Against the politics of fear: On deliberation, inclusion and the political economy of trust

Abstract

This is an inquiry into the economic psychology of trust: that is, what model of the political economy of complex liberal democracies is conducive to attitudes that allow difference to be perceived in the terms of 'significant other', rather than as a menacing or an irrelevant stranger. As a test case of prevailing perceptions of otherness in European societies, I examine attitudes towards Turkey's accession to the European Union.

Citizen Panels and Opinion Polls: Convergence and Divergence in Policy Preferences

“…Using this approach, we offer distinctive findings about whether a deliberative event had an effect on participants, whether this effect was enduring, and how public opinion polls compare to views expressed by participants in a deliberative event. In line with existing research (Azmanova, 2011;Hall et al, 2011;Luskin et al, 2002), in three of the five policy areas, we find minimal changes in panelists' views at different points in time. However, there are significant differences in two of the five policy areas: policies to promote energy-efficient travel options and renewable energy.…”

“…Farrar et al (2010) suggest that panelists' opinions are those "opinions people would hold if they knew and thought more about the issue" (p. 333-334; also see Luskin, Fishkin, & Jowell, 2002, p. 458). In this sense, the deliberative process is expected to change participants' policy preferences (Azmanova, 2011;Barabas, 2004;Farrar et al, 2010;Fishkin & Luskin, 1999;Fournier et al, 2011;Hall, Wilson, & Newman, 2011;Strandberg & Grönlund, 2012). Scholars characterize these new opinions in a variety of ways, including "sophisticated" (Gastil & Dillard, 1999), "meaningful" (Pincock, 2012), "considered" (Luskin et al, 2002), and "informed" (Azmanova, 2011;French & Laver, 2009;Gastil, Knobloch, & Kelly, 2012;Hall et al, 2011;Smets & Isernia, 2014).…”

“…Most studies of deliberative events focus on opinion change among the participants in a deliberative exercise. These studies documented small changes in policy preferences when comparing deliberative participants at different points in time (Azmanova, 2011;Hall et al, 2011;Luskin et al, 2002). For example, using five policy indices to measure aggregate changes in policy preferences, Luskin et al (2002) found changes between three and six percentage points for pretest versus post-test results (see page 477).…”

“…For example, using five policy indices to measure aggregate changes in policy preferences, Luskin et al (2002) found changes between three and six percentage points for pretest versus post-test results (see page 477). Azmanova (2011) examined 12 different attitude questions; most of the aggregate changes were between one and four percentage points. Hall et al (2011) compared average levels of support for five policies related to energy options and found only one significant difference between participants' views at different points in time.…”

“…For example, the National Issues Convention recruited 459 participants to represent the entire population of the United States (Merkle, 1996). As another example, 363 participants were selected to represent 27 EU countries (Azmanova, 2011). Luskin et al (2002) have a group of 301 participants to represent England.…”