International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
Article
Innovations in democratic
governance: how does citizen
participation contribute to a
better democracy?
International Review of
Administrative Sciences
77(2) 275–293
! The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0020852311399851
ras.sagepub.com
Ank Michels
Utrecht School of Governance, Utrecht University, Netherlands
Abstract
Over recent decades, many countries have gained experience with referendums, citizens’ forums, citizens’ juries, collaborative governance, participatory budgeting, and
other models in which citizens have a more direct say. Citizen participation is usually
considered a valuable element of democratic citizenship and democratic decisionmaking. Many theorists claim that citizen participation has positive effects on the quality
of democracy. This article examines the probability of these claims for a large number of
cases in different Western countries. Four types of democratic innovation are distinguished and evaluated according to the extent to which they realize positive effects on
democracy. The findings show that citizen involvement has a number of positive effects
on democracy: it increases issue knowledge, civic skills, and public engagement, and it
contributes to the support for decisions among the participants. The analysis also makes
it clear that the contribution of participation to democracy differs according to type of
democratic innovations; deliberative forums and surveys appear to be better at promoting the exchange of arguments, whereas referendums and participatory policy
making projects are better at giving citizens influence on policy making and involving
more people. But, as I try to argue, since these positive effects are perceptible only to
those taking part and the number of participants is often small or particular groups are
underrepresented, the benefits to individual democratic citizenship are far more conclusive than the benefits to democracy as a whole.
Points for practitioners
This article distinguishes four types of democratic innovation and, for each type, examines
the effects of citizen participation on the quality of democracy. It offers a systematic analysis
of the contribution of participation to elements of democracy, such as influence on decision-making, inclusion, skills and virtues, deliberation, and legitimacy. The analysis points to
a number of positive effects on democracy, but the findings also show that the contribution
of participation to democracy differs according to the type of democratic innovations.
Corresponding author:
Ank Michels, Utrecht University, Bijlhouwerstraat 6, Utrecht 3511 ZC, The Netherlands
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
276
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
Keywords
administration and democracy, citizen participation, responsiveness
Introduction
Over recent decades, many countries have gained experience with referendums,
citizens’ forums, citizens’ juries, collaborative governance, participatory budgeting, and many other models in which citizens have a more direct say. Most
people would view this as a positive development. Citizen participation is usually
considered a valuable element of democratic citizenship and democratic decisionmaking. Also, theorists in democratic theory have argued that a stronger role for
citizens is vital to democracy. In particular, theories on participatory democracy,
deliberative democracy, and social capital make a number of claims: participation
gives citizens a more direct say, it gives a voice to individual citizens and to
minorities, it encourages civic skills and civic virtues, it leads to rational decisions
based on public reasoning, and it increases support for the outcome and the
process. But the fundamental question is whether there is empirical evidence to
uphold this argument. Does citizen participation, indeed, contribute to a better
democracy?
While many academics have written about involving citizens in policy making,
empirical research about the actual effects of participation is scarce. Empirical
studies on, for example, empowered participatory governance (e.g. Fung, 2006),
on deliberative democracy (e.g. Fishkin, 2009; Hendriks et al., 2007), or on citizen
governance (e.g. Van Stokkom, 2006), are mostly case studies on a limited number
of cases and focusing on one or two elements of democracy. The aim of this article
is to assess the contribution of citizen participation to democracy for different types
of democratic innovation. In order to evaluate the impact of citizen participation
on democracy, I developed a framework for studying the relation between citizen
participation and democracy. This framework contains elements from different
theories on citizen participation. Furthermore, this study includes empirical evidence about effects from 120 cases in different Western countries. The focus is on
those forms of citizen participation which are related to policy problems and which
usually are prompted or facilitated by government.
The article starts out by discussing the theoretical claims about the contribution of citizen participation to democracy as put forward in theories of participatory democracy, social capital, and deliberative democracy. This section
concludes with a framework for analysing the relation between citizen participation and democracy. In the second subsection, four types of democratic innovation will be distinguished. The method of data collection and analysis is
subsequently clarified, after which, in the third section, the framework is used
to analyse the main findings. The article concludes with some thoughts about the
implications of the findings for our understanding of the contribution of citizen
participation to democracy.
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
277
Theoretical claims about the contribution of
citizen participation
The development of complex mass societies in the twentieth century made direct
citizen rule an unrealistic option. Western democracies, therefore, became representative democracies in which the elected representatives make decisions. Many
political theorists, it should be noted, have also defended representative democracy
as the most realistic option for modern democracies. According to Schumpeter,
democracy is a ‘method’, and its most essential feature is the competition for
leadership. The role of the people is merely to produce a government
(Schumpeter, 1976: 269). And, although the democratic ideal of populist democracy is clearly present in Dahl’s A Preface to Democratic Theory (1956), Dahl also
argues that we need to be realistic. In other words, the best we can do is to try to
realize a set of conditions that would be necessary and sufficient for maximizing
democracy in the real world (Dahl, 1956: 51). In his view, elections are essential to
maximize democracy. While Dahl searches for conditions in terms of institutions
and procedures to maximize populist democracy, others, and particularly social
choice theorists, have shown that it is impossible to define the will of the majority
(Ostrogorski, 1964; Rae and Daudt, 1976; Riker, 1982). As electors vote for party
programmes containing opinions on all types of issues, elections rarely reveal the
preferences of the voters on specific issues.
