A starting point for discussion
The idea
The author describes three broad ways to judge public decision-making: by its results, by features of the process itself, or by both.
Place in the reasoning
AI assessment · Connected to reasoning
Outlines outcome-focused, process-focused, and mixed standards for judging public decision-making. This frames the legitimacy concerns in the narratives without itself settling which standard should govern.
Clear rules do not ensure meaningful participation
The distinction between judging outcomes and judging process helps explain why drafting quality and meaningful participation may need assessment apart from policy value.
What this means and why it matters
What this means
One approach asks whether a process produces good results. Another asks whether the process has valuable features regardless of its results. A third considers both.
Why it matters
People may disagree about a decision system because they use different standards to judge it.
Conditions & assumptions
Source coverage: Full readable text of the author manuscript from an accessible mirror; not the publisher typeset version. The passage distinguishes approaches that judge public decision-making by its results, by features of the process itself, or by both. Addresses: Three broad ways to judge whether a public decision process is acceptable.
Questions this connects to
AI-suggested relationships. Authors have not necessarily responded to one another.
How strong is this claim?
AI assessment · not a probability or a final resolution
The categories and their basic differences are stated directly.
See the assessment in detail
This is a summary of approaches discussed in the passage, not a finding from a study.