IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v49y2016i2d10.1007_s11077-015-9238-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole Curato

    (University of Canberra)

  • Marit Böker

    (Keele University)

Abstract

The systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory has shifted the focus away from seeking to design separate, internally deliberative ‘mini-publics’ and towards a new appreciation of their external, systemic quality. Yet, so far, such accounts have not gone beyond recognising a potential for mini-publics to contribute to deliberative systems. In this paper, we argue that a systemic conceptualisation of mini-publics must recognise their fundamentally ambivalent character: Since mini-publics have the potential both to foster and to undermine systemic deliberation, it is insufficient to celebrate their positive potential alone, and vital to develop frameworks that allow for a critical evaluation of mini-publics’ systemic role. To this end, we propose a framework based on the systemic qualities of deliberation-making, legitimacy-seeking and capacity-building, and conclude that key to mini-publics’ quality, when judged against these criteria, is not just their own features, but the degree of ‘co-development’ of all system components.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole Curato & Marit Böker, 2016. "Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 173-190, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:49:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-015-9238-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-015-9238-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-015-9238-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-015-9238-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Damien French & Michael Laver, 2009. "Participation Bias, Durable Opinion Shifts and Sabotage through Withdrawal in Citizens' Juries," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57, pages 422-450, June.
    2. Secko, David M. & Preto, Nina & Niemeyer, Simon & Burgess, Michael M., 2009. "Informed consent in biobank research: A deliberative approach to the debate," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 781-789, February.
    3. Luskin, Robert C. & Fishkin, James S. & Jowell, Roger, 2002. "Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 455-487, July.
    4. Damien French & Michael Laver, 2009. "Participation Bias, Durable Opinion Shifts and Sabotage through Withdrawal in Citizens' Juries," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 57(2), pages 422-450, June.
    5. James S. Fishkin, 2003. "Consulting the public through deliberative polling," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 128-133.
    6. Espen D. H. Olsen & Hans-Jörg Trenz, 2014. "From Citizens' Deliberation to Popular Will Formation? Generating Democratic Legitimacy in Transnational Deliberative Polling," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62, pages 117-133, April.
    7. Amy Lang, 2007. "But Is It for Real? The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly as a Model of State-Sponsored Citizen Empowerment," Politics & Society, , vol. 35(1), pages 35-70, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christoph Niessen, 2019. "When citizen deliberation enters real politics: how politicians and stakeholders envision the place of a deliberative mini-public in political decision-making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 481-503, September.
    2. Daniel Durrant & Tom Cohen, 2023. "Mini-Publics as an innovation in spatial governance," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 41(6), pages 1183-1199, September.
    3. Nicolas Rocle & Denis Salles, 2018. "“Pioneers but not guinea pigs”: experimenting with climate change adaptation in French coastal areas," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(2), pages 231-247, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew G.H. Thompson & Oliver Escobar & Jennifer J. Roberts & Stephen Elstub & Niccole M. Pamphilis, 2021. "The Importance of Context and the Effect of Information and Deliberation on Opinion Change Regarding Environmental Issues in Citizens’ Juries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.
    2. Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 688-714, October.
    3. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    4. Walmsley, Heather L., 2011. "Stock options, tax credits or employment contracts please! The value of deliberative public disagreement about human tissue donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-216, July.
    5. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    6. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    7. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 627-649, December.
    8. Deng, Chung-Yeh & Wu, Chia-Ling, 2010. "An innovative participatory method for newly democratic societies: The "civic groups forum" on national health insurance reform in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 896-903, March.
    9. Benslimane, Ismaël & Crosetto, Paolo & Magni-Berton, Raul & Varaine, Simon, 2023. "Intellectual property reform in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 204-221.
    10. Martina Bavastrelli, 2015. "(English) Democracy and deliberation. Can discussion changes opinions? (Italiano) Democrazia e deliberazione. Discutere fa cambiare opinione?," IRPPS Working Papers 76:2015, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    11. Denburg, Avram E. & Ungar, Wendy J. & Chen, Shiyi & Hurley, Jeremiah & Abelson, Julia, 2020. "Does moral reasoning influence public values for health care priority setting?: A population-based randomized stated preference survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(6), pages 647-658.
    12. James S Fishkin & Robert C Luskin & Alice Siu, 2014. "Europolis and the European public sphere: Empirical explorations of a counterfactual ideal," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 328-351, September.
    13. Baccaro, Lucio & Simoni, Marco, 2010. "Organizational determinants of wage moderation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33510, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Cavalcanti, Carina & Schläpfer, Felix & Schmid, Bernhard, 2010. "Public participation and willingness to cooperate in common-pool resource management: A field experiment with fishing communities in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 613-622, January.
    15. Rosen, Per, 2006. "Public dialogue on healthcare prioritisation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(1), pages 107-116, November.
    16. Ilyana Kuziemko & Michael I. Norton & Emmanuel Saez & Stefanie Stantcheva, 2015. "How Elastic Are Preferences for Redistribution? Evidence from Randomized Survey Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1478-1508, April.
    17. Joseph McMurray, 2017. "Ideology as Opinion: A Spatial Model of Common-Value Elections," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 108-140, November.
    18. Daniele Archibugi & Martina Bavastrelli & Marco Cellini, 2018. "Does discussion lead to opinion change? An experiment in deliberative democracy," Management Working Papers 14, Birkbeck Department of Management, revised Feb 2021.
    19. De Vries, Raymond & Stanczyk, Aimee & Wall, Ian F. & Uhlmann, Rebecca & Damschroder, Laura J. & Kim, Scott Y., 2010. "Assessing the quality of democratic deliberation: A case study of public deliberation on the ethics of surrogate consent for research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 1896-1903, June.
    20. Franziska Eckardt & Paul Benneworth, 2018. "The G1000 Firework Dialogue as a Social Learning System: A Community of Practice Approach," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-18, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:49:y:2016:i:2:d:10.1007_s11077-015-9238-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.