Journal articles: 'Deliberative Minipublics'

1

Ingham, Sean, and Ines Levin. "Can Deliberative Minipublics Influence Public Opinion? Theory and Experimental Evidence." Political Research Quarterly 71, no. 3 (February 19, 2018): 654–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1065912918755508.

Full text

Abstract:

Deliberative minipublics are small groups of citizens who deliberate together about a policy issue and convey their conclusions to decision makers. Theorists have argued that deliberative minipublics can give observers evidence about counterfactual, “enlightened” public opinion—what the people would think about an issue if they had the opportunity to deliberate with their fellow citizens. If the conclusions of a deliberative minipublic are received in this spirit and members of the public revise their opinions upon learning them, then deliberative minipublics could be a means of bringing actual public opinion into closer conformity with counterfactual, enlightened public opinion. We formalize a model of this theory and report the results of a survey experiment designed to test its predictions. The experiment produced evidence that learning the conclusions of a deliberative minipublic influenced respondents’ policy opinions, bringing them into closer conformity with the opinions of the participants in the deliberative minipublic.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Jennstål, Julia. "Deliberative participation and personality: the effect of traits, situations, and motivation." European Political Science Review 10, no. 3 (February 20, 2018): 417–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1755773918000024.

Full text

Abstract:

Inclusiveness is essential to deliberative democracy, but factors influencing citizens’ willingness to participate in deliberation need to be better understood. In the case of deliberative minipublics, demographic, and attitudinal attributes demonstrably correlate with willingness to participate, and thus arguably affect the inclusiveness of deliberative events. Similarly, features of deliberative situations also influence participation – whether it will be decisive, for example. However, what is lacking is a framework for how individual and situational characteristics interact, and the role of background political and cultural settings in influencing this dynamic. Advances in personality psychology offers a useful framework for addressing this lacuna, as well as providing tools for understanding how effective participation can be enhanced. In this article, I explore how personality interacts with situational features to influence patterns of deliberative participation, as well as the motivations that are associated. These effects are illustrated by drawing on data from a field experiment, involving minipublic deliberation in Sweden on the issue of begging by internal EU migrants. The findings support the relevance of personality as a predictor of participation in deliberation, which interacts with features of deliberative situations to induce particular motivations to either participate or refuse.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Fishkin, James. "Cristina Lafont’s Challenge to Deliberative Minipublics." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16, no. 2 (2020): 56–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.394.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Knobloch, Katherine R., Michael L. Barthel, and John Gastil. "Emanating Effects: The Impact of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on Voters’ Political Efficacy." Political Studies 68, no. 2 (June 6, 2019): 426–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032321719852254.

Full text

Abstract:

Deliberative processes can alter participants’ attitudes and behavior, but deliberative minipublics connected to macro-level discourse may also influence the attitudes of non-participants. We theorize that changes in political efficacy occur when non-participants become aware of a minipublic and utilize its deliberative outputs in their decision making during an election. Statewide survey data on the 2010 and 2012 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Reviews tested the link between awareness and use of the Citizens’ Initiative Review Statements and statewide changes in internal and external political efficacy. Results from a longitudinal 2010 panel survey show that awareness of the Citizens’ Initiative Reviews increases respondents’ external efficacy, whereas use of the Citizens’ Initiative Review Statements on ballot measures increases respondents’ internal efficacy. A cross-sectional 2012 survey found the same associations. Moreover, the 2010 survey showed that greater exposure to—and confidence in—deliberative outputs was associated with higher levels of both internal and external efficacy.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Gastil, John. "The Lessons and Limitations of Experiments in Democratic Deliberation." Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14, no. 1 (October 13, 2018): 271–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113639.

Full text

Abstract:

Experiments are essential to the practice of democratic deliberation, which itself is an experimental remedy to the problem of self-governance. This field, however, is constrained by the impossibility of conducting ecologically valid experiments that take into account the full complexity of deliberative theory, which spans different levels of analysis and has a multidimensional variable at its core. Nonetheless, informative patterns have emerged from the dozens of lab studies, survey experiments, and quasi-experiments in the field conducted to date. This body of work shows the feasibility of gathering diverse samples of people to deliberate, but it also underscores the difficulties that arise in deliberation, including extreme disagreement, poor conflict management, and how a lack of diversity can forestall meaningful disagreement. When public engagement strategies and discussion formats mitigate those hazards, deliberation can improve participants’ understanding of issues, sharpen their judgments, and change their attitudes toward civic engagement. Well-publicized deliberative minipublics can even influence wider public opinion and voting intentions.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Steel, Daniel, Naseeb Bolduc, Kristina Jenei, and Michael Burgess. "Rethinking Representation and Diversity in Deliberative Minipublics." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16, no. 1 (2020): 46–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.398.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Gerber, Marlène. "Equal Partners in Dialogue? Participation Equality in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (Europolis)." Political Studies 63, no. 1_suppl (December 10, 2014): 110–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12183.

