Public Interest and Resources Allocation in the Liberal-Participatory Governance

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

2 Ph.D. Student, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Qom University, Qom, Iran.

10.22091/cpl.2026.15635.1110

Abstract

Drawing upon a public finance law approach and employing a novel tripartite analytical framework of "conceptualization, institutionalization, operationalization," the present study seeks to explicate the dialectic among the dominant legal-ideological strata, the institutional configuration, and the executive mechanisms of public resources allocation, with an emphasis on the public interest within the liberal-participatory governance system. The research hypothesis rests on the proposition that an analysis of the public interest which fails to disaggregate the levels of "concept, institution, and operation" engenders a fallacy of understanding, for each governance paradigm bridges the gap between theoretical ideals and allocative realities through a systematic nexus among these three levels. The research question asks: upon which ontological-epistemological logic does the liberal-participatory paradigm (with the governance system of the United States as a case study) conceptualize the public interest, within which structure does it institutionalize it, and through which legal-administrative instruments does it render it operational? It appears that within this paradigm, the public interest is conceptualized as the aggregated preference of individuals, grounded in methodological individualism; institutionalized within a distributed and competitive structure; and operationalized through procedural rationality - a characterization whereby justice inheres not in the outcome but in the equitable observance of the rules of the game. Moving beyond purely descriptive-normative approaches, the present study, aimed at filling this lacuna, applies the tripartite analytical framework in order to lay bare the logic of power latent behind every claim invoking the public interest. This model enables us to capture contradictions - for instance, where the "concept" is just, yet the "institution" that interprets it expropriates it in favor of an unjust "operation." The novelty of this study lies in the shift from the substantive question "What is the public interest?" to the procedural question "Who constructs it, and how?" The ultimate aim of the study is not to offer yet another normative criterion, but to furnish a robust instrument for the requisite scrutiny of power in the realm of governance over public resources.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

جلیلی، آیت‌اله؛ دهقان، فرشید و مؤمن، مهراد (۱۴۰۴). «استقلال یا پاسخگویی: تأملی بر نهاد نظارت قضایی در نظام حقوقی ایالات‌متحده». فصلنامه تحقیقات حقوقی، دوره ۲۸، شماره ۱۱۱.
حسینی، سیده ام‌البنین (۱۴۰۱). «دعوای مبتنی بر منفعت عمومی و نقش آن در مبارزه با فساد اقتصادی؛ مطالعه تطبیقی حقوق ایران، آمریکا و انگلیس». پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، دوره ۹، شماره ۳.
دیلمی، احمد؛ زارعی، پروین و مؤمن، مهراد (۱۴۰۴). «قانون حکمرانی؛ غایت‌گروی یا وظیفه‌گرایی». حقوق عمومی تطبیقی، دوره ۲، شماره ۳.
راسخ، محمد (۱۳۸۹). حق و مصلحت: مقالاتی در فلسفه حقوق، فلسفه حق و فلسفه ارزش. تهران: طرح نو.
رالز، جان (۱۴۰۲). لیبرالیسم سیاسی، ترجمه: م. اکرمی، چاپ هفتم، تهران: نشر ثالث.
طباطبایی، جواد (۱۴۰۱). مِلَّت، دولت و حکومت قانون. انتشارات مینوی خرد.
کانت، ایمانوئل (۱۴۰۳). بنیان‌گذاری برای مابعدالطبیعه اخلاق، ترجمه؛ سید م. حسینی، چاپ سوم، نشر نی.
مرکز مالمیری، احمد (۱۳۹۴). حاکمیت قانون: مفاهیم، مبانی و برداشت‌ها. تهران: مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس شورای اسلامی.
منصوریان، ناصر علی و شیبانی، عادل (۱۳۹۵). «مفهوم منفعت عمومی و جایگاه آن در قانون‌گذاری ایران»، نشریه دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، دوره ۲۱، شماره ۷۵.
ویژه، محمدرضا و یحیی‌زاده، جواد (۱۴۰۲). «دولت حقوقی لیبرال؛ مطالعه موردی هایک و نوزیک». پژوهش‌های حقوقی. دوره ۲۲، شماره ۵۵.
پرونده ابطال قرارداد سد خِرسان ۳ (۱۴۰۲). دادگاه عمومی حقوقی یاسوج، شعبه ۹، دادنامه شماره ۱۴۰۲۴۱۳۹۰۰۰۲۴۱۷۲۵۵، قاضی دکتر رضا بهمنی.
 