Some theorists who favour a narrow conception of political participation
emphasize the negative aspects of participation and regard massive participation
as even being dangerous. Dahl argues that an increase in political activity among
the lower socioeconomic classes could lead to more authoritarian ideas and thus to
a decline in consensus on the basic norms of democracy (Dahl, 1956: 89). This view
is shared by Sartori, who feared that massive participation by the people could even
lead to totalitarianism (Sartori, 1987).
Representative democracy is also being questioned. Complex decision-making
structures, in which many actors interact, and the decline of the representation
function of political parties (e.g. decreasing voter turnout and increasing electoral
volatility; see Mair, 2005) foster discussion of the legitimacy of democracy and
have raised demands for additional forms of citizen participation (Cain et al.,
2006). Theoretically, the role of citizen participation in democracy is a discussion
mainly conducted by participatory and deliberative democrats. Although by no
means exhaustive, we present the main theoretical arguments in favour of more
direct forms of political involvement of citizens in democracy (see also Michels and
De Graaf, 2010).
Participatory democrats have argued that delegation of decision-making power
leads to citizens becoming alienated from politics. They regard citizen participation
as vital to democracy. This notion derives from Rousseau, whose view that the
participation of each citizen in political decision-making is vitally important to the
functioning of the state laid the foundation for theories on participatory democracy. According to Rousseau, the basis of the political system is the social contract.
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
278
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
Under this contract, individuals abstain from their own desires and decide to work
together and to be free by making the laws by which they are governed. Modern
theorists of participatory democracy do not want to limit participation to political
decision-making, but stress that participation should also encompass such areas as
the workplace and local communities (Pateman, 1970; Barber, 1984). Barber argues
that an excess of liberalism has undermined our democratic institutions and fostered cynicism about voting and alienation among citizens. Large groups of citizens
never vote, while those citizens who are politically active mainly participate by
electing persons who then do the actual work.
Participatory democrats believe that participation gives citizens a say in decision-making, and thus enables them to exert influence on the decision-making
process. They also believe that participation has several other functions in democracy. The first is the educational function: citizens increase their civic skills and
become more competent when they participate in public decision-making. In the
second place, participatory democracy has an integrative function. Participation
contributes to the development of civic virtues, citizens’ feeling of being public
citizens and part of their community. As a consequence, they may also feel more
responsible personally for public decisions. And thirdly, participatory democracy
contributes to a greater legitimacy of decisions. As Rousseau already argued, participation plays an important role in producing rules that are acceptable to all.
Similar views can be found in the work on social capital by the American sociologist Robert Putnam. In his famous book Bowling Alone (2000), he shows in
detail how Americans have increasingly become disconnected from social structures, such as the church, cultural organizations, sports clubs, or political organizations. Although there is less evidence of such a disconnection from social
structures in other countries (Trappenburg, 2008), the normative argument is
important here. Putnam considers participating in social networks and voluntary
organizations to be important to life satisfaction and, more importantly in this
context, to democracy (Putnam, 2000: 338–340). Citizen engagement in social networks allows individuals to express their interests and demands on government. It
allows their individual and otherwise quiet voices to be heard, and thus leads to
more inclusion.
Networks of civic engagement also make citizens more competent. Those voluntary associations are schools for democracy, where civic skills are learned.
Participants learn how to debate public issues and how to speak in public or to
run a meeting. And they become acquainted with civic virtues, such as active participation in public life, trustworthiness, and reciprocity (giving and taking).
In addition to these arguments, deliberative democrats argue that the essence of
democratic legitimacy is the capacity of those affected by a collective decision to
deliberate in the production of that decision (Dryzek and List, 2003; Gastil and
Levine, 2005). According to theories of deliberative democracy, deliberation rather
than voting should be regarded as the central mechanism for political decisionmaking (see for example: Elster, 1998; Fishkin and Laslett, 2002; Gutmann
and Thompson, 2004). Theorists differ over where deliberation should take place
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
279
and who should be involved. They mention a wide range of possible deliberative
forums, varying from parliament to expert forums and citizen panels (Akkerman,
2006; Fishkin and Laslett, 2002). However, they all agree that deliberation involves
discussion and the exchange of arguments in which individuals justify their opinions and show themselves willing to change their preferences. Participants discuss
problems and the proposed solutions to these problems. A deliberative process
assumes free public reasoning, equality, inclusion of different interests, and
mutual respect.
Although critics argue that deliberation poses high and unrealistic demands on
citizens (Mutz, 2006), deliberative democrats believe that deliberation yields rational collective outcomes. Moreover, as each individual has an equal voice and the
opportunity to persuade other participants, deliberation also allows minority and
individual voices to be heard. Furthermore, theorists of deliberative democracy
also argue that deliberation contributes to the legitimacy of decisions (Hendriks
et al., 2007).
To sum up, theories of participatory democracy, deliberative democracy, and
social capital assert that citizen involvement has positive effects on democracy.
Participatory democrats emphasize that it gives citizens a say in decision-making,
encourages civic skills and virtues, and increases the legitimacy of decisions. The
theory of social capital emphasizes that citizen participation contributes to the
inclusion of individual citizens in the policy process and that it encourages civic
skills and virtues. And deliberative democrats assert that through deliberation, the
individual voices of citizens can be heard, rational decisions based on public reasoning can be made, and the legitimacy of decisions increased.
Hence, citizen participation:
.
.
.
.
.
gives citizens a say in decision-making (influence)
contributes to the inclusion of individual citizens in the policy process (inclusion)
encourages civic skills and virtues (skills and virtues)
leads to rational decisions based on public reasoning (deliberation)
increases the legitimacy of decisions (legitimacy).
