Beyond polarization and selective trust: A Citizens’ Jury as a trusted source of information

Setälä, Maija; Christensen, Henrik Serup; Leino, Mikko; Strandberg, Kim

doi:10.1177/02633957211024474

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is noteworthy that we did not study how the public at large perceived the mini-public. Existing evidence suggests that a deliberative body can be regarded as a trusted source of information (Setälä et al, 2021). Future research could examine whether the trust would be seen among the public at large when politicians take part in deliberations along with citizens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can politicians and citizens deliberate together? Evidence from a local deliberative mini‐public

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a deliberative mini-public, a representative number of citizens receive information and discuss given policy topics in facilitated small groups. Typically, mini-publics are most effective politically and can have the most impact on policy-making when they are connected to democratic decision-making processes. Theorists have put forward possible mechanisms that may enhance this linkage, one of which is involving politicians within mini-publics with citizens. However, although much research to date has focussed on mini-publics with many citizen participants, there is little analysis of mini-publics with politicians as coparticipants. In this study, we ask how involving politicians in mini-publics influences both participating citizens' opinions and citizens' and politicians' perceptions of the quality of the mini-public deliberations. We organised an online mini-public, together with the City of Turku, Finland, on the topic of transport planning. The participants (n = 171) were recruited from a random sample and discussed the topic in facilitated small groups (n = 21). Pre-and postdeliberation surveys were collected. The effect of politicians on mini-publics was studied using an experimental intervention: in half of the groups, local politicians (two per group) participated, whereas in the other half, citizens deliberated among themselves. Although we found that the participating citizens' opinions changed, no trace of differences between the two treatment groups was reported. We conclude that politicians, at least when they are in a clear minority in the deliberating small groups, can deliberate with citizens without negatively affecting internal inclusion and the quality of deliberation within mini-publics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can politicians and citizens deliberate together? Evidence from a local deliberative mini‐public

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notably, some have suggested that minipublics can have a de-polarizing effect among the participating citizens (Curato et al, 2017;Dryzek et al, 2019;Iyengar et al, 2019). Specifically, previous work indicates that deliberative forums can converge participants' opinions on the issue(s) at stake as well as moderate participants' feelings towards those from other groups (Barabas, 2004;Caluwaerts and Reuchamps, 2014;Fishkin et al, 2021;Grönlund et al, 2015;Himmelroos and Christensen, 2014;Setälä et al, 2021; but see Luskin et al, 2014). 2 The present paper moves beyond this line of research in two important ways: It reverses the logic by investigating the extent to which mass polarization influences the perceived legitimacy of minipublics, and it shifts the focus from minipublic participants to those outside the forum.…”

Section: The Perceived Legitimacy Of Deliberative Minipublicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The perceived legitimacy of deliberative minipublics: taking the perspective of polarized citizens

Dijk

Turkenburg

Pow

2023

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Deliberative minipublics are becoming increasingly popular, with both scholars and practitioners highlighting their potential to bolster public approval of political decision-making. Yet, it remains unclear whether minipublics are able to do so in contexts where the public itself is deeply divided – a concern which becomes only more relevant as levels of polarization are said to rise across the globe. In this study, we argue that polarized citizens may perceive minipublics and their outcomes as less legitimate than more moderate citizens. We use original survey data from Northern Ireland (n = 932), a highly polarized society where a minipublic was organized on the contentious issue of the region’s constitutional future. We find that higher levels of ideological polarization and, to an extent, affective polarization are associated with lower levels of perceived minipublic legitimacy among the wider public, although effects are small. This offers novel insights into the role of minipublics in polarized settings.

show abstract

“…Moreover, the heterogeneity that could ensue from the level of government in question remains unexplored. Furthermore, most evaluations (Van de Walle and Bouckaert, 2007; Gracia and Casaló Ariño, 2015; Liu and Raine, 2016; Nunkoo et al , 2018; Chen and Sun, 2019; Setälä et al , 2021; Hye-Yon Lee, 2022) that examined the factors that affect trust in government provide inadequate attention to the potential selectivity bias among people who trust or mistrust a government, despite the potential for reverse relationships that run from the trust in government to factors of interest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of polarisation on trust in government: evidence from Ethiopia

Gebrihet,

Mwale

2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of polarisation on trust in government. Design/methodology/approach The authors use the ordered probit technique to model trust as a function of polarisation and various control variables. The authors apply the instrumental variables approach to address potential endogeneity in polarisation, using ethnic diversity as an instrument. Findings The results reveal that an increase in polarisation reduces trust in central government. However, trust in local government is non-responsive to this polarisation. The estimations controlled for government performance, and the authors found a positive association between government performance and trust in government, which, however, does not alter the relationship between polarisation and trust in government. Practical implications In ethnically polarised nations, policymakers should consider decentralisation measures. This can help sustain trust and development support, particularly in regions where citizens prioritise ethnicity over nationality. Social implications The social implications of this research underscore the importance of promoting trust in government to foster social cohesion and stability, particularly in ethnically diverse societies. Originality/value The authors find that increased ethnic polarisation reduces trust in the central government, particularly among those prioritising their ethnicity over nationality. This adds a non-performance dimension to government trust literature, suggesting that policies focusing solely on performance may yield limited results. The research extends beyond central government trust to include local governments. Unlike central government, local government trust remains tied to performance attributes unaffected by polarisation. Hence, investing resources through local governments is a viable strategy for enhancing citizen support while mitigating polarisation’s adverse effects.

show abstract

Beyond polarization and selective trust: A Citizens’ Jury as a trusted source of information

Cited by 8 publications

References 40 publications

Can politicians and citizens deliberate together? Evidence from a local deliberative mini‐public

Can politicians and citizens deliberate together? Evidence from a local deliberative mini‐public

The perceived legitimacy of deliberative minipublics: taking the perspective of polarized citizens

The effects of polarisation on trust in government: evidence from Ethiopia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About