References
Ackerman, B (2017). The new separation of powers. In The Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers (pp. 395-490). Routledge.
Anthony, G (2013). Public interest and three dimensions of judicial review. N. Ir. Legal Q, 64, 125.
Bakhtin, M (2013). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics (Vol. 8). U of Minnesota Press.
Brown, W (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution.
Crouch, C (2019). Post‐democracy and populism. The political quarterly, 90(S1), 124-137.
Deneen, P. J (2018). Why liberalism failed. Yale University Press.
Ekins, R, & Forsyth, C. F (2016). Judging the Public Interest: The rule of law vs. The rule of courts. University of Cambridge Faculty of Law Research Paper, (49).
Elster, J (1982). The case for methodological individualism. Theory and society, 11(4), 453-482.
Gilens, M, & Page, B. I (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on politics, 12(3), 564-581.
Habermas, J (2015). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. John Wiley & Sons.
Hayek, F. V (1942). Scientism and the study of society. Part I. Economica, 9(35), 267-291.
Hirschl, R (2009). Towards juristocracy: the origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard University Press.
Lukes, S (1970). Methodological individualism reconsidered. In Sociological theory and philosophical analysis (pp. 76-88). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
MacIntyre, A (2007). After virtue (3rd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press.
Madison, J (2009). Federalist No. 51 (1788). Alexander Hamilton/ders./John Jay, The Federalist, Cambridge, Mass, USA, ua, 339.
Möllers, C (2013). The three branches: a comparative model of separation of powers. Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. R (1945). The open society and its enemies Vol. 2: The high tide of prophecy.
Sandel, M (2005). Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. In Debates in contemporary political philosophy (pp. 150-169). Routledge.
Sandel, M. J (1998). Liberalism and the limits of justice (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Sandel, M. J (2012). What money can't buy: The moral limits of markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sax, J. L (1970). The public trust doctrine in natural resource law: effective judicial intervention. Michigan Law Review, 68(3), 471-566.
Sunstein, C. R (2002). The cost-benefit state: the future of regulatory protection. American Bar Association.
Sunstein, C. R (2018). The cost-benefit revolution. MIT press.
Taylor, C (1985). Philosophical papers: Volume 2, philosophy and the human sciences (Vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, C (1991). The ethics of authenticity. Harvard University Press.
Watkins, J. W (1952). Ideal types and historical explanation. The British journal for the philosophy of science, 3(9), 22-43.
Wood, M. C (2013). Nature's trust: Environmental law for a new ecological age. Cambridge University Press.
In Persian
Deylami, A, Zarei, P, & Momen, M (2025). The law of governance: Consequentialism or deontology. Comparative Public Law, 2(3), 1-25 (In Persian)
Hosseini, S. O (2022). Public interest litigation and its role in combating economic corruption: A comparative study of Iranian, American, and English law. Comparative Research on Islamic and Western Law, 9(3), 95-130 (In Persian)
Jalili, A, Dehghan, F, & Momen, M (2025). Independence or accountability: A reflection on the institution of judicial oversight in the United States legal system. Legal Research Quarterly, 28(111), 159-178 (In Persian)
Kant, I (2024). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (S. M. Hosseini, Trans, 3rd ed.). Nashr-e Ney (Original work published 1785) (In Persian)
Mansourian, N. A, & Sheybani, A (2016). The concept of public interest and its place in Iranian legislation. Judicial Law Perspectives Quarterly, 21(75), 117-142 (In Persian)
Markaz Malmiri, A (2015). The rule of law: Concepts, foundations, and conceptions. Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (In Persian)
Rasekh, M (2010). Right and Interest: Essays in the philosophy of law, philosophy of right, and philosophy of value. Tarh-e Now (In Persian)
Rawls, J (2023). Political liberalism (M. Akrami, Trans, 7th ed.). Nashr-e Sales (In Persian)
Tabatabaei, J (2022). Nation, state, and the rule of law. Minouye Kherad Publications (In Persian)
Vijeh, M. R, & Yahyazadeh, J (2023). The liberal legal state: A case study of Hayek and Nozick. Legal Research, 22(55), 141-169 (In Persian)
Yasuj General Civil Court, Branch 9 (2023). Case No. 140241390002417255 concerning the annulment of the Khersan-3 Dam Contract (Judge Dr. R. Bahmani) (In Persian)
 

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics