Fit to govern? Comparing citizen and policymaker perceptions of deliberative democratic innovations

IF 4.3 2区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Policy and Politics Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1332/030557320x15870515357288
Vesa Koskimaa, Lauri Rapeli
{"title":"Fit to govern? Comparing citizen and policymaker perceptions of deliberative democratic innovations","authors":"Vesa Koskimaa, Lauri Rapeli","doi":"10.1332/030557320x15870515357288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Democratic innovations, such as the introduction of deliberative mini-publics, have attracted increasing attention. The assumption is that involving citizens more directly in policymaking offers a way to address the widespread decline in public trust in the democratic process and traditional\n forms of engagement, such as voting in elections. While a thriving literature discusses the merits of mini-publics from a citizen perspective, scholars have neglected the views of policymakers. To fill the gap, we draw on two recent surveys conducted in Finland to examine citizens’ and\n policymakers’ attitudes to mini-publics. The data show that citizens report high levels of trust in the capacity of a deliberative citizen body to produce meaningful policies. However, policymakers are more sceptical about their value. This finding is important because it may well have\n implications for the willingness of policymakers to create mini-publics and take their recommendations into account.","PeriodicalId":47631,"journal":{"name":"Policy and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/030557320x15870515357288","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Democratic innovations, such as the introduction of deliberative mini-publics, have attracted increasing attention. The assumption is that involving citizens more directly in policymaking offers a way to address the widespread decline in public trust in the democratic process and traditional forms of engagement, such as voting in elections. While a thriving literature discusses the merits of mini-publics from a citizen perspective, scholars have neglected the views of policymakers. To fill the gap, we draw on two recent surveys conducted in Finland to examine citizens’ and policymakers’ attitudes to mini-publics. The data show that citizens report high levels of trust in the capacity of a deliberative citizen body to produce meaningful policies. However, policymakers are more sceptical about their value. This finding is important because it may well have implications for the willingness of policymakers to create mini-publics and take their recommendations into account.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
适合执政吗?比较公民和决策者对协商民主创新的看法
民主创新,如引入协商的迷你公众,已经引起了越来越多的关注。其假设是,让公民更直接地参与政策制定,可以解决公众对民主进程和传统参与形式(如选举投票)的信任普遍下降的问题。当大量文献从公民的角度讨论迷你公众的优点时,学者们忽视了决策者的观点。为了填补这一空白,我们借鉴了最近在芬兰进行的两项调查,以检查公民和政策制定者对微型公众的态度。数据显示,公民对审议公民机构制定有意义政策的能力表示高度信任。然而,政策制定者对它们的价值更持怀疑态度。这一发现很重要,因为它很可能对政策制定者建立小型公众并考虑其建议的意愿产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
12.80%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
The racialisation of sexism: how race frames shape anti-street harassment policies in Britain and France Concluding discussion: key themes in the (possible) move to co-production and co-creation in public management A theoretical framework for studying the co-creation of innovative solutions and public value Collaborative governance and innovation in public services settings Digital platforms for the co-creation of public value
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1