{"id":3369,"date":"2023-03-30T12:48:19","date_gmt":"2023-03-30T11:48:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/?page_id=3369"},"modified":"2023-08-31T12:09:31","modified_gmt":"2023-08-31T11:09:31","slug":"the-boundary-problem","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/mancept-workshops\/mancept-workshops-2023\/list-of-panels-a-z-2023\/the-boundary-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"The Boundary Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” fullwidth=”on” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”322″][et_pb_fullwidth_menu global_parent=”322″ menu_id=”8″ submenu_direction=”downwards” fullwidth_menu=”off” module_class=”main-navigation” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ background_layout=”dark” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ module_class=”header-image-section” _builder_version=”3.0.74″ custom_padding=”0px||0px|” custom_css_main_element=”padding-top:0px” transparent_background=”off” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row custom_padding=”||0px|” custom_margin=”||0px|” parallax_method_1=”off” module_class=”header-image” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/sites.manchester.ac.uk\/mancept\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/257\/2022\/02\/Oxford-Roadcrop.jpg” show_bottom_space=”off” _builder_version=”3.17.6″ border_color_all=”#ffffff” custom_margin=”0px|||” animation_direction=”left” use_border_color=”off” \/][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”3.0.74″ custom_padding=”||0px|” transparent_background=”off” prev_background_color=”#000000″ next_background_color=”#1d1d1d”][et_pb_row custom_padding=”||0px|” custom_margin=”||0px|” parallax_method_1=”off” module_class=”breadcrumbs-row” _builder_version=”3.0.47″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Breadcrumbs (do not remove)” module_class=”breadcrumbs” _builder_version=”3.0.87″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” module_alignment=”left” custom_css_main_element=”border-bottom: 1px solid #ececed;” use_border_color=”off” border_color=”#ffffff” border_style=”solid”]<\/p>\nMANCEPT<\/a><\/span><\/span>\n

[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.17.6″]<\/p>\n

The Boundary Problem: Where Do We Stand? New Directions and Challenges<\/h1>\n

Andre Santos Campos (Nova University of Lisbon) and Pablo Maga\u00f1a (Nova University of Lisbon)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Arthur Lewis Building: Room 3.056<\/em><\/p>\n

How should political power and influence be allocated in democratic systems? In the 1970s, Robert Dahl called this \u201ca problem almost totally neglected by all the greatest philosophers who write about democracy.\u201d In the last decades, though, this question has prompted considerable interest among political philosophers and political scientists, and a substantive body of literature has emerged around what has come to be known as the boundary problem<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Initially, contributions to the boundary problem focused primarily on the inclusion of adult, cognitively unimpaired human beings within or without the state \u2013 touching, for instance, on the democratic inclusion of non-citizen residents, and even of some non-residents too. Although these questions remain crucial, theorizing on the boundary problem has taken three new directions as of late. First, it has taken a methodological turn, exploring, for example, the desiderata that an adequate response to the boundary problem should satisfy. Second, it has gone beyond the standard cases, covering non-standard groups \u2013 like future generations or nonhuman animals \u2013, and traditionally neglected decision-making sites \u2013 such as the workplace. Third, it has suggested alternatives to the two main principles developed in response to the boundary problem (namely, the All Affected and All Subjected Principle), stressing instead criteria of inclusion based on nationality (Miller), citizenship and solidarity (Song), universal moral status (Koenig-Archibugi and List), the role of social membership (Kymlicka) or relational equality (Bengtson).<\/p>\n

Finding a satisfactory response to the boundary problem is of relevance for at least two reasons. First, because it would allow us to identify when someone has been objectionably<\/em> excluded from the demos, a necessary condition for redressing the democratic deficits that follow from wrongful exclusion. Second, and more practically, because it can assist institutional design. In the last two decades, some countries have implemented institutions aimed at representing the interests of future generations (e.g. the Israeli Knesset Commission for Future Generations, or the Welch Future Generations Commissioner) or nonhuman animals (e.g. the UK\u2019s forthcoming Animal Sentience Committee). Similarly, the European Parliament and the ILO have recently called for the democratization of corporations. Properly addressing the boundary problem can guide the efficient distribution of political resources and offer tools to evaluate the success of institutional proposals of the above sort.<\/p>\n

This workshop seeks to provide a space for political philosophers and theorists to take stock of those debates and discuss the new trends. Possible contributions might include, but needn\u2019t be limited to:<\/p>\n