Scale and Policy Impact in Participatory‐deliberative Democracy: Lessons From a Multi‐level Process

Abstract

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.

Citizen participation and the redistribution of public goods

“…This study contributes to several areas of established scholarly work. Our empirical evidence provides a unique contribution to the literature on the effects of citizen participation on policy outcomes (e.g., Fung and Wright ; Daley ; Wampler ; Hong a; Bua ; Touchton et al ). More broadly, this study contributes to the study of citizen coproduction on public service (Bovaird and Downe ; Yang and Pandey ; Jakobsen and Andersen ; Bartenberger and Széscilo ; Hong ; Zambrano‐Gutiérrez et al ).…”

Is It Interests, Ideas or Institutions? Explaining Elected Representatives' Positions Toward Democratic Innovations in 15 European Countries

“…This logic of direct citizen participation in politics seems at odds with the prevailing representative logic of contemporary democracies, which assumes a more indirect link between citizens and political decisions, and which puts political power firmly in the hands of elected representatives. The latter, however, remain the ultimate gatekeepers and power brokers of modern politics and could therefore be reluctant to shift power from parliament to the people (Núñez et al, 2016), often resulting in democratic innovations' limited macro-level political impact (Goodin and Dryzek, 2006;Newton and Geißel, 2012;Bua, 2017;Font et al, 2018;Pogrebinschi and Ryan, 2018). The success and impact of democratic innovations thus depend in no small measure on whether these elected representatives are willing to relinquish some of their power to "ordinary" citizens.…”

Deliberative future visioning: utilizing the deliberative democracy theory and practice in futures research

“…[60] DD practices often appear as micro-level practices and come across as being prone to be subsumed by and acceptance of representative systems. Local deliberative processes are usually generated and framed by governmental authorities and affected by the electoral cycle [61][62][63]. While remaining non-institutionalised in various -and especially strategic -levels of governance, the instrumental contributions of deliberative practices can be itemised: instead of competing for influence with decision-making apparatus, deliberative systems can add value to governance by contributing to communication between the administrative layers.…”

“…While remaining non-institutionalised in various -and especially strategic -levels of governance, the instrumental contributions of deliberative practices can be itemised: instead of competing for influence with decision-making apparatus, deliberative systems can add value to governance by contributing to communication between the administrative layers. Moreover, deliberative processes can advance policy making through setting the agenda rather than by targeting policy resolution [61].…”