Full text

Abstract:

By gathering a representative sample of citizens from all 27 EU Member States, the deliberative poll Europolis created the opportunity for the inclusion of a wide variety of European voices. Taking up claims of difference democrats who argue that informal hurdles to participation can endure even after individuals gain formal access to the floor, this article argues for an extended approach to evaluate equality in deliberative minipublics. Specifically, it assesses whether participants contributed in roughly equal measures to the discussion and whether their discussion partners considered their contributions on equal merits. In doing so, the article adds to the small but growing literature on deliberation that expresses reservations about taking the willingness to engage with others' claims for granted. In order to account for the intrinsically relational aspect of interpersonal communication, measures of social network analysis are introduced as possible tools to evaluate participation equality in deliberative encounters.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Davies, Ben B., Kirsty Blackstock, and Felix Rauschmayer. "‘Recruitment’, ‘Composition’, and ‘Mandate’ Issues in Deliberative Processes: Should we Focus on Arguments Rather than Individuals?" Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 23, no. 4 (August 2005): 599–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c04112s.

Full text

Abstract:

Public participation in environmental decisionmaking has become an accepted part of Western societies over the last three decades. Whereas on a simple level every democratic process based on aggregating individual preferences contains an element of public participation, the literature on discursive democracy emphasises instead a more subtle, rich, and intense social process of deliberation. In this model, the spectrum of understandings, interests, and values expressed in different discourses is explored in detail by participants before a decision is reached. Although within an idealised model of discursive democracy such deliberations would involve every member of society potentially affected by the issue under discussion, a range of constraints mean that in practice this ideal model can only be approximated by discussions held in various forms of ‘minipublics’, which contain in most cases only a tiny proportion of the relevant community—for example, citizens' juries and consensus conferences. We identify three problem areas concerning the choice of participants in such ‘minipublics’, which we call the ‘recruitment problem’ (how individual participants are chosen to take part), the ‘composition problem’ (what the final composition of the minipublic is), and the ‘mandate problem’ (what role each of the participants assumes within the process). We suggest that most studies have not explicitly distinguished these elements, and consequently the rationale for why the results of such processes should be considered legitimate in either an advisory or a decisionmaking capacity is often unclear. We review the limitations of traditional recruitment methods and suggest a new alternative we consider appropriate for discursive processes—utilising Q methodology as a step in developing a purposive sampling frame for the recruitment phase. Although this approach is not without problems, we suggest that it could potentially offer a better basis on which to address the recruitment problem for those processes seeking to approximate discursively democratic ideals.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Warren, Mark E., and John Gastil. "Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship?" Journal of Politics 77, no. 2 (April 2015): 562–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/680078.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Stanley, Timothy. "Religious Interactions in Deliberative Democratic Systems Theory." Religions 11, no. 4 (April 22, 2020): 210. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel11040210.

Full text

Abstract:

The following essay begins by outlining the pragmatist link between truth claims and democratic deliberations. To this end, special attention will be paid to Jeffrey Stout’s pragmatist enfranchisement of religious citizens. Stout defends a deliberative notion of democracy that fulfills stringent criteria of inclusion and security against domination. While mitigating secular exclusivity, Stout nonetheless acknowledges the new visibility of religion in populist attempts to dominate political life through mass rule and charismatic authorities. In response, I evaluate recent innovations in deliberative democratic systems theory (DDST). By adding a pragmatist inflection to DDST, I aim to apprehend the complex religious interactions between partisan interest groups as well as the trust-building capacities of minipublics.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Ravazzi, Stefania, and Gianfranco Pomatto. "Flexibility, Argumentation and Confrontation. How Deliberative Minipublics Can Affect Policies on Controversial Issues." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 10, no. 2 (December 10, 2014): 10. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.212.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Már, Kristinn, and John Gastil. "Tracing the Boundaries of Motivated Reasoning: How Deliberative Minipublics Can Improve Voter Knowledge." Political Psychology 41, no. 1 (May 9, 2019): 107–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12591.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Sintomer, Yves. "From Deliberative to Radical Democracy? Sortition and Politics in the Twenty-First Century." Politics & Society 46, no. 3 (August 13, 2018): 337–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032329218789888.

