Flexibility, Argumentation and Confrontation. How Deliberative Minipublics Can Affect Policies on Controversial Issues

Abstract

Over the last few decades, deliberative minipublics have been used as inclusive and innovative practices to integrate traditional policy-making. Because of their policy-oriented aim, but also owing to the usually not legally-binding nature, some scholars have recently pointed out the importance of understanding how and to what extent they actually manage to influence the decisions of public authorities, especially when they deal with highly controversial issues, such as locally unwanted land use or ethic matters. This article has the aim of offering a contribution in this direction, by presenting the findings of a comparative analysis of two deliberative processes promoted by public authorities to integrate decisionmaking in order to deal with highly controversial issues. The two processes had significantly different impacts on the final policies. The analysis, conducted by means of ethnographic and qualitative methods, has shown that how the minipublics were designed and how deliberation was put in practice were crucial aspects in determining the effective influence of the minipublics on policy decisions. In particular, the use of a strictly deliberative design on such contentious issues has proved to be counterproductive, because it has generated distortions and produced institutional conflicts, while the use of a hybrid path, although not free from problems, has proved to be a more effective solution.

Research Methods in Deliberative Democracy

“…The new project advanced by the technicians after the conclusion of the debate included a variation of the original layout very similar to the proposals advanced by these citizens. This is evidence that passes the smoking-gun test: it proves that the public debate could produce positive sum solutions even if it is implemented in a strongly conflicting context (Ravazzi and Pomatto 2014;Pomatto 2015).…”

The Ethical and Responsibility Components in Environmental Challenges: Elements of Connection between Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Impact Assessment

“…Furthermore, the issue of transparency and shared accountability are also addressed in the participatory budgeting processes, which flow into the deliberative and participatory budget models [75][76]. The distinction between the two areas, made by Ravazzi and Pomatto [77] is to be highlighted: 1) participatory processes are aimed in particular at activating citizens in the public sphere, so that they can put pressure on public administrators, inducing them to take care of themselves their needs; 2) deliberative processes have a partially different objective, namely to create open and in-depth discussion venues between citizens who have different or opposing ideas, points of view and interests, in order to develop solutions in a constructive way. The theory of deliberative democracy is undoubtedly partly linked to that of participatory democracy, but has progressively distinguished itself by a greater orientation towards consensus building and the resolution of conflicts in public policies.…”

Negotiating Deliberative Ideals in Theory and Practice: A Case Study in “Hybrid Design”

“…Recent calls in the literature invite increased exploration of two linked axes of discussion. Some thinkers call for more explicit consideration of tensions between multiple theoretical ideals of deliberation (Holt-Shannon & Mallory, 2014;Ravazzi & Pomatto, 2014;). Others invite more case studies providing frank perspectives on the practical challenges of designing, implementing, and evaluating deliberative processes (Abelson et.…”