IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/5t72a.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Christensen, Henrik Serup

Abstract

This study examines how characteristics of participatory processes affect citizens' evaluations of such processes and thereby establish what kind of participatory process citizens demand. The literature on democratic innovations has proposed different criteria for evaluating participatory innovations. What remains unclear, however, is how citizens evaluate these participatory mechanisms. This is here examined in a conjoint analysis embedded in a representative survey of the Finnish population (n=1050). The conjoint examines the impact of inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency, and transferability on citizens’ evaluations of participatory processes. Furthermore, it is examined whether the evaluations differ by policy issue and process preference of the respondents. The results suggest that the criteria have important effects on citizens’ evaluations of participatory mechanisms and that these effects are relatively consistent across policy issue and process preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2019. "How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis," SocArXiv 5t72a, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:5t72a
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/5t72a
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5d6782a880f9b50018608791/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/5t72a?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ricardo Blaug, 2002. "Engineering Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 50(1), pages 102-116, March.
    2. Joan Font & Magdalena Wojcieszak & Clemente J. Navarro, 2015. "Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 153-172, April.
    3. Bansak, Kirk & Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2018. "The Number of Choice Tasks and Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 112-119, January.
    4. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    2. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    3. Matthew Amengual & Rita Mota & Alexander Rustler, 2023. "The ‘Court of Public Opinion:’ Public Perceptions of Business Involvement in Human Rights Violations," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 185(1), pages 49-74, June.
    4. Kawata, Keisuke & Nakabayashi, Masaki, 2023. "Persistent mind: The effects of information provision on policy preferences," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 522-537.
    5. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    6. Barceló, Joan & Sheen, Greg Chih-Hsin & Tung, Hans H. & Wu, Wen-Chin, 2022. "Vaccine nationalism among the public: A cross-country experimental evidence of own-country bias towards COVID-19 vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    7. Sveinung Arnesen & Troy S Broderstad & Mikael P Johannesson & Jonas Linde, 2019. "Conditional legitimacy: How turnout, majority size, and outcome affect perceptions of legitimacy in European Union membership referendums," European Union Politics, , vol. 20(2), pages 176-197, June.
    8. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    9. Robert Kubinec, 2018. "Patrons or Clients? Measuring and Experimentally Evaluating Political Connections of Firms in Morocco and Jordan," Working Papers 1280, Economic Research Forum, revised 26 Dec 2018.
    10. E. Keith Smith & Dennis Kolcava & Thomas Bernauer, 2024. "Stringent sustainability regulations for global supply chains are supported across middle-income democracies," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, December.
    11. Vrânceanu, Alina & Dinas, Elias & Heidland, Tobias & Ruhs, Martin, 2023. "The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 279441, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    12. Athey, Susan & Karlan, Dean & Palikot, Emil & Yuan, Yuan, 2022. "Smiles in Profiles: Improving Fairness and Efficiency Using Estimates of User Preferences in Online Marketplaces," Research Papers 4071, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    13. Tulsi Ram Aryal & Masaru Ichihashi & Shinji Kaneko, 2022. "How strong is demand for public transport service in Nepal? A case study of Kathmandu using a choice-based conjoint experiment," Journal of Economic Structures, Springer;Pan-Pacific Association of Input-Output Studies (PAPAIOS), vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    14. Knoblauch, Theresa A.K. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael, 2019. "Siting deep geothermal energy: Acceptance of various risk and benefit scenarios in a Swiss-German cross-national study," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 807-816.
    15. Auerbach, Jan, 2022. "Productive Office and Political Elitism," MPRA Paper 114582, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Mohammad Wais Azimy & Ghulam Dastgir Khan & Yuichiro Yoshida & Keisuke Kawata, 2020. "Measuring the Impacts of Saffron Production Promotion Measures on Farmers’ Policy Acceptance Probability: A Randomized Conjoint Field Experiment in Herat Province, Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, May.
    17. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    18. Kubinec, Robert, 2018. "Politically-Connected Firms and the Military-Clientelist Complex in North Africa," SocArXiv mrfcu, Center for Open Science.
    19. Beetsma, Roel & Burgoon, Brian & Nicoli, Francesco, 2023. "Is european attachment sufficiently strong to support an EU fiscal capacity: Evidence from a conjoint experiment," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    20. Anne-Marie Jeannet & Tobias Heidland & Martin Ruhs, 2021. "What asylum and refugee policies do Europeans want? Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 353-376, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:socarx:5t72a. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.