Innovations in democratic governance
Policy-related citizen involvement outside the electoral process may take various
forms (Barnes, 1999; Smith, 2009). We can map these different forms using two key
distinctions. The first distinction, between individual and collective participation,
refers to whether citizens are approached as individuals and asked for individual
opinions or votes, or collectively as a group. The second distinction, between outcome and process, refers to the focus of citizen participation. Some types of democratic innovation focus on the outcome and guarantee that decisions will be taken
seriously, whereas others focus on the process itself. In the latter type, opinion
formation is more important; there is no guarantee that decisions will be taken
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
280
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
Table 1. Forms of citizen participation
Individual
Collective
Outcome/decision-making
Referendums
Process/opinion formation
Deliberative surveys
Participatory policy making/
interactive governance
Deliberative forums
seriously. Combining these two distinctions, four types of democratic innovation
can be distinguished: referendums, participatory policy making, deliberative surveys, and deliberative forums (see Table 1).
Referendums give individual people a direct vote in political decisions.
Referendums may be binding or non-binding (the consultative referendum). In
deliberative surveys or deliberative polls, just as in referendums, individual opinions
are asked about a particular issue. But unlike referendums, there is no direct relation with decision-making. A random, representative sample of the population is
first questioned on a particular issue. Members of the sample are then invited to
gather to discuss the issue at stake. After the deliberations, during which people
have had the time and the opportunity to become more informed and more
engaged by the issue, the sample is again asked the original questions in order to
see if opinions have changed (see e.g. Fishkin, http://cdd.stanford.edu).
In contrast to both referendums and deliberative surveys, participatory policy
making and deliberative forums approach citizens more as a group and less as
individuals. Characteristic of participatory policy making, or interactive governance, is that there is a clear relation with decision-making in the sense that citizens
and stakeholders are being asked to advise government. The main aim is to hear
opinions or to involve people in policy making before taking decisions. Usually, a
large group of people is involved. In contrast to participatory policy making, deliberative forums are designed with the aim of being deliberative, which means that the
focus is on following the ideal deliberative procedures; opinion formation and the
exchange of arguments are more important than decision-making. Usually, only a
small group of people takes part and tries to reach consensus in a deliberative
forum.
The distinction between the different types of democratic innovation forms the
starting point for analysing the effects of participation. This study is first of all an
empirical test of normative theories that assume that participation matters to
democracy. It is also an explorative study, which tries to assess the effects of
each of the various types of participation on democracy, without specifying
hypotheses beforehand. However, if we look at the design and focus of participation (outcome versus opinion formation), we may expect to find a strong influence
on policy making for those democratic innovations that are aimed at decisionmaking (referendums and participatory policy making), and a greater emphasis
on deliberation for the deliberative forms.
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
281
In order to assess the effects of participation for each of the four forms, I
collected cases from various advanced democracies. I started my research by
performing a scan of relevant publications and websites published between the
beginning of 2000 and the end of 2009. The selection also included initiatives that
were completed in the 1990s, but which were reported only after 1999. I used
keywords such as citizen participation, public participation, citizen governance,
referendums, and deliberation. I extended the number of cases by performing
keyword searches in other languages, by following up on references in articles
and reports, and by talking to experts in this field. It should be noted that,
although there are many studies on participation, most studies furnished information on only a few democratic effects. After the initial selection of cases, I then
selected those cases that included information on at least two effects on
democracy.
The data were obtained from two types of source. The first were academic
articles in academic journals and books. Articles on the effects of citizen participation on elements of democracy were found within different academic fields,
including public administration and policy science, political science, and psychology (see Table 2 for examples of academic journals). A second source comprised
evaluation reports that had not been published in the form of academic articles.
Mostly, these evaluation reports had been executed and published by research
institutions, often in cooperation with the government or by government order
(Table 2 presents some examples).
The same concepts were not always used to describe similar types of participation. For example, what we call participatory policy making in this study was also
found to be referred to as interactive policy making or governance, citizen governance, or citizen participation in decision-making. Referendums included popular
initiatives and both binding and non-binding (consultative) forms of referendums.
Likewise, deliberative surveys were also referred to as deliberative polls.
Deliberative forums included different types of forums, such as citizens’ juries,
citizens’ conferences and dialogues, consensus conferences, and planning cells. In
total, the study comprised 120 cases: 20 referendums, 37 participatory policy
making cases, 22 deliberative surveys, and 41 deliberative forums.
