When a government attempts to institutionalize and regulate deliberative democracy: the how and why from a process-tracing perspective

Ravazzi, Stefania

doi:10.1080/19460171.2016.1159139

Cited by 19 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the urban living labs, the local stakeholders were able to obtain direct access to information as well as to contribute to creating evidence-based knowledge. Such efforts of ensuring the public participation on policy making have also been reflected in the reform of national law and regulation which makes sure that public involvement is mandatory (Ravazzi 2016). In this manner, the stakeholders contributed to collective transformation and decision processes that were based on a broad local knowledge and experience base, with solutions better adapted to local needs and priorities (Carstensen and Bason 2012).…”

Section: Conflicts Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Cost–Benefit Analysis—Supporting Urban Planning and Governance for Enhancing Social Integration

Ricci¹,

Enei²,

Ma³

2021

Towards Socially Integrative Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Conflicts Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Cost–Benefit Analysis—Supporting Urban Planning and Governance for Enhancing Social Integration

Ricci¹,

Enei²,

Ma³

2021

Towards Socially Integrative Cities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From this perspective, IBPPs can be defined as public agencies established by governments to organize participatory forums in accordance with the provisions of the legislation that created them. They thus constitute a distinct kind of public participation organization in the democratic-innovations literature due to their public statute and strong administrative autonomy (Fourniau, 2011; Ravazzi, 2017). In other words, as governmental entities, they enjoy considerable capacity to take action thanks to the financial, legal, and personnel resources at their disposal.…”

Section: What Is An Ibpp?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing the Public Participation Field: The Role of Independent Bodies for Public Participation

Bhérer

Gauthier

Simard

2020

Administration & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines how independent bodies for public participation (IBPPs) can initiate a convergence around practices among actors in the public participation field, especially sponsors of participatory arrangements and the associated participation firms. As IBPPs have the public resources and legal authority to independently organize participatory arrangements, they can play a coordinating role in the public participation field. A comparison of two IBPPs, one in Canada (Quebec) and one in France, shows that IBPPs enhance the development of the participation industry and strengthen recognition of several informal norms concerning public participation design and implementation.

show abstract

“…On the other hand, there is also a move towards institutionalisation, seeking to append or embed democratic innovations as part of the formal institutional landscape in various polities (e.g. Bua and Escobar, 2018;Weakley and Escobar, 2018;Escobar et al, 2018;Escobar, 2017a;Ravazzi, 2016;Font et al, 2014;Nabatchi et al, 2012;Wampler, 2012;Lewanski, 2013). These are fruitful areas for research in this Handbook and in years to come, with new opportunities offered by underexplored connections to fields such as social innovation and the commons (Coote, 2017;Brandsen et al, 2016;Henderson et al, 2018).…”

Section: The End Of the Beginning?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to the Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance: the field of democratic innovation

Escobar¹

2019

Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Welcome to this Handbook! You have in your hands the work of 60 authors brought together to offer a comprehensive overview of the field of democratic innovation across the globe. This introductory chapter places the Handbook in context, reflects on what the field has to offer, and outlines the key themes explored in six sections featuring 38 chapters. We live in a time where the ideal of democracy is widely loved, but its practices are broadly criticised. Studies often highlight democratic deficits and the proliferation of a democratic malaise, while there is a growing debate about whether we are entering a period of global democratic recession (Diamond, 2015; Levitsky and Way, 2015). In the last decade there has been a reduction in the number of democratic systems, and established democracies are under increasing pressure due to social, political, environmental and economic factors (Wike and Fetterolf, 2018). Moreover, the gap between the 'politically rich' and the 'politically poor' is widening in societies across the world (Dalton, 2017). A sobering overview was provided by the 2016 Democracy Index, where the global average score fell, with 72 countries dropping in the ranking from 2015, and just 38 moving up (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2016: 3-6). The number of 'full democracies' dropped from 20 to 19, with the US now classed as 'flawed'. Near half the world's population (49.3%) live currently in a democracy of some kind, but only 4.5% of people live in a 'full democracy'half as many than in 2015 (ibid). The 2018 Democracy Index, in turn, indicates that growing disillusionment with democratic institutions is accompanied by growing political participation as people are 'turning anger into action' (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2018: 4). Recent waves of the World Values Survey suggest increased frustration and authoritarian attitudes, with striking rises amongst the youngest populations of democratic systems around the world (Foa and Mounk, 2016). Although democratic principles still enjoy support, current practices and institutions evoke cynicism: people love democracy, but often despair at how it is practiced. In this context, the field of democratic innovation is growing, in part, to counter the democratic recession. This has interesting parallels with debates that emerged a century ago during arguably the first contemporary wave of democratic innovation. Although debates about participatory democracy, more broadly, can be traced back to Athenian democracy, the narratives about innovation that occupy this Handbook were shaped in the past century 1 (Escobar, 2017b). For example, John Dewey was a strong critic of the 'democratic elitism' that underpins mainstream narratives of representative democracy (Bernstein, 2010: 74). Dewey saw elitism as central to the demise of democracy and the advance of elite-driven populism and totalitarian regimes.

show abstract

When a government attempts to institutionalize and regulate deliberative democracy: the how and why from a process-tracing perspective

Cited by 19 publications

References 35 publications

Social Cost–Benefit Analysis—Supporting Urban Planning and Governance for Enhancing Social Integration

Social Cost–Benefit Analysis—Supporting Urban Planning and Governance for Enhancing Social Integration

Developing the Public Participation Field: The Role of Independent Bodies for Public Participation

Introduction to the Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance: the field of democratic innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

When a government attempts to institutionalize and regulate deliberative democracy: the how and why from a process-tracing perspective

Cited by 19 publications

References 35 publications

Social Cost&ndash;Benefit Analysis&mdash;Supporting Urban Planning and Governance for Enhancing Social Integration

Social Cost&ndash;Benefit Analysis&mdash;Supporting Urban Planning and Governance for Enhancing Social Integration

Developing the Public Participation Field: The Role of Independent Bodies for Public Participation

Introduction to the Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance: the field of democratic innovation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Social Cost–Benefit Analysis—Supporting Urban Planning and Governance for Enhancing Social Integration

Social Cost–Benefit Analysis—Supporting Urban Planning and Governance for Enhancing Social Integration