinforces the theoretical foundations of constitutional entrenchment by defining the spectrum of constitutional permanence. Second, it offers an original taxonomy of entrenchment clauses, including preservative,
      transformational and reconciliatory entrenchment. Third, in concluding that absolute entrenchment undermines the participatory values that give constitutionalism its meaning, it proposes an alternative to entrenchment: the entrenchment simulator. Whereas entrenchment clauses prohibit constitutional amendment, the entrenchment simulator provides a promising alternative that both embraces the expressive function of entrenchment and remains consistent with the promise of constitutionalism.
      PubDate: 2017-06-27
      DOI: 10.24357/igjr.10.1.585
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Constitutions as Chains' On the Intergenerational Challenges of
           Constitution-Making

    • Authors: Konstantin Chatziathanasiou
      Abstract: In this essay, I explore the ambiguity of the competition’s title “Constitutions as Chains”, and distinguish between two intergenerational challenges in constitution-making: the challenge of intergenerationally just constitutional provisions, and the challenge of creating a stable institution which is accepted by successive generations. I prioritise the latter. After contrasting classic ideas of Burke and Paine, I discuss different ways of addressing the challenge, such as the amendability of a constitution, eternity clauses or recurring constitutional assemblies. A flexible approach towards existing constitutional provisions, which is open to future developments, gets the nod. However, a need for empirical research remains.
      PubDate: 2017-06-27
      DOI: 10.24357/igjr.10.1.584
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Iñigo González-Ricoy and Axel Gosseries (eds.): Institutions for
           Future Generations

    • Authors: Markus Rutsche
      Abstract: No abstract
      PubDate: 2017-06-27
      DOI: 10.24357/igjr.10.1.590
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Governing for the Future: Designing Democratic Institutions for a Better
           Tomorrow

    • Authors: Bruce Auerbach
      Abstract: No abstract
      PubDate: 2017-06-27
      DOI: 10.24357/igjr.10.1.591
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • Representation of Non-Voice-Parties in Democracies: Arguments for the
           Representation of People without Voice as Part of the Citizenry

    • Authors: Elena Simon
      Abstract: No abstract
      PubDate: 2017-06-27
      DOI: 10.24357/igjr.10.1.592
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
       
  • IGJR issue 1/2018

    • Authors: IF; FRFG
      Abstract: The IGJR publishes articles from the disciplines from the social sciences/humanities, reflecting the current state of research on intergenerational justice. It is released biannually and employs a double-blind peer review process. Its editorial board consists of about 50 internationally renowned experts from ten different countries.The topic of the 2/2017 and 1/2018 double issue will be:“Measuring Intergenerational Justice for Public Policy”We welcome submissions to the issue 1/2018 that address ways of measuring and empirically evaluating intergenerational justice, primarily in the field of public policy. The double edition will have the additional help of Professor Pieter Vanhuysse, University of Southern Denmark, who will be
      serving as a guest editor.Submission requirements
      Submissions will be accepted until 1 February 2018. Entries should be up to 30,000 characters in length (including spaces but excluding bibliography, figures, photographs and tables.) Articles may be submitted electronically through the IGJR homepage (see “Submissions”). For more information on the double issue and requirements for submissions, please visit www.igjr.org.Topic abstract
      In recent years, there has been a rising interest in measuring and comparing intergenerational justice in the expenditure schemes of welfare states. Here, the focus is on analysing the allocation of social expenditures for the elderly (i.e., citizens 65 years of age and older) relative to the share allocated for young people. A key indicator for the fairness of public policy is the amount of the attributable expenditures for the older generation (pension, care, disability, health) relative to the incidental costs of the younger generations (education, family support).
      In a 2013 study published by Pieter Vanhuysse for the Bertelsmann
      Foundation a total of 29 OECD states were compared on the basis of a four-dimensional Intergenerational Justice Index (IJI). This index is composed of four indicators, notably among them the "elderly-bias indicator of social spending" (EBiSS): the ratio of social spending among different age groups after taking into account demographic composition. To evaluate the public policies of different nations with such an “intergenerational lens” is a new and promising field of research.
      A related field are indices for the well-being of young people (as a specific part of the population), both across different countries (spatially) as well as over time (temporally).
      The “Youthonomics Global Index”, published in 2015 by a Francebased
      think tank of the same name, analyses the situation of young people in 64 Western and non-Western countries by T means of no less than 59 different social, economic and political indicators.
      Another study is the “European Index of Intergenerational Fairness”, launched in early 2016 by the Intergenerational Foundation (IF). Designed as a quantitative measurement of how the position of young people has changed across the EU, its 13 indicators include housing costs, government debt, spending on pensions and education, participation in democracy, and access to tertiary education. The index’s findings indicate that the prospects
      of young people across the EU have deteriorated to a ten-year low. The backdrop of these new calculations is demographic ageing that has led in many Western and Asian countries to a higher percentage of voters that are pensioners or close to the retirement age. Some authors argue that the year in which voters aged 50 and older exceed 50% of all voters (after adjusting for the notoriously higher turnout rates of elderly voters) entails the danger of creeping gerontocracy – the rising resource grab of elderly voters.
      A report in the same vein is the “Unicef Study on Child Well-being in Rich Countries” by Peter Adamson. Inter alia, it examines changes in child well-being in advanced economies over the first decade of the 2000’s, looking at each country’s progress in educational achievement, teenage birth rates, childhood obesity levels, the prevalence of bullying, and the use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs.Articles could approach the topic through a broad range of questions,
      including:
      What is a good definition of “elderly-biased policies”' What indices exist to measure intergenerational (in)justice in public policy' What indices exist to measure the (lack of ) well-being of young people as a distinctive group'Ÿ
      How do conclusions of pro-elderly bias change once we incorporate households transfers of resources (cash) and unpaid labour (time), in addition to public transfers, into the analysis (Gál et al. 2016)'
      How should concepts and measures of intergenerational justice differ when considering age groups versus cohort (temporal versus inter temporal generations)'
      Ÿ Are the respective indicators conceptually sound and well operationalised'
      What are the methodological pitfalls of measuring intergenerational justice in public policy, and can they be avoided'
      Ÿ Can the methodology of indices like the HDI, the HWI, the Happy Planet Index etc. be applied to the younger part of the population as a distinct group'
      Ÿ Do ageing societies respond to the challenges of lopsided spending'
      What are the political and economic causes; what are promising policy responses' For instance, does high pro-elderly policy bias in both Southern and Central-and-Eastern Europe (Vanhuysse 2014) actually mask different generational or governance cultures' How do these cultures contrast with those of elderly but more age group-balanced societies such as in Nordic Europe'
      Ÿ Might opportunity-equalising human capital in...
      PubDate: 2017-06-27
      DOI: 10.24357/igjr.10.1.589
      Issue No: Vol. 10, No. 1 (2017)
       
 
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
Fax: +00 44 (0)131 4513327
 
Home (Search)
Subjects A-Z
Publishers A-Z
Customise
APIs
Your IP address: 54.196.47.128
 
About JournalTOCs
API
Help
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-2016