Table 2 presents basic information about the cases in this study and the sources
from which I obtained the data. A large number of cases came from Australia, the
Netherlands, and the United States. The study also included Britain, Germany,
Denmark, Switzerland and a number of other countries. As Table 2 shows, of the
37 participatory policy making cases in this study, 24 cases are Dutch, which may
be due to the fact that participatory policy making, or interactive governance, is
particularly prominent in the Netherlands, especially at the local level, where it
forms part of a long tradition of cooperation and consensus forming (Duyvendak
and Krouwel, 2001). The information in the table also shows that although there is
a large variety of policy topics, the dominant topics vary according to type of
citizen participation: for example, whereas infrastructure and reconstruction of
the city centre is a dominant issue in cases of participatory policy making, more
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
282
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
Table 2. Cases and sources
Referendums
(N ¼ 20)
Participatory
policy making
(N ¼ 37)
Country
Canada (3 cases); Switzerland (2); other countries, such as
Sweden, Denmark, Germany (15)
Policy topic
Constitution (9 cases); other topics, such as the Euro, abortion,
local issues (11)
Sources
Academic articles (18) in for example: Public Choice; British
Journal of Political Science; European Journal of Political Research
Evaluation reports (2) by Forschungsgesellschaft Mobilität and
municipality of Graz (Austria); New Zealand Commission
for the Future (New Zealand)
Country
Netherlands (24); United States (5); other countries such as the
United Kingdom, Austria, Germany (8)
Policy topic
Infrastructure and reconstruction city centre (13); safety and
quality of life in neigbourhoods (11); public land management (6); other topics such as noise pollution (7)
Sources
Academic articles (16) in for example: Public Administration
Review; Journal of Urbanism
Evaluation reports (21) by e.g. ‘Instituut voor Publiek en
Politiek’ (Netherlands); Fontys Hogeschool and Municipality
of Eindhoven (Netherlands); Zebralog and Municipality of
Essen (Germany)
Deliberative
surveys
(N ¼ 22)
Country
Australia (6); United Kingdom (5); United States (5); other
countries such as Denmark, Italy (6)
Policy topic
Transportation and infrastructure (4); constitutional issues (3);
environmental issues (2); other topics such as education,
regional development (13)
Sources
Academic articles (5) in for example Australian Journal of
Psychology, Scandinavian Political Studies
Evaluation reports (17) by for example Center for Deliberative
Democracy (United States); 21st Century Dialogue
(Australia)
Deliberative
forums
(N ¼ 41)
Country
Policy topic
Sources
Australia (10); United States (5); Germany (5); United Kingdom
(4); Denmark (3)
Gene technology (8); environmental issues (7); infrastructure
(5); urban/regional planning (4); other topics such as health
and nuclear energy (17)
Academic articles (21) in for example Political Studies; Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology; Policy Science; Adult
Education Quaterly; Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning
Evaluation reports (20) by for example NewDemocracy
Foundation (Australia); Fraunhofer-Institut für
Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung (Germany);
STAGE Network Science, Technology and Governance in
Europe (Denmark)
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
283
abstract issues, such as gene technology and environmental issues, dominate within
the category of deliberative forums.
The analysis of this study is completely based on what is reported in the evaluation reports and studies. A complicating factor of such a meta-analysis is that the
quality of the studies varies. Sometimes thorough scientific research and justification form the basis for the study. In other cases, the presentation of the data
consists of a selection of descriptive statistics and some interview quotes.
Moreover, it is often difficult to compare the data of the underlying studies because
the operationalization of concepts may be different in different studies. In order to
minimize the problem of different interpretations and to make it possible to draw
more general conclusions, the first step was to operationalize the concepts in the
normative theories on participation and democracy, such as influence, inclusion,
and deliberation, into measurable criteria for evaluation. The starting point was the
existing evaluation criteria that were used in the reports and studies, on the basis of
which I developed my own interpretation of the concepts into criteria for evaluation. The second step, then, was to assess each case in the light of these criteria.
This approach, which will be discussed further in the analysis below, made it possible to find patterns and to draw conclusions on the basis of more than just one or
a few cases, and thus to gain insight into the different effects of participation for the
various types of democratic innovation.
Assessing the effects of participation
In this section, the effects of citizen participation on influence, inclusion, skills and
virtues, deliberation, and legitimacy will be discussed. After a description of the
criteria for analysis, a presentation and discussion of the main findings follow.
Influence
Influence is usually not used as a criterion as such in evaluation studies. However,
in almost half of the evaluation reports in this study, some indication is given of
what has been done with the recommendations or vote of the participants in terms
of policy. Influence in this study is therefore defined as having an impact on policy.
In order to assess an impact on policy, the evaluation reports reviewed should
contain some indication of a policy change or policy continuance that is congruent
with the recommendations of the participants. Often, the report makes no mention
of the impact on policy, as can be seen in Table 3. The figure in parentheses indicates the number of analysed cases, whereas N refers to the total number of cases
for which information about the impact on policy was reported. In particular,
information is often lacking about the impact on policy of deliberative surveys
and deliberative forums. The reason for this is that the specific role of deliberative
forums and surveys is hard to define. The forum is often one actor among
others, and policy change a result of a mix of various processes and actors.
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
284
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
Table 3. Influence
Referendums
Participatory policy making
Deliberative surveys
Deliberative forums
Impact %
N
93
66
33
38
14a
21
3
17
(20)b
(37)
(22)
(41)
a
Indicates the total number of cases for which information about the impact on policy was reported.
Refers to the number of analysed cases.
b
As a consequence, impact on policy is often not mentioned as an evaluation criterion for these types of participation.
In those cases where we do find an impact on policy, we cannot always be
sure whether this change is a direct effect of the recommendations of the participants. Other factors may also have played a role, and it could very well be that
changes in policy might have been carried out even if the participants had recommended otherwise. Impact on policy, therefore, refers to a connection between
participation and policy, but does not tell us much about the causality of the
relation.
Table 3 shows that participation in referendums has the strongest impact on
policy. The general pattern is that the vote of the majority is followed. Even nonbinding referendums, such as the Dutch referendum on the constitutional treaty,
have a clear impact on political decisions.1 The impact on policy is less strong in
cases of participatory policy making. Although the aim of participatory policy
making is to involve citizens in the process of policy making, in one-third of the
cases there is no connection between the policy decision and the recommendations
of the participants. In 16 cases, the evaluation studies provided no information on
the impact on policy. This may be due to the fact that evaluation studies on citizen
involvement in policy making are usually conducted not long after the policy process has taken place, at which time policy implications tend not yet to be clear.
