参与性过程及其结果:比较大会和民众投票决定

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE European Political Science Review Pub Date : 2022-04-29 DOI:10.1017/S1755773922000157
A. el-Wakil, M. Strebel
{"title":"参与性过程及其结果:比较大会和民众投票决定","authors":"A. el-Wakil, M. Strebel","doi":"10.1017/S1755773922000157","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How do face-to-face, assembly processes, and non-face-to-face, popular vote processes impact the decisions made by citizens? Normative discussions of the comparative merits of these two broad types of participatory decision-making processes partly rely on empirical assumptions concerning this question. In this paper, we test the central assumption that assemblies lead to decisions that are more widely supported by participants than popular votes. We do so by analyzing 1,400 decisions made through these processes on the highly salient issue of municipal mergers in Swiss municipalities since 1999. We find that assembly decisions are consistently made by larger majorities than popular vote decisions and that this relationship is significantly mediated by turnout. This suggests that higher levels of agreement in assemblies mainly result from selection biases – with fewer dissenting citizens participating in assemblies than in popular votes – rather than from internal dynamics in assemblies.","PeriodicalId":47291,"journal":{"name":"European Political Science Review","volume":"14 1","pages":"441 - 458"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Participatory processes and their outcomes: comparing assembly and popular vote decisions\",\"authors\":\"A. el-Wakil, M. Strebel\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1755773922000157\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract How do face-to-face, assembly processes, and non-face-to-face, popular vote processes impact the decisions made by citizens? Normative discussions of the comparative merits of these two broad types of participatory decision-making processes partly rely on empirical assumptions concerning this question. In this paper, we test the central assumption that assemblies lead to decisions that are more widely supported by participants than popular votes. We do so by analyzing 1,400 decisions made through these processes on the highly salient issue of municipal mergers in Swiss municipalities since 1999. We find that assembly decisions are consistently made by larger majorities than popular vote decisions and that this relationship is significantly mediated by turnout. This suggests that higher levels of agreement in assemblies mainly result from selection biases – with fewer dissenting citizens participating in assemblies than in popular votes – rather than from internal dynamics in assemblies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Political Science Review\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"441 - 458\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Political Science Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773922000157\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773922000157","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

面对面的集会过程和非面对面的民众投票过程如何影响公民的决策?关于这两种广泛类型的参与性决策过程的比较优点的规范性讨论部分依赖于关于这个问题的经验假设。在本文中,我们测试了一个中心假设,即大会产生的决策比普选更广泛地得到参与者的支持。我们通过分析自1999年以来瑞士市政合并这一高度突出的问题通过这些过程做出的1400项决定来做到这一点。我们发现,大会决策始终是由多数人做出的,而不是由普选决定,这种关系显著地受到投票率的调节。这表明,集会中更高程度的共识主要是由于选择偏差——参加集会的持不同意见的公民比参加普选的公民少——而不是来自集会的内部动力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Participatory processes and their outcomes: comparing assembly and popular vote decisions
Abstract How do face-to-face, assembly processes, and non-face-to-face, popular vote processes impact the decisions made by citizens? Normative discussions of the comparative merits of these two broad types of participatory decision-making processes partly rely on empirical assumptions concerning this question. In this paper, we test the central assumption that assemblies lead to decisions that are more widely supported by participants than popular votes. We do so by analyzing 1,400 decisions made through these processes on the highly salient issue of municipal mergers in Swiss municipalities since 1999. We find that assembly decisions are consistently made by larger majorities than popular vote decisions and that this relationship is significantly mediated by turnout. This suggests that higher levels of agreement in assemblies mainly result from selection biases – with fewer dissenting citizens participating in assemblies than in popular votes – rather than from internal dynamics in assemblies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
50
期刊最新文献
Solidarity in question: activation of dormant political dispositions and Latino support for Trump in 2020 Deliberative ecologies: a relational critique of deliberative systems Who looks up to the Leviathan? Ideology, political trust, and support for restrictive state interventions in times of crisis The micro-foundations of social democratic welfare chauvinism and inclusion: class demand and policy reforms in Western Europe, 1980−2018 Religiosity and electoral turnout among Muslims in Western Europe
×
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