Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-wxk4p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:56:04.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How citizens evaluate participatory processes: a conjoint analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2020

Henrik Serup Christensen Open the ORCID record for Henrik Serup Christensen [Opens in a new window]
Henrik Serup Christensen*
Affiliation:
Samforsk, Department of Political Science, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland
*
E-mail: Henrik.christensen@abo.fi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines how characteristics of participatory processes affect citizens’ evaluations of such processes and thereby establish what kind of participatory process citizens demand. The literature on democratic innovations has proposed different criteria for evaluating participatory innovations. What remains unclear, however, is how citizens evaluate these participatory mechanisms. This is here examined in a conjoint analysis embedded in a representative survey of the Finnish population (n = 1050). The conjoint analysis examines the impact of inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgment, transparency, efficiency, and transferability on citizens’ evaluations of participatory processes. Furthermore, it is examined whether the evaluations differ by the policy issues and process preferences of the respondents. The results show that people want transparent participatory processes with face-to-face interaction among participants and expert advice to deal with complicated issues. The participatory processes should also be advisory and should not include too many meetings. These effects appear to be uniform across policy issues and do not depend on the process preferences of citizens.

Keywords

Democratic innovationparticipationconjoint analysisparticipatory procedures

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , May 2020 , pp. 239 - 253
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aguinis, H. and Kyle, J.B. (2014), ‘Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies’, Organizational Research Methods 17(4): 351–371. doi: 10.1177/1094428114547952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altman, D. (2011), Direct Democracy Worldwide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bansak, K, Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D.J. and Yamamoto, T. (2018), ‘The number of choice tasks and survey satisficing in conjoint experiments’, Political Analysis 26(1): 112–119. doi: 10.1017/pan.2017.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å. and Christensen, H.S. (2016), ‘Ideals and actions: do citizens’ patterns of political participation correspond to their conceptions of democracy?’, Government and Opposition 51(2): 234–260. doi: 10.1017/gov.2014.29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaug, R. (2002), ‘Engineering democracy’, Political Studies 50(1): 102–116. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caluwaerts, D. and Reuchamps, M. (2016), ‘Generating democratic legitimacy through deliberative innovations: the role of embeddedness and disruptiveness’, Representation 52(1): 13–27. doi: 10.1080/00344893.2016.1244111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmines, E.G. and Stimson James, A. (2006), ‘The two faces of issue voting’, American Political Science Review 74(1): 78–91. doi: 10.2307/1955648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrara, S. (2012), ‘Towards E-ECIs? European participation by online pan-European mobilization’, Perspectives on European Politics and Society 13(3): 352–369. doi: 10.1080/15705854.2012.702578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S. (2003), ‘Deliberative democratic theory’, Annual Review of Political Science 6(1): 307–326. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S. (2007), ‘Behind closed doors: publicity, secrecy, and the quality of deliberation’, Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4): 389–410. 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00206.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, H.S., Himmelroos, S. and Grönlund, K. (2017a), ‘Does deliberation breed an appetite for discursive participation? Assessing the impact of first-hand experience’, Political Studies 65(1_Suppl): 64–83. doi: 10.1177/0032321715617771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, H.S., Jäske, M., Setälä, M. and Laitinen, E. (2017b), ‘The Finnish citizens’ initiative: towards inclusive agenda-setting?’, Scandinavian Political Studies 40(4): 411–433. doi: 10.1111/1467-9477.12096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, H.S. and von Schoultz, Å. (2019), ‘Ideology and deliberation: an analysis of public support for deliberative practices in Finland’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research 31(1): 178–194. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edx022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, S. and Moss, G. (2012), ‘Under construction: the field of online deliberation research’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9(1): 1–15. doi: 10.1080/19331681.2011.635957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2017), The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R.J., Cain, B. and Scarrow, S.E. (2006), ‘Democratic publics and democratic institutions’, in Cain, B., Dalton, R.J., and Scarrow, S.E. (eds), The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 250–275.Google Scholar
Dalton, R.J., Burklin Wilhelm, P. and Drummond, A. (2001), ‘Public opinion and direct democracy’, Journal of Democracy 12(4): 141–153. doi: 10.1353/jod.2001.0066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J. (2009), When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Font, J., Wojcieszak, M. and Clemente, J.N. (2015), ‘Participation, representation and expertise: citizen preferences for political decision-making processes’, Political Studies 63(S1): 153–172. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. (2003), ‘Survey article: recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences’, Journal of Political Philosophy 11(3): 338–367. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. (2006), ‘Varieties of participation in complex governance’, Public Administration Review. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. (2013), ‘Infotopia: unleashing the democratic power of transparency’, Politics and Society 41(2): 183–212. doi: 10.1177/0032329213483107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. (2015), ‘Putting the public back into governance: the challenges of citizen participation and its future’, Public Administration Review 75(4): 513–522. doi: 10.1111/puar.12361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J. and Wright, E.O. (eds) (2019), Legislature by Lot – Transformative Designs for Deliberative Governance, London: Verso.Google Scholar