The policy impact of participation is again much lower for deliberative surveys
and deliberative forums. Little information was available on deliberative surveys;
only three cases were turned up. The information on deliberative forums was more
plentiful. The impact of the forums on policy appears to be low; in only 38 percent
of the cases was there an impact on policy. A number of these cases concerned
current issues, for example in the field of infrastructure.2 Cases showing no policy
impact were often deliberative forums on more abstract issues such as genetic
testing and other ethical issues.3
To conclude, citizens participating in referendums and, to a much lesser extent,
in participatory policy making have influence, in the sense that they have an impact
on policy. This differs from participation in deliberative surveys and deliberative
polls where the impact on policy is low.
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
285
Inclusion
Inclusion refers to the inclusion of individual citizens in the policy process. Studies
do not use the concept of inclusion, but instead use two different types of criteria
that may be regarded as two aspects of inclusion: access to the forum and the
representativeness of the forum. In this study, therefore, inclusion first refers to
the openness of the forum to all citizens. Is everyone allowed to take part or is there
a selection of participants? And, secondly, inclusion refers to how representative
the forum is. How representative is the forum for the population at large (age, sex,
education), and have any relevant groups or interests been excluded from
participation?
As can be seen in Table 4, information about inclusion can be found in a large
number of studies. Although openness of the forum is often not used as an evaluation criterion as such, information about the openness of the forum can be found
in the description of the case. By contrast, in most studies, representation is used as
an explicit evaluation criterion.
When we compare the impact of citizen participation on inclusion for the different categories of participation, there are some striking findings. Referendums are
far more open to everyone than any of the other categories. The reason we found
open access to referendums in 90 percent of the cases instead of 100 percent is due
to the fact that two cases were not referendums in the strict sense, but were instead
opinion surveys, representing the direct voice of the people without being decisive.4
In both cases, a selection of people was invited to give an opinion on the issue at
stake. With respect to representation we cannot draw conclusions, since there are
only two cases that provide information.
Participatory policy making projects were often seen to be open to everyone to
join (in 68 percent of the cases). However, this open access appears to conflict with
the criterion of representation. In only 33 percent of the cases were the participants
representative of the population at large. Young people and people from cultural
minority groups often remained underrepresented.5
By contrast, deliberative surveys were shown to be highly selective and representative, using stratified random sampling techniques to select participants.
Stratified random sampling selects for particular characteristics, such as sex, age,
Table 4. Inclusion
Openness
Referendums
Participatory policy making
Deliberative surveys
Deliberative forums
Representation
Impact %
N
90
68
5
10
20
34
21
38
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
Impact %
N
50
33
94
63
2
24
18
30
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
286
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
and region. As a consequence, the participants form a representative sample of the
population at large.
Only a fraction of the deliberative forums were open to everyone (10 percent).
And although selecting participants was usually an important aspect of the design
of deliberative forums, the impact on representation (63 percent) was less than for
deliberative surveys.6 Some forums were too small to be representative. Others had
difficulties in finding participants among the less educated. One of the reasons
might be that deliberative forums demand much from participants in terms of
verbal and intellectual qualities. Participants are expected to exchange arguments
and discuss opinions.
So, whereas referendums and cases of participatory policy making are more
open than deliberative forums and deliberative surveys, representation is higher
for the deliberative types of cases, in particular for deliberative surveys. With
respect to inclusion, participation in referendums and participatory policy
making was found to contribute to the inclusion of more people than deliberative
surveys and forums do, but also more often to the exclusion of particular groups.
Skills and virtues
This category consists of three elements: knowledge, skills, and virtues. Although
knowledge is not mentioned as such in democratic theories, it is either part of the
skills or competences of citizens or it is assumed to be a condition to come to
rational decisions. In this, as in most studies, knowledge refers to the knowledge
of a particular issue, and is measured by examining the difference in knowledge
with respect to a set of questions concerning a particular issue before and after
participation. More particularly, an increase in the percentage of respondents correctly answering questions about the issue is understood to reflect an increase in
knowledge. However, since increase in knowledge is not measured separately for
each individual, we cannot assess whether an increase means that a small number
of people know much more about the issue or that a large number of people know
a little more. The development of skills and virtues in participation processes is
gauged in different studies in different ways. Some studies ask individual participants if and to what extent civic skills, political engagement and interest have
increased. Other studies ask more open questions about what participants have
experienced and learned and how that has changed their attitude towards politics.
In this study, skills are understood to refer to civic skills, such as debating public
issues and running a meeting. Civic virtues, finally, pertain to public engagement
and responsibility, political interest, the feeling of being a public citizen, and willingness to be active in public life.
Table 5 shows that there is some, but not much, information about knowledge,
skills and virtues in the studies in hand. The contribution of citizen participation to
knowledge, skills, and virtues shows a similar pattern for referendums, participatory policy making, deliberative surveys, and deliberative forums. In the large
majority of cases, at times even up to 100 percent, there is an increase in knowledge,
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
287
Table 5. Skills and virtues
Knowledge
Referendums
Participatory policy making
Deliberative surveys
Deliberative forums
Skills
Impact %
N
82
50
100
100
6
2
10
10
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
Virtues
Impact %
N
100
100
100
66
1
4
2
9
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
Impact %
N
66
80
100
95
3
5
4
10
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
skills, and virtues. However, we must guard against overhasty conclusions. The
information on referendums and participatory policy making was, after all, derived
from only a small number of cases.