Full text

Abstract:

This article defends four claims. The first is that in the last few decades, two waves of democratic innovation based on random selection must be differentiated by their partly different concrete devices, embodying different social dynamics and pointing toward different kinds of democracy. The second claim is that the rationale of the first wave, based on randomly selected minipublics, largely differs from the dynamic of political sortition in Athens, as it points toward deliberative democracy rather than radical democracy. Conversely, empowered sortition processes that have emerged during the second wave capture better the spirit of radical Athenian democratic traditions. The third claim is normative: these empowered sortition processes are more promising for a real democratization of democracy. The last claim is that any proposal of a legislature by lot must rely on this lesson when trying to defend a normatively convincing and politically realistic perspective.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Bächtiger, André, and Saskia Goldberg. "Towards a More Robust, but Limited and Contingent Defence of the Political Uses of Deliberative Minipublics." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16, no. 2 (2020): 33–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.390.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Braun, Kathrin, and Sabine Könninger. "From experiments to ecosystems? Reviewing public participation, scientific governance and the systemic turn." Public Understanding of Science 27, no. 6 (July 7, 2017): 674–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963662517717375.

Full text

Abstract:

The article discusses a recent systemic turn in public participation in science studies. It reviews the main lines of criticism brought forward in science, technology and society towards public participation in science discourse and argues that much of it refers to the field’s preoccupation with isolated, stage-managed minipublics. It then discusses a series of efforts in science, technology and society, and other fields to study public participation in a more systemic or holistic perspective. The article advances the argument that there are different ways of conceptualizing such a perspective, not all of which are well equipped to account for contestation, conflict and power. We distinguish between an aggregative approach, deliberative systems theory, an eco-systemic and a decentred governance approach and argue that the latter allows us to study the complexities of public participation without relying on a normative concept of system and account for power relations that may structure the field of public participation.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

McCarthy, Michael A. "The Politics of Democratizing Finance: A Radical View." Politics & Society 47, no. 4 (November 11, 2019): 611–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0032329219878990.

Full text

Abstract:

How can finance be durably democratized? In the centers of financial power in both the United States and the United Kingdom, proposals now circulate to give workers and the public more say over how flows of credit are allocated. This article examines five democratization proposals: credit union franchises, public investment banks, sovereign wealth funds, inclusive ownership funds, and bank nationalization. It considers how these plans might activate worker and public engagement in decision making about finance by focusing on three modes of public participation: representative democracy, direct democracy, and deliberative minipublics. It then considers the degree to which democratization plans might be resilient to de-democratization threats from business. It argues that of the five, bank nationalization goes furthest in guarding against de-democratization threats but is still pocked with pitfalls if it relies solely on representative democracy. It argues that two criteria appear necessary for democratically durable alternatives: the active direct participation of workers and citizens and the weakening of businesses’ capacity for democratic retrenchment.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Kim, Joohyung. "Deliberation and Democracy : An Assessment of the Deliberative Minipublic." JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY POLITICS 11, no. 3 (December 31, 2018): 69–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.52594/jcp.2018.12.11.3.69.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

MacKenzie, Michael Kenneth, and Kieran O’Doherty. "Deliberating Future Issues: Minipublics and Salmon Genomics." Journal of Deliberative Democracy 7, no. 1 (October 19, 2011): 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.116.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Vrydagh, Julien. "The minipublic bubble: how the contributions of minipublics are conceived in Belgium (2001–2021)." European Political Science Review, January 4, 2023, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1755773922000595.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Deliberative minipublics—participatory processes combining civic lottery with structured deliberation—are increasingly presented as a solution to address a series of problems. Whereas political theory has been prolific in conceiving their contributions, it remains unclear how the people organizing minipublics in practice view their purposes, and how these conceptions align with the theory. This paper conducts a thematic analysis of the reports of all the minipublics convened in Belgium between 2001 and 2021 (n = 51) to map whether and how justifications coincide with the theory. The analysis reveals an important gap: minipublics are in practice predominantly presented as contributions to policymaking, while more deliberative functions remain peripheral. Some common practical purposes also remain under-theorized, in particular their capacity to bridge the gap between citizens and politics. This desynchronization, combined with a plethora of desired outcomes associated with minipublics, indicates the creation of a minipublic bubble which inflates their capacity to solve problems.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Devillers, Sophie, Julien Vrydagh, Didier Caluwaerts, and Min Reuchamps. "Looking in from the Outside: How Do Invited But Not Selected Citizens Perceive the Legitimacy of a Minipublic?" Regular Issue 17, no. 1 (June 1, 2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.961.