Geissel, B. (2013), ‘Introduction: on the evaluation of participatory innovations’, in Geissel, B. and Joas, M. (eds) Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe – Improving the Quality of Democracy?, Toronto: Barbara Budrich Publishers, pp. 9–32.Google Scholar
Geissel, B. and Joas, M. (eds) (2013), Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe : Improving the Quality of Democracy?, Opladen, Berlin & Toronto: Barbara Budrich Publishers.Google Scholar
Geissel, B. and Newton, K. (eds) (2012), Evaluating Democratic Innovations : Curing the Democratic Malaise?, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gherghina, S. and Geissel, B. (2017), ‘Linking democratic preferences and political participation: evidence from Germany’, Political Studies 65(1_Suppl): 24–42. doi: 10.1177/0032321716672224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, S. and Geissel, B. (2019), ‘An alternative to representation: explaining preferences for citizens as political decision-makers’, Political Studies Review 17(3): 224–238. doi: 10.1177/1478929918807713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S., Wyss, D., and Bächtiger, A.. (2019), ‘Deliberating or thinking (twice) about democratic preferences: what German citizens want from democracy’, Political Studies Online (first). doi: 10.1177/0032321719843967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A. and Setälä, M. (eds) (2014), Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Daniel, J.H and Yamamoto, T. (2014), ‘Causal inference in conjoint analysis: understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments’, Political Analysis 22(1): 1–30. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpt024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquet, V. (2018), ‘The role and the future of deliberative mini-publics: a citizen perspective’, Political Studies Online (first). doi: 10.1177/0032321718794358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäske, M. (2017), ‘“Soft” forms of direct democracy: explaining the occurrence of referendum motions and advisory referendums in Finnish local government’, Swiss Political Science Review 23(1): 50–76. doi: 10.1111/spsr.12238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäske, M. (2019), ‘Participatory innovations and maxi-publics: the influence of participation possibilities on perceived legitimacy at the local level in Finland’, European Journal of Political Research 58(2): 603–630. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, E. and Johannesson, M.P. (2018), ‘Beyond the limits of survey experiments: how conjoint designs advance causal inference in political communication research’, Political Communication 36(2): 259–271. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2018.1493009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuyper, J.W. and Wolkenstein, F. (2019), ‘Complementing and correcting representative institutions: when and how to use mini-publics’, European Journal of Political Research 58(2): 656–675. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDuc, L. (2015), ‘Referendums and deliberative democracy’, Electoral Studies 38: 139–148. 10.1016/J.ELECTSTUD.2015.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, T.J., Hobolt Sara, B. and Tilley, J. (2019), ‘Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments’, Political Analysis. doi: 10.1017/pan.2019.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Fine Licht, J. (2011), ‘Do we really want to know? The potentially negative effect of transparency in decision making on perceived legitimacy’, Scandinavian Political Studies 34(3): 183–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2011.00268.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Fine Licht, J. (2014), ‘Policy area as a potential moderator of transparency effects: an experiment’, Public Administration Review 74(3): 361–371. doi: 10.1111/puar.12194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (2006), Hearing the Other Side – Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (2011), Population-Based Survey Experiments, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Naurin, D. (2007), Deliberation Behind Closed Doors: Transparency and Lobbying in the European Union, Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Neblo, M.A., Esterling Kevin, M. and Lazer, D. (2018), Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qvortrup, M. (2013), Direct Democracy: A Comparative Study of the Theory and Practice of Government by the People, Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rojon, S., Arieke, J.R. and Klandermans, B. (2019), ‘A survey experiment on citizens’ preferences for ‘vote–centric’ vs. ‘talk–centric’ democratic innovations with advisory vs. binding outcomes’, Politics and Governance 7(2): 213–226. 10.17645/pag.v7i2.1900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, G. and Frewer Lynn, J. (2000), ‘Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation’, Science Technology and Human Values 25(1): 3–29. doi: 10.1177/016224390002500101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, M. (2006), ‘On the problems of responsibility and accountability in referendums’, European Journal of Political Research 45(4): 699–721. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00630.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, M. (2017), ‘Connecting deliberative mini-publics to representative decision making’, European Journal of Political Research 56(4): 846–863. doi: 10.1111/1475-6765.12207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. (2009), Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stasavage, D. (2004), ‘Open-door or closed-door? Transparency in domestic and international bargaining’, International Organization. doi: 10.1017/S0020818304040214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D.F. (1999), ‘Democratic secrecy’, Political Science Quarterly 114(2): 181–193. doi: 10.2307/2657736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulbig, S.G. (2008), ‘Voice is not enough’, Public Opinion Quarterly 72(3): 523–539. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfn030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, S., Schlozman, K.L. and Brady, H.E.. (1995), Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wojcieszak, M. (2014), ‘Preferences for political decision-making processes and issue publics’, Public Opinion Quarterly 78(4): 917–939. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfu039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolley, J.T. and Gardner, J. (2017), ‘The effect of “sunshine” on policy deliberation: the case of the federal open market committee’, Social Science Journal 54(1): 13–29. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2016.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I.M. (2000), Inclusion and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Christensen et al. supplementary material

Christensen et al. supplementary material

Download Christensen et al. supplementary material(File)
File 109.3 KB