More information was available for deliberative surveys. An important assumption of the deliberative survey (and of deliberative forums) is that people will be
able to formulate more well-considered opinions after they have had the time and
the opportunity to become more informed, and thus acquire more knowledge
about the issue. In about half of the deliberative surveys in this study, knowledge
was an explicit evaluation criterion.7 In 100 percent of the cases, indeed, there was a
clear increase in knowledge.
Deliberative forums show a similar pattern with respect to knowledge. Again, an
increase in knowledge was found in 100 percent of the cases. In addition, we also
saw an increase in civic virtues in almost all cases. Participants in deliberative
forums indicated that they had become more politically engaged and that political
interest had increased.8 The impact on civic skills is less unambiguous. An impact
on skills was reported in 66 percent of the cases. In the other cases, participants
observed no increase in civic skills.9
Deliberation
Deliberative democrats, in particular, claim that citizen participation in deliberative settings may contribute to rational decisions based on public reasoning.
Whether or not decisions are rational is difficult to assess. The focus in this subsection, therefore, is on the quality of public reasoning. Based on the criteria that
are used in the evaluation studies, deliberation in this study first refers to the
exchange of arguments and to the willingness to hear other points of view and
to debate issues, and second, to the shift in preferences (are people willing to
change opinions). Information about deliberation mainly relates to deliberative
surveys and deliberative forums, as can be seen in Table 6. This is due to the
fact that academic experts in the field of deliberative democracy, who were particularly interested in how well these forums performed from a deliberative point of
view, carried out most of these studies. Whether a shift in preferences took place is
often an explicit evaluation criterion in these studies, which is measured by asking
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
288
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
Table 6. Deliberation
Referendums
Participatory policy making
Deliberative surveys
Deliberative forums
Exchange of arguments
Shift in preferences
Impact %
N
Impact %
N
0
36
100
93
1
11
8
16
90
28
90
92
10
7
21
13
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
participants to give their opinions on a particular issue before and after deliberations. And although deliberation is not an essential aspect of the design of referendums and participatory policy making, the study of these cases offered
information, albeit largely descriptive on this issue.
The different types of democratic innovation affect deliberation to varying
degrees. A number of referendums revealed evidence of opinion shifting during
the referendum campaign.10 In the case of referendums, a change of opinion might
not be the result of a discussion between voters, but instead be the result of the
referendum campaign and the interaction between political parties, public debate
and the reflection of the debate in the media.
The evidence that participatory policy making can affect deliberation is mainly
based on perceptions of the participants themselves. In about one-third of the cases
reported, there was evidence of a positive effect on the readiness to exchange arguments. However, this did not automatically result in all cases in a willingness to
change opinions.11 A shift in preferences could only be found for two cases.
By contrast, the evidence was relatively straightforward for deliberative surveys
and deliberative forums. The vast majority of cases showed a clear impact on the
exchange of arguments and a shift in opinions. Strikingly, in only eight out of 22
cases of deliberative surveys did the studies explicitly report on the exchange of
arguments. The reason for this is that deliberative surveys assume an exchange of
arguments; it is part of the design.
To conclude, with respect to the contribution of participation to deliberation,
deliberative surveys and forums are more effective when it comes to encouraging
the exchange of arguments and the willingness to shift preferences compared to
referendums and, to a larger extent, to participatory policy making.
Legitimacy
Does citizen participation contribute to the legitimacy of decisions? Since the level
of analysis in this study is the case, we cannot draw conclusions about the effects of
participation on legitimacy at the level of the political system. In other words, we
do not know whether participation by a group of people contributes to broad
support for political decisions and political institutions among the population at
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
289
Table 7. Legitimacy
Referendums
Participatory policy making
Deliberative surveys
Deliberative forums
Support participants
Support others
Impact %
N
Impact %
100
84
100
87
1
14
5
15
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
50
33
N
0
4
0
15
(20)
(37)
(22)
(41)
large. Legitimacy in this study, therefore, is defined as the extent to which participants and other key actors support and accept the process and the outcome in that
specific case. Other actors include, for example, politicians, the media and interest
groups. When we look at the evaluation studies at issue, support is often measured
by asking people how positive or negative they are about the process and outcome
and whether they accept the decisions and conclusions. Sometimes, interviewees are
asked to reflect upon their experiences with the project, leaving room for all sorts of
answers, including the issue of legitimacy. In all cases, legitimacy is perceived legitimacy from the perspective of the interviewees.
Table 7 shows that the information on this issue is limited to cases of participatory policy making and deliberative forums. For deliberative forums, information is also available about the support for the process and outcome by other
actors.
The general picture is that those who participate are positive about the process
and the outcome (an impact was reported in 84 percent of the cases of participatory
policy making and 87 percent of the deliberative forums). This finding contrasts
with the support reported for other actors. In only 50 percent of the participatory
policy making cases were other actors supportive of the process and outcome, a
percentage that was even lower for the deliberative forums (33 percent).12 It may
well be that groups of people who are not involved in the process feel more free to
be critical. In addition, studies have also shown that groups can feel disappointed
at having been excluded from participation. This disappointment is then masked by
the development of a critical attitude.