Full text

Abstract:

Deliberative minipublics are often critiqued for being disconnected with mass democracy. This is problematic from the perspective of legitimacy. If ordinary citizens are not aware of the existence of minipublics, how can citizens consent to the process and outcomes of these processes? One possible design innovation is to widen the pool of citizens randomly invited to take part in minipublics. While not all invited individuals will be selected to join minipublics, inviting a large pool of people, at the very least, may trigger their curiosity to closely observe and scrutinise the debates and recommendations of their fellow citizens. Our article examines the viability of this design feature using the case study of the citizen panel ‘Make Your Brussels – Mobility’. We focus on a group of 336 people who accepted the invitation to participate in the citizen panel but were not among the 40 people selected to participate. We have two major findings. First, despite their initial interest in taking part in a minipublic, these citizens did not follow up on their interest in the minipublic. Second, these citizens do not perceive citizen panels as capable of delivering consensual outcomes. We conclude the article by drawing out implications for deliberative practice, especially in enhancing the legitimacy of minipublics.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Gül, Volkan. "Accountability Relations in Minipublics and Organizers." Journal of Deliberative Democracy, September 7, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/10.16997/jdd.947.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper aims to understand accountability relations in minipublics. It shows that accountability might be weak for their participants, but not for their organizers. It discusses accountability in a descriptive fashion as a relational concept that can be weak or strong depending on the weight of sanctions. In addition, deliberative accountability has a separate section. While the deliberative accountability of deliberators is obvious, the deliberative accountability of organizers is not discussed much, yet it is an important expectation from organizers. This will be clearer when various accountability relations in the context of minipublics are fleshed out by asking who is accountable to whom and for what?. Final section will raise three points. Firstly, trust-based selection model of principal-agent accountability (Mansbridge 2009, 2014) will be discussed as it seems to offer us a different perspective on the weak accountability of participants and points at the importance of selection done by organizers. Secondly, it will be argued that the empowerment of minipublics is an important determinant of whether we want stronger accountability mechanisms in minipublics. Finally, it will be argued that organizers might be held accountable for the decisions made by an empowered minipublic.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Gül, Volkan. "Accountability Relations in Minipublics and Organizers." Volume 18 Issue 1 18, no. 1 (April 4, 2022). http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.947.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper aims to understand accountability relations in minipublics. It shows that accountability might be weak for their participants, but not for their organizers. It discusses accountability in a descriptive fashion as a relational concept that can be weak or strong depending on the weight of sanctions. In addition, deliberative accountability has a separate section. While the deliberative accountability of deliberators is obvious, the deliberative accountability of organizers is not discussed much, yet it is an important expectation from organizers. This will be clearer when various accountability relations in the context of minipublics are fleshed out by asking who is accountable to whom and for what?. The final section will raise three points. Firstly, trust-based selection model of principal-agent accountability (Mansbridge 2009, 2014) will be discussed as it seems to offer us a different perspective on the weak accountability of participants and points at the importance of selection done by organizers. Secondly, it will be argued that the empowerment of minipublics is an important determinant of whether we want stronger accountability mechanisms in minipublics. Finally, it will be argued that organizers might be held accountable for the decisions made by an empowered minipublic.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Gastil, John, and Michael Broghammer. "Do Hostile Media Perceptions Constrain Minipublics? A Study of How Oregon Voters Perceive Citizens' Statements." Volume 17 17, no. 2 (December 22, 2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.982.

