Collaborative justice institutions fail to scale beyond the local or regional level

Evidence

As plausible the potential is in these experiments in community collaboration or advisory groups, they are few and far between. They are also only workable on local, or at most regional, issues. It is quite difficult to get a national collaborative board, or a reasonable representation of the public sphere at the national or international level. With this limitation, the most broad, and possibly promising, current arena for diverse recognition and public participation is in the development of electronic or Webbased participation by citizens in state or international decision-making. — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 734

Categorization

• XREF: Parallels ch24’s claim that procedural justice requires effective voice — here institutionalizing voice only works at small geographic scales, a key constraint for the trivalent framework. — connects to: Cosmopolitan ecological-justice institutions can shrink rather than extend local participatory inclusion — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 411; Divorce mediation and neighborhood justice centers grew rapidly in the late twentieth century — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1175
• DEFINE: Shows the practical limit of procedural/participatory justice institutions.