Conclusion
Many theorists claim that citizen participation has positive effects on the quality of
democracy. This article examined the probability of these claims for a large number
of cases in different Western countries. The data were obtained from existing evaluation studies. This approach may have a number of possible weak points, such as
the comparability of different cases. Furthermore, because I selected only case
studies that assessed at least two effects on democracy, I may have missed other
interesting examples because information was lacking. And, finally, it is sometimes
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
290
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
difficult to measure the relation between participation and democracy, as the discussion of influence makes clear. Nevertheless, this approach made it possible to
find patterns and to gain insight into different effects of participation for the various types of democratic innovation.
This study shows a number of patterns in the way participation affects democracy. First, with respect to the cases for which information was reported, the findings show that citizen participation has a positive effect on the development of
knowledge, skills, and virtues, no matter which form of citizen participation is
examined. Moreover, involved citizens generally have positive attitudes about the
process and the outcome, whereas those who do not participate are less supportive.
But the analysis also makes it clear that, with respect to other criteria, the
contribution of participation to democracy differs according to type of democratic
innovation. The main difference is between participatory policy making and referendums, on the one hand, and, deliberative surveys and deliberative forums on the
other hand. The distinction in focus (outcome and decision-making versus process
and opinion formation) appears to be crucial in understanding the contribution of
different forms of citizen participation to democracy. In the first place, citizens
participating in referendums and participatory policy making have more of an
impact on policy than do participants in deliberative surveys and deliberative
forums. Moreover, there appears to be a tension between the quality and the
quantity of participation. Whereas deliberative forums and surveys are better at
promoting the exchange of arguments, referendums and participatory policy
making projects are better at involving more people. This conclusion, that type
of democratic innovation matters, could also be phrased in terms of the theories
that formed the basis for the analysis. The argument of participatory democrats
that participation gives citizens a say in decision-making appears to be accurate in
the case of referendums and participatory policy making. Likewise, the emphasis
on public reasoning by deliberative democrats applies more frequently in respect of
deliberative surveys and forums.
What are the implications of this for our understanding of the relevance of
citizen participation to democracy? How does citizen participation contribute to
a better democracy? One of the contributions of citizen participation is that it has
positive effects on the individual skills and virtues. It thus contributes to democratic
citizenship. Secondly, in as far as there are (other) positive effects of participation,
such as on deliberation and legitimacy issues, these effects are only able to be
perceived with regard to those taking part. Because the level of analysis in this
study is the case, we cannot draw conclusions about the contribution of citizen
participation to democracy as a whole. We do not know whether citizen participation projects also lead to more support, deliberation, or skills among those that
do not take part. However, what we do know is that the number of people becoming involved represents a relatively small portion of the population and that particular groups are often underrepresented. Thus, citizen participation has a number
of positive effects for those that participate. It encourages civic skills and virtues,
increases the legitimacy of decisions, and either encourages deliberation or gives
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
291
citizens an impact on policy. But, as long as large groups are excluded from participation, doubts about the benefits to democracy as a whole will persist.
Notes
Part of the research for this article was conducted in September 2009 at the Australian
National University, Political Science Program, where the author stayed as a Program
Visitor. The author wants to thank John Dryzek and the members of the Centre for
Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance for their insightful comments.
1. See Michels (2009).
2. See for examples www.21stcenturydialogue.com and Gregory et al. (2008) for cases on
infrastructure in Australia.
3. See Zimmer (2003) and Bertilsson (2004).
4. See www.activedemocracy.net (the New Zealand case on televoting) and www.partizipation.at (the case in Austria on health and pollution in Graz). The difference with a
deliberative survey is that in these cases there is a direct relation with decision-making.
5. For example: Edelenbos and Monnikhof (2001) and Bodd and De Graaf (2007).
6. See, for example, citizen juries and forums in Spain (Font and Blanco, 2007), in Ireland
(French and Laver, 2009), in the Netherlands (Van der Kolk and Brinkman, 2008), and
in Australia (Gregory et al., 2008; Wallington et al., 2008).
7. See for examples in Britain, the United States, Hungary, Australia, and Italy: cdd.stanford.edu/; www.21stcentrurydialogue; www.peopleandparticipation.net/
8. Examples are deliberative forums in Finland (Grönlund et al., 2007) in the Netherlands
(Huitema and Lavrijsen, 2006), and Australia (citizensparliament.org.au).
9. For example: the Finnish forum on nuclear energy (Grönlund et al., 2007), and the
Dutch citizens’ forum on electoral reform (Van der Kolk, 2008).
10. For example: Font and Rodriquez (2009) and Leduc (2009).
11. See, for example, Bodd and De Graaf (2007) and Wijdeven and De Graaf (2008).
12. As for example in the Australian case on gene technology (Hendriks, 2004), the Irish
case on waste management (French and Laver, 2009), and the Spanish case on urban
planning (Font and Blanco, 2007).
References
Akkerman T (2006) Deliberatie en democratie. Een pleidooi voor vernieuwing van de politieke cultuur. In: Grin J, Hajer M and Versteeg W (eds) Meervoudige democratie.
Ervaringen met vernieuwend bestuur. Aksant: Amsterdam, 34–46.
Barber B (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Barnes M (1999) Researching public participation. Local Government Studies 25(4): 60–75.
Bertilsson M (2004) Governance of Science and Technology: The Case of Denmark. STAGE,
Discussion Paper 31, Copenhagen.
Bodd J and De Graaf L (2007) Interactie in actie: Een kwantitatief en kwalitatief onderzoek
naar 38 interactieve projecten van de gemeente Eindhoven. Fontys Hogeschool Social
Studies Eindhoven and Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur.
