Justin R. Pidot (University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law) has posted Participatory Abundance on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Americans do not trust the government, and the federal government least of all. An emerging abundance movement offers a vision for rekindling public trust by eliminating substantive and procedural constraints on the government’s capacity to increase the supply of infrastructure, housing, technological innovation, and other things people need to live flourishing lives. Yet as swelling public opposition to AI data centers reflects, building more of the wrong thing will further degrade the public’s view of the government, particularly if people feel shut out of the government decisions that shape their lives.
This Article argues that some process is essential to restoring faith in government. Process is required to avoid foolish action that will degrade, not rehabilitate, the government’s poor reputation. Processes providing opportunities for public participation are among the most vital. Merely eliminating procedural rules is not, therefore, a recipe for a restored American republic, but rather, reform is needed to provide meaningful opportunities for the public to participate in government decisions that significantly affect their lives and communities.
This Article contends that public participation is critical to restoring faith in government, although current rules need reform. To make that case, the Article offers a novel account of what public participation is for. Conventional accounts treat it as curing perceived constitutional defects, disciplining agencies, empowering communities, and overcoming agency capture. This Article argues instead that participation rules should serve two purposes only: informing government and enhancing public perceptions of government legitimacy. The conventional rationales fail not because those ends don’t matter, but because participation cannot reliably deliver them—and rules built for those ends produce legalistic, drawn-out, and alienating processes that erode public trust and compromise government efficacy. Seen through the narrower lens this Article offers, many current rules are revealed as profoundly flawed, and reform may lead in unexpected directions. The requirement that agencies respond to public comments, for instance, now drives a litigation-oriented process that serves neither purpose; relaxing it would enable more meaningful participation and more responsive government. Abundance is a worthy goal, but the public must be part of it.
Highly Recommended!
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum