Case Studies on the Role of Mini-Publics for Policymakers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/464b7492Keywords:
Democratic Innovations, Mini-publics, RepresentativeAbstract
This essay examines the role of mini-publics in enhancing policy legitimacy and the effectiveness of policy implementation through a comparative analysis of two case studies: deliberative polling on energy futures in Vermont, USA, and democratic consultation meetings in the Xinxing community, Dongying, China. The essay explores how mini-publics, as democratic innovations, contribute to policy-making by engaging citizens in decision-making processes, ensuring inclusivity, and providing policymakers with a broader range of public needs. It also considers the different functions and outcomes of mini-publics in representative democracies and authoritarian contexts, highlighting their potential to complement existing political structures and enhance public trust in governance. The analysis concludes that while mini-publics offer significant benefits in both democratic and authoritarian settings, their long-term impact on political systems may vary depending on the broader context of governance and public engagement.
Downloads
References
[1] G. Smith: Democratic innovations : designing institutions for citizen participation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, UK 2009).
[2] J. W. Kuyper and F. Wolkenstein: Complementing and correcting representative institutions: When and how to use mini‐publics’, European journal of political research, 58(2) (2019), p. 656–675.
[3] A. Fung: Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences, The journal of political philosophy, 11(3) (2003), p. 338–367.
[4] J. W. Kuyper and F. Wolkenstein: Complementing and correcting representative institutions: When and how to use mini‐publics’, European journal of political research, 58(2) (2019), p. 656–675.
[5] M. Setala: Connecting deliberative mini‐publics to representative decision making, European journal of political research, 56(4) (2017), p. 846–863.
[6] M. E. Warren and J. Gastil: Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship? The Journal of politics, 77(2) (2015), p. 562–574.
[7] M.E. Warren: A problem-based approach to democratic theory, American Political Science Review, 111(1) (2017), p.39-53.
[8] C. Ergenc: Political Efficacy through Deliberative Participation in Urban China: A Case Study on Public Hearings, Chinese journal of political science, 19(2) (2014), p. 191–213.
[9] J. Mansbridge, et al.:A systemic approach to deliberative democracy’, in J. Parkinson and J. Mansbridge (eds.), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Theories of Institutional Design) (2012), p. 1–26.
[10] https://participedia.net/case/4222
[11] R. C. Luskin, et al.: Report on the deliberative poll on ‘vermont’s energy future’, Center for Deliberative Opinion Research (2008)
[12] Elstub, Karen C., Elstub, Stephen and Escobar Rodríguez, Óliver: Handbook of democratic innovation and governance (Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK 2019)
[13] J. S. Fishkin, et al.: Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China, British journal of political science, 40(2) (2010), p. 435–448.
[14] https://participedia.net/case/12138
[15] B. He and M. E. Warren: Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development, Perspectives on politics, 9(2) (2011), p. 269–289.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 International Journal of Education and Humanities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