Cain BE, Dalton RJ and Scarrow SE (2006) Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political
Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dahl RA (1956) A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
292
International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2)
Dryzek J and List C (2003) Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: A reconciliation. British Journal of Political Studies 33(1): 1–28.
Duyvendak JW and Krouwel A (2001) Interactieve beleidsvorming: voortzetting van een
rijke Nederlandse traditie? In: Edelenbos J and Monnikhof R (eds) Lokale interactieve
beleidsvorming. Utrecht: Lemma, 17–31.
Edelenbos J and Monnikhof R (2001) Lokale interactieve beleidsvorming. Een vergelijkend
onderzoek naar de consequenties van interactieve beleidsvorming voor het functioneren van
de lokale democratie. Lemma: Utrecht.
Elster J (ed.) (1998) Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fishkin J (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Opinion.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Fishkin JS and Laslett P (eds) (2002) Philosophy, politics and society. Special issue:
Debating deliberative democracy. Political Philosophy 10(2).
Font J and Blanco I (2007) Procedural legitimacy and political trust: The case of citizen
juries in Spain. European Journal of Political Research 46(4): 557–589.
Font J and Rodriquez E (2009) Intense but useless? Public debate and voting factors in two
referendums in Spain. In: Setälä M and Schiller T (eds) Referendums and Representative
Democracy: Responsiveness, Accountability and Deliberation. London and New York:
Routledge, 162–185.
French D and Laver M (2009) Participation bias, durable opinion shifts and sabotage
through withdrawal in citizens’ juries. Political Studies 57(2): 422–450.
Fung A (2006) Empowered Participation: Reinventing Urban Democracy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Gastil J and Levine P (eds) (2005) The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gregory J, Hartz-Karp J and Watson R (2008) Using deliberative techniques to
engage the community in policy development. Australian and New Zealand Health
Policy 5(1): 16.
Grönlund K, Setälä M and Herne K (2007) Deliberation and Civic Virtue: Learnings from a
Citizen Deliberation Experiment. Paper presented at the research seminar ‘Political
Participation and Modes of Democracy’, International IDEA, Stockholm, 10 December.
Gutmann A and Thompson D (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Hendriks CM (2004) Public deliberation and interest organisations: A study of responses to
lay citizen engagement in public policy. Thesis, Australian National University,
Canberra.
Hendriks CM, Dryzek JS and Hunold C (2007) Turning up the heat: Partisanship in deliberative innovation. Political Studies 55(2): 362–383.
Huitema D and Lavrijsen R (2006) Burgerparticipatie en politieke betrokkenheid.
In: Huitema D, Meijerink S, Ragetlie J and Steur B (eds) De boel bij elkaar houden.
Amsterdam: Rozenberg, 81–84.
Leduc L (2009) Campaign tactics and outcomes in referendums: A comparative analysis.
In: Setälä M and Schiller T (eds) Referendums and Representative Democracy:
Responsiveness, Accountability and Deliberation. London and New York: Routledge,
139–161.
Mair P (2005) Democracy beyond Parties. Center for the Study of Democracy, Irvine:
University of California.
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016
Michels
293
Michels A (2009) Ideological positions and the referendum in the Netherlands. In: Setälä M
and Schiller T (eds) Referendums and Representative Democracy: Responsiveness,
Accountability and Deliberation. London and New York: Routledge, 56–74.
Michels A and De Graaf L (2010) Examining citizen participation: Local participatory
policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies 36(4): 477–491.
Mutz D (2006) Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrogorski M (1964, ed. and abridged by S. Lipset) Democracy and the Organisation of
Political Parties. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday and Co.
Pateman C (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Putnam R (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rae DW and Daudt H (1976) The Ostrogorski paradox: A peculiarity of compound majority decision. European Journal of Political Research 4(4): 391–398.
Riker W (1982) Liberalism against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of
Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman &
Company.
Sartori G (1987) The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House
Publishers.
Schumpeter JA (1976 [1942]) Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper &
Row.
Smith G (2009) Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Trappenburg M (2008) Genoeg is genoeg. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Van der Kolk H (2008) Kiezen voor een nieuw kiesstelsel. Deel 2: Informatieverwerving,
meningsvorming en besluitvorming binnen het Burgerforum Kiesstelsel in 2006. Enschede:
Universiteit Twente.
Van der Kolk H and Brinkman M (2008) Kiezen voor een nieuw kiesstelsel. Deel 1:
De selectie van het Burgerforum Kiesstelsel 2006. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.
Van Stokkom B (2006) Rituelen van beraadslaging. Reflecties over burgerberaad en
Burgerbestuur. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Wallington T, Lauwrence G and Loechel B (2008) Reflections on the legitimacy of regional
environmental governance: Lessons from Australia’s experiment in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 10(1): 1–30.
Wijdeven T and De Graaf L (2008) Met vertrouwen van start in het Groningse Nieuw Lokaal
Akkoord, Over werken vanuit vertrouwen in de buurt (deel 2). Tilburg: Tilburg University,
Tilburgse School voor Politiek en Bestuur.
Zimmer R (2003) Begleitende Evaluation der Burgerkonferenz ‘Streitfall Gendiagnostik’.
Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer-Institut fur Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung.
Ank Michels is a Dutch political scientist and is Assistant Professor at the School of
Governance, Utrecht University in the Netherlands where she teaches comparative
politics, Dutch politics, and public administration.
Downloaded from ras.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 11, 2016