Recent research on citizen process preferences has highlighted three different models of decision making: representation, participation and stealth democracy. However, the meanings of the two alternatives to the prevailing representative model have not been fully explored. What do citizens have in mind when distinguishing between participatory and stealth models of democracy? Using survey data from several Western European countries, the article explores one distinction within preferences for each of the models: the preference for more referendum-based versus dynamic responsiveness-based solutions on the participatory side and for expert-based versus business-based solutions on the stealth side. The article ends by exploring the impact of left-right ideology and education upon these preferences. The explanatory power of the variables is greater for understanding the internal distinction of the stealth model than the participatory one.
Most research on participatory processes has stressed the positive effects that these institutions have in the relationships between public authorities and civil society. This article analyzes a more negative product that has received scant attention: participatory frustration. Departing from Hirschman’s cycles of involvement and detachment, the article shows four paths toward frustration after engaging in institutional participatory processes: (a) inflated expectations, (b) the failure of design and adjusting mechanisms, (c) poor results, and (d) abrupt discontinuations. Drawing on six cases in Spanish cities, this article proposes a reflection on how participatory reforms can contribute to feed frustration and political disenchantment.
The characteristics of participatory institutions can be articulated in three main dimensions: input, process and output. The common assumption is that a dependency relationship exists, with process serving as a mediator between input and output. This paper puts the model to a rare empirical test drawing on a unique dataset of 70 Spanish advisory councils. Through a combination of exploratory factor and path analyses, we analyse the dimensionality of input, process and output and investigate the direct and indirect impact of inputs on process and outputs. Our analysis provides evidence that input factors have a direct impact on the output factor transparency, but their impact on effects on policy and participant satisfaction is mediated by the process factor deliberation. Further, the capacity of the public administration to steer the advisory council (wardship) mediates negatively the impact of input variables on transparency. The analysis provides a nuanced account of how different input and process design characteristics of participatory institutions have profound direct and indirect effects on their outputs.
In many countries, advisory councils are the most common participatory institution in which public administration interacts with civil society around environmental issues. Nevertheless, our knowledge about them is quite limited. The main goal of this article is to show the differences they present with advisory councils in other policy areas in three main aspects: who participates, how they work, and which are their outputs. These differences are especially important because they emerge again regarding their participants’ opinions and satisfaction. We adopt a quantitative perspective in order to analyze this reality in Spain, a country where advisory councils are widespread and highly institutionalized at national, regional and local levels. After developing a mapping of 2013 existing advisory councils, we selected a sample of 55 in three policy areas. The data collected included their formal rules, composition, website characteristics and a survey to 501 participants. This set of evidence shows that environmental councils are more poorly designed, and that this is consequential since it is related with more negative opinions among their members and to a larger degree of polarization in their perceptions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.