Overview: Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment

Public Administration, 2017

This article addresses two interrelated critiques of participatory-deliberative democratic institutions: that they are beset by problems of scale and that they achieve weak policy impact. This article tests these criticisms through the case of the UK Sustainable Communities Act (SCA), a multi-level process that is relatively strongly institutionalized. The evidence lends qualified support to these critiques. The article differentiates between contextual factors, related to the attempt to institutionalize participatory-deliberative processes within existing socioeconomic and political structures, and design factors to do with institutional and process design. The case of the SCA calls for caution about the claim that multi-level participatory-deliberative processes can overcome problems of scale and policy impact, but the question remains open. The article ends by suggesting that expectations of direct policy impact might be too high. Rather than determinants of policy, multi-level participatory-deliberative processes might function best as agenda-setters. INTRODUCTION 'Participatory-deliberative processes' (PDPs) aim to engage citizens in deliberative forms of participation, oriented towards influencing public policy-making (Smith 2009a; Hoppe 2010). Advocates argue that they can reduce the 'distance' between state and non-state actors by allowing citizens to explore preferences and influence policy through public participation and deliberation (Burgess and Chilvers 2006). They have been valued for their potential to increase the reflexivity and responsiveness of policy-making (Hoppe 2010), and to reduce social inequities by directly empowering citizens (Fung and Wright 2003; Johnson and Gastil 2015). However, PDPs have been criticized on the grounds of their poor scalability and low impact-especially when operating at high tiers of governance. Unlike direct democratic processes that aggregate millions of preferences through voting, PDPs are predicated on deliberative interactions between participants, and are often oriented towards consensus. For this reason they face problems of 'scalability', meaning that the impact that they can, both practically (Dahl 1989) and legitimately (Parkinson 2006), claim to have on policy-making decreases as scale increases. It is in no small part for this reason most PDPs are consultative, and exert a weak influence upon decisions (Goodin and Dryzek 2006), and those processes that are 'empowered' (Fung and Wright 2003; Johnson and Gastil 2015) tend to operate at the local scale. Even in more strongly institutionalized cases, claims of impact can be tenuous. Suspicions abound that public authorities tend to 'cherry pick' recommendations that cohere with decisions that are already made, and analysts have argued that elites might accept PDPs in order to preempt more contentious forms of political action (Hoppe 2011). This has led sympathetic critics to argue that PDPs are often limited to local issues of little strategic importance (Wainwright 2003), sceptics argue that they offer little more than 'therapeutic' (Chandler 2001) forms of participation that do little in way of engaging real power structures (Davies 2011, 2012).

Policy Studies, 2020

PLA Notes, 2001

Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 2008

Background: This paper examines work in deliberative approaches to community engagement used in Western Australia by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure and other planning and infrastructure agencies between 2001 and 2005, and considers whether the techniques could be applied to the development of health policy in Australia.

Policy Design and Practice, 2018

Participatory and deliberative processes have proliferated over recent decades in public administration. These seek to increase the effectiveness and democratic quality of policy making by involving citizens in policy. However, these have mainly operated at local levels of governance, and democratic theorists and practitioners have developed an ambition to scale these up in order to democratize higher tiers of government. This paper draws policy lessons from research on a "multi-level" process that held a similar ambition. The Sustainable Communities Act sought to integrate the results of various locally organized citizen deliberations within the policy development processes of central UK government. In doing so, it aimed to democratize central government problem definition and agenda-setting processes. The paper distinguishes between achievements and failures explained by process design, and more fundamental obstacles to do with broader contextual factors. As such, it identifies lessons for the amelioration of design features, while recognizing constraints that are often beyond the agency of local practitioners. The findings offer practical insights for policy workers and democratic reformers seeking to institutionalize participatory and deliberative innovations.

Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

The author would like to thank the participants at various conferences where these ideas were developed, various colleagues, including The author would like to thank the participants at various conferences where these ideas were developed, various colleagues, including Professors Gordon Anthony and Amnon Reichman, and the editor and anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions. 1 There is of course a worldwide and international context for consultation. The United Nations Agenda 21 on sustainable development calls for "the broadest public participation" and urges "the active involvement of the non-governmental organizations and other groups" (see https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf). The European Commission is attempting to redress the disconnect with its institutions felt by many of its citizens through a variety of initiatives including a "Your voice in Europe" consultation webpage and its Citizens' Dialogue initiative (see http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm, and http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-dialogues/ (visited 14 th February 2017). See also D Friedrich, Democratic Participation and Civil Society in the European Union (Manchester: Manchester University Press 2011). Green paper followed by White Paper, with perhaps a little discussion with interested groups or lobbyists, has given way to a more elaborate processes seeking the views of a wider range of interests. 2 Despite the fact that, as Davidson and Elstub point out, the culture of democracy and nature of government structures in the UK have never been particularly suited to deliberation, 3 there have been a variety of experiments over the last quarter century. These have involved citizen juries, deliberative polls and participatory budgeting, sometimes with an information and communication technology (ICT) element. 4 However most consultations are more prosaic, with the online element restricted to a webpage containing a link to a .pdf document. The UK Government's website page for "Consultations" lists 698 consultations published in 2016 alone, out of a total of 3,642 since the decade began. 5 Devolution has intensified the emphasis on consultation. The Northern Ireland Act 1998 initially led the way through its s. 75 requirement that public authorities promote equality of opportunity, and consult widely about the effect of their policies on persons of different sex, religious belief, political opinion, racial group, age, marital status or sexual orientation, and those with a disability or with dependents. The Scottish Ministerial Code commits the Scottish Government "to develop procedures which make possible a participative approach to the development, consideration and scrutiny of policy and legislation", and it has established a "Consultation Hub". 6 Participatory budgeting too has received a boost in Scotland with a commitment in 2016 to spend an extra half million pounds in this way. 7 In Wales there is not only a list of consultations online but the Council for Voluntary Action maintains a webpage detailing consultations from various 2

2009

Policy Studies, 2019

Evidence-Based Policy Making in the Social Sciences, 2017

This chapter shows how open deliberation can enhance the legitimacy of policy making, and how it can also, as a science, overcome the bounded rationality of individuals. This chapter explores the value of deliberation in evaluation especially in an environment policy context, not as a tool for democracy per se but as toll for better policy. The social science background to these claims will be explored and examples given of the application of deliberation to better policy making. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the approach will be explored.