Participatory Decision Making: A Field Experiment on Manipulating the Votes
AbstractMany believe that deliberative democracy, where individuals discuss alternatives before voting on them, should result in collectively superior outcomes because voters become better informed and decisions are justified using reason. These deliberations typically involve a moderator, however, whose role has been under-examined. We conduct a field experiment to test the effects moderators may have. Participants in a class of 107 students voted on options over their writing and exam requirements. Before voting, they participated in group discussions of about five people each with one moderator. Some (randomly assigned) moderators remained neutral throughout, while others made limited interventions, supporting a specific option. We find a substantial moderator effect. Our experiment is structured like deliberations used world-wide to make community decisions and thus should have some external validity. The results indicate that if organized interest groups had influence over moderators, they might be able to hijack a deliberative decision-making process.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 24048.
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
deliberative democracy; participatory decision making; interest group; manipulation; moderators; facilitators;
Other versions of this item:
- Paolo Spada & Raymond Vreeland, 2010. "Participatory Decision Making: A Field Experiment on Manipulating the Votes," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2010_19, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
- D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
- C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-07-31 (All new papers)
- NEP-CDM-2010-07-31 (Collective Decision-Making)
- NEP-EXP-2010-07-31 (Experimental Economics)
- NEP-POL-2010-07-31 (Positive Political Economics)
- NEP-UPT-2010-07-31 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Platteau, Jean-Philippe & Gaspart, Frederic, 2003. "The Risk of Resource Misappropriation in Community-Driven Development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 1687-1703, October.
- James D. Fearon & Macartan Humphreys & Jeremy M. Weinstein, 2009. "Can Development Aid Contribute to Social Cohesion after Civil War? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Post-conflict Liberia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 287-91, May.
- Mansuri, Ghazala & Rao, Vijayendra, 2004.
"Community-based (and driven) development : A critical review,"
Policy Research Working Paper Series
3209, The World Bank.
- Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
- Kevin M. Morrison & Matthew M. Singer, 2007. "Inequality and Deliberative Development: Revisiting Bolivia's Experience with the PRSP," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 25(6), pages 721-740, November.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.