The All-Affected Principle and the Question of Asymmetry

• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Author: Andreas Bengtson
• Date: 01 September 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912920938142
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920938142

Political Research Quarterly

2021, Vol. 74(3) 718 –728

© 2020 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1065912920938142

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

Article

Introduction

The all-affected principle has been established as a popu-

lar solution to the boundary problem, that is, the question

of who should take part in making democratic decisions.1

Although the principle has been under increased scrutiny

in the recent decade, it still leaves many questions unan-

swered. I turn to one of these questions in this paper,

namely, whether there is an asymmetry in the all-affected

principle between being affected negatively and posi-

tively. In other words, is it the case that only being nega-

tively affected, and not positively affected, generates a

claim to inclusion under the all-affected principle? We

can call this the question of asymmetry.

If we consult the literature, many answer the question

of asymmetry affirmatively. Indeed, Schaffer (2012, 325)

says, “The all-affected principle is usually understood to

concern burdens, but not benefits.” In his classical dis-

cussion on the boundary problem, Whelan (1983, 17)

argues,

[t]his proposal [the all-affected principle] appears to be

offered in a spirit of defensiveness: it seems to conceive of

social decisions as normally imposing burdens or costs on

the passive many, and its intent seems to be to provide

people with the means of protecting themselves, to the end

either of avoiding these costs or of seeing that they are

distributed more evenly.2

The aim of the all-affected principle, if we assume

Whelan is right, is that people be protected from costs

being imposed on them, and they are granted this protec-

tion by being enfranchised. Being affected negatively—

by “burdens or costs”—is what generates a claim to

inclusion—not being affected positively.

Saunders (2011, 290) similarly seems to believe that

there is such an asymmetry in the all-affected principle.3

He says,

[t]he discussion of compensation [one form of which is

enfranchisement] focuses not on all possible influences, but

only negative externalities. It is far from obvious that we

need to enfranchise others before performing actions that

bestow positive benefits on them (assuming perhaps that

these benefits are recognized as such by the recipients).

(Saunders 2011, 290)

938142PRQXXX10.1177/1065912920938142Political Research QuarterlyBengtson

research-article2020

1Aarhus Universitet, Denmark

Corresponding Author:

Andreas Bengtson, Department of Political Science, Aarhus BSS,

Aarhus Universitet, Bartholins Allé 7, Aarhus C, DK-8000, Denmark.

Email: anbe@ps.au.dk

The All-Affected Principle and

the Question of Asymmetry

Andreas Bengtson1

Abstract

As a solution to the boundary problem, the question of who should take part in making democratic decisions, the

all-affected principle has gained widespread support. An unexplored issue in relation to the all-affected principle is

whether there is an asymmetry between being affected negatively and positively. Is it the case that only being negatively

affected, and not positively affected, by a decision generates a claim to inclusion under the all-affected principle? I call

this the question of asymmetry. Some answer the question of asymmetry affirmatively. I believe they are wrong and

argue, instead, that we must answer this question by looking at the reasons underlying the all-affected principle. I

identify two main reasons that have been proposed to underlie the all-affected principle—(1) the opportunity for

interest protection and (2) self-government—and show why both of them entail that answering the question of

asymmetry affirmatively is unfounded. The upshot is that both being affected negatively and positively by a decision

should generate a claim to inclusion on the all-affected principle. This makes a difference for democratic decision

making on contemporary issues such as immigration, climate, and welfare policy.

Keywords

boundary problem, all-affected principle, democracy, asymmetry, immigration