Full text

Abstract:

The deliberative quality of a minipublic often depends on its ability to inform the opinions of a larger public. The Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) aims to do so by producing a Citizens’ Statement, which we conceptualize as a deliberative form of mass media. Like any mass media, this Statement can only influence public opinion to the extent that citizens consider it unbiased and credible. Hostile media perceptions often prevent favorable evaluations of media content, but no prior work has considered whether these perceptions could undermine the output of deliberative minipublics. To examine that possibility, we analyze online survey data on Oregon voters’ assessments of two 2014 Citizens’ Statements. Results showed that voters’ evaluations of the Statements were unaffected by hostile media perceptions. Assessments were more favorable when voters had confidence in their knowledge of the CIR’s design, process, and participants. Evaluations also were more favorable for those voters with greater faith in deliberation’s capacity to render considered judgments. We elaborate on these findings in our discussion section and consider their theoretical and practical implications for implementing minipublics and bolstering their deliberative quality.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Buchstein, Hubertus. "Lottocracy and deliberative accountability." Philosophy & Social Criticism, October 27, 2020, 019145372096499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453720964994.

Full text

Abstract:

The comment on Cristina Lafont’s book includes two main points. (1) Minipublics do not necessarily stand in opposition to political theories that justify electoral democracy and participatory conceptions of deliberative democracy. In contrast to such a view, I argue that minipublics should be combined with electoral and participatory forms of democracy. (2) A deliberative concept of accountability may overcome some of the shortcomings of the traditional, voluntaristic concepts of democratic accountability.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

van der Does, Ramon, and Vincent Jacquet. "Small-Scale Deliberation and Mass Democracy: A Systematic Review of the Spillover Effects of Deliberative Minipublics." Political Studies, May 5, 2021, 003232172110072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00323217211007278.

Full text

Abstract:

Deliberative minipublics are popular tools to address the current crisis in democracy. However, it remains ambiguous to what degree these small-scale forums matter for mass democracy. In this study, we ask the question to what extent minipublics have “spillover effects” on lay citizens—that is, long-term effects on participating citizens and effects on non-participating citizens. We answer this question by means of a systematic review of the empirical research on minipublics’ spillover effects published before 2019. We identify 60 eligible studies published between 1999 and 2018 and provide a synthesis of the empirical results. We show that the evidence for most spillover effects remains tentative because the relevant body of empirical evidence is still small. Based on the review, we discuss the implications for democratic theory and outline several trajectories for future research.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Jacquet, Vincent, and Ramon van der Does. "Deliberation and Policy-Making: Three Ways to Think About Minipublics’ Consequences." Administration & Society, October 7, 2020, 009539972096451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0095399720964511.

Full text

Abstract:

Policy-makers are increasingly experimenting with various ways to involve citizens in policy-making. Deliberative forums composed of lay citizens (minipublics) count among the most popular of such innovations. Despite their popularity, it is often unclear in what ways such minipublics could affect policy-making. This article addresses this issue of conceptual ambiguity by drawing on an original systematic review of the literature. It shows that the literature has approached these consequences in three ways: congruence with decisions, consideration in the policy-making process, and structural change. The article discusses the implications for empirical research and points out trajectories for future research on deliberative minipublics.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Daw, Tim, Daniel Lindvall, Mikael Karlsson, Naghmeh Nasiritousi, Marina Lindell, Simon West, Tord Snäll, Jeannette Eggers, Thomas Hahn, and Andrea Downing. "Deliberative Minipublics’ Potential for Sustainability Science and Transformations." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2022. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4283097.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Ingham, Sean, and Ines Levin. "Can Deliberative Minipublics Influence Public Opinion? Theory and Experimental Evidence." SSRN Electronic Journal, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2990585.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Jacquet, Vincent, and Ramon van der Does. "The Consequences of Deliberative Minipublics: Systematic Overview, Conceptual Gaps, and New Directions." Representation, June 18, 2020, 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2020.1778513.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Jennstål, Julia. "Deliberation and Complexity of Thinking. Using the Integrative Complexity Scale to Assess the Deliberative Quality of Minipublics." Swiss Political Science Review, February 6, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12343.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Gastil, John, and Katherine Knobloch. "How Deliberative Experiences Shape Subjective Outcomes: A Study of Fifteen Minipublics from 2010-2018." Journal of Deliberative Democracy, February 19, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.942.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Ingham, Sean, and Ines Levin. "Effects of Deliberative Minipublics on Public Opinion: Experimental Evidence from a Survey on Social Security Reform." International Journal of Public Opinion Research, January 7, 2017, edw030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edw030.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Arlen, Gordon. "Citizen Tax Juries: Democratizing Tax Enforcement after the Panama Papers." Political Theory, August 12, 2021, 009059172110180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00905917211018007.

