IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwwob/77-51-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stuttgart 21: mit direkter Demokratie aus der Sackgasse?

Author

Listed:
  • Justina A. V. Fischer

Abstract

Wäre der Entscheidungsprozess zu Stuttgart 21 (S21) anders verlaufen, wenn es in Baden-Württemberg wirksame Mittel direkt-demokratischer Mitbestimmung gegeben hätte? Ziel dieses Beitrag ist es, Grenzen und Möglichkeiten direkt-demokratischer Verfahren am Beispiel des Großprojekts S21 aufzuzeigen. Die politökonomische Theorie sowie die empirische Evidenz für die Schweiz und die USA lassen darauf schließen, dass möglicherweise der Entscheidungsprozess transparenter und das Ergebnis finanziell, infrastrukturell und politisch eher im Sinne der Mehrheit der Bürger und damit insgesamt wohlfahrtserhöhend ausgefallen wäre. Referenden für Großprojekte und vergleichbar richtungweisende Entscheidungen könnten helfen, die bestehende Kluft zwischen Bürgern und Politikern zu überwinden, und eine neue politische Kultur des Miteinanders zu begründen.

Suggested Citation

  • Justina A. V. Fischer, 2010. "Stuttgart 21: mit direkter Demokratie aus der Sackgasse?," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 77(51/52), pages 19-25.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:77-51-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.365544.de/51-4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fischer, Justina, 2011. "Living under the ‘right’ government: does political ideology matter to trust in political institutions? An analysis for OECD countries," MPRA Paper 33344, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Justina AV Fischer, 2011. "Living under the ‘right’ government: does political ideology matter to trust in political institutions?," CEIS Research Paper 212, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 14 Oct 2011.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Direct democracy; Initiative; Referendum; Popular vote;

    JEL classification:

    • H10 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - General
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwob:77-51-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bibliothek). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.