Full text

Abstract:

Four years after the Panama Papers scandal, tax avoidance remains an urgent moral-political problem. Moving beyond both the academic and policy mainstream, I advocate the “democratization of tax enforcement,” by which I mean systematic efforts to make tax avoiders accountable to the judgment of ordinary citizens. Both individual oligarchs and multinational corporations have access to sophisticated tax avoidance strategies that impose significant fiscal costs on democracies and exacerbate preexisting distributive and political inequalities. Yet much contemporary tax sheltering occurs within the letter of the law, rendering criminal sanctions ineffective. In response, I argue for the creation of Citizen Tax Juries, deliberative minipublics empowered to scrutinize tax avoiders, demand accountability, and facilitate concrete reforms. This proposal thus responds to the wider aspiration, within contemporary democratic theory, to secure more popular control over essential economic processes.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Már, Kristinn, and John Gastil. "Do Voters Trust Deliberative Minipublics? Examining the Origins and Impact of Legitimacy Perceptions for the Citizens’ Initiative Review." Political Behavior, August 11, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09742-6.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Boswell, John. "Seeing Like a Citizen: How Being a Participant in a Citizens' Assembly Changed Everything I Thought I Knew about Deliberative Minipublics." Volume 17 17, no. 2 (December 2, 2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.16997/jdd.975.

Full text

Abstract:

This paper presents a participant-observation account of my experience as a randomly selected participant at a Citizens’ Assembly. I reflect on what the unique experience of ‘seeing like a citizen’ can add to accepted understandings and practices of mini-public deliberation. I find that the experience, though energising, exciting and ultimately hugely worthwhile, also upended many of my prior assumptions grounded in academic scholarship and previous experience as an observer, facilitator and organiser of such events. I draw on the experience to shed new light on the capacity of assembled citizens to: accurately reflect the concerns of the broader community; soberly digest and reflect on evidence; earnestly engage in reasoned argumentation with one another; carefully reach sophisticated or thought-through recommendations as a collective; or ultimately gain a broader sense of efficacy from their engagement as individuals. The point in making these observations is not to critique moves toward democratic innovation (or the specific Citizens’ Assembly I was a part of), but to push forward scholarship and practice to respond and adapt to these little considered challenges.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Lafont, Cristina. "A militant defence of democracy: A few replies to my critics." Philosophy & Social Criticism, December 21, 2020, 019145372097472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453720974727.

Full text

Abstract:

In this essay, I address some questions and challenges brought about by the contributors to this special issue on my book ‘ Democracy without Shortcuts’. First, I clarify different aspects of my critique of deep pluralist conceptions of democracy to highlight the core incompatibilities with the participatory conception of deliberative democracy that I defend in the book. Second, I distinguish different senses of the concept of ‘blind deference’ that I use in the book to clarify several aspects and consequences of my critique of epistocratic conceptions of democracy and their search for ‘expertocratic shortcuts’. This in turn helps me briefly address the difficult question of the proper role of experts in a democracy. Third, I address potential uses of empowered minipublics that I did not discuss in the book and highlight some reasons to worry about their lack of accountability. This discussion in turn leads me to address the difficult question of which institutions are best suited to represent the transgenerational collective people who are supposed to own a constitutional project. Finally, I address some interesting suggestions for how to move the book’s project forward.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Romão Netto, José Veríssimo, and Silvia Cervellini. "MINIPÚBLICOS E INOVAÇÃO DEMOCRÁTICA O Caso do Jardim Lapenna." Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 36, no. 106 (2021). http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/3610612/2021.

Full text

Abstract:

Os Minipúblicos surgiram como inovação democrática, no contexto da “virada deliberativa” e das críticas à democracia representativa na década de 1970, resgatando o sorteio como alternativa à qualificação democrática. Este artigo descreve a primeira experiência brasileira de Minipúblico, no âmbito do Plano de Bairro do Jardim Lapenna, São Paulo, que fez recomendações para a revitalização do principal espaço urbano do bairro. A partir de uma investigação exploratória e contextualista da aplicação do Minipúblico, o artigo classifica os contextos discursivos em categorias visando analisar as principais percepções dos atores sociais envolvidos nos processos de deliberação realizados. Com isso, avalia-se a aposta teórico-normativa de que o processo deliberativo favorece a estruturação de uma razão coletiva. O artigo termina por fazer uma reflexão acerca das potencialidades dos Minipúblicos, como inovação democrática.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Deliberative Minipublics'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles