Major findings and paths for research: A concluding note

Abstract

Abstract. In this concluding note, the editors of this special issue first produce a synthesis of the findings of the empirical cases. Regarding delegation problems in the participatory devices under scrutiny, the conclusions are contrasting, and the outcome depends very much on the institutional design of each procedure, and on the kind of skills that are necessary to participate. Regarding the quality of deliberations, moderately positive conclusions are reached as a rule. With respect to the efficiency of these mechanisms, the results are much more limited: their decisional impact is weak, with the exception of the most elitist mechanisms, and the procedures under scrutiny did not seem to have any lasting integrative or ‘educative’ effects on the participants. Also, the situation with respect to transparency is problematic: there is no link between the degree of formalisation and influence on decisions, and most mechanisms are weakly publicised. In the end, the editors underline shifts in legitimacy principles induced by these procedures and sketch some paths for future research that should include a survey of the interplay between these procedures, the representative framework at large and other kinds of shifts in policy making.

Participatory innovations and maxi‐publics: The influence of participation possibilities on perceived legitimacy at the local level in Finland

“…Visibility and publicity of participatory processes should be part of their evaluation, as others have already suggested (Papadopoulos & Warin 2007b). By analysing interaction models, it was shown that awareness of local politics moderates the effect of PIs on procedural fairness.…”

“…Dryzek 2002;Gutmann & Thompson 2002). Critical voices have, however, questioned their visibility and publicity in the eyes of lay citizens (Papadopoulos & Warin 2007b), which is an important precondition for the broader contributions of PIs to the democratic system. New forms of public engagement are saluted also in the field of public administration and governance, where they are seen as important sources for local knowledge (Fischer 2000) and potential responses to wicked problems (Raisio 2010).…”

“…Deliberative mini-publics, for example, have the potential to help citizens to make trust judgments, inform public debates on salient issues, build confidence in authorities, increase social justice or legitimise policy (MacKenzie & Warren 2012;Fung 2015;Goodin & Dryzek 2006). The question of how participation possibilities affect democratic publics has been studied less than the other types of impact (Michels 2011: 288;Papadopoulos & Warin 2007b). Just recently, citizens' initiative reviews have been shown to moderately influence public opinion and voter knowledge in the context of direct democratic votes (Gastil et al 2018), and experimental study has found an effect of deliberative mini-publics on public opinion (Ingham & Levin 2018).…”

“…New forms of public engagement are saluted also in the field of public administration and governance, where they are seen as important sources for local knowledge (Fischer 2000) and potential responses to wicked problems (Raisio 2010). Critical voices have, however, questioned their visibility and publicity in the eyes of lay citizens (Papadopoulos & Warin 2007b), which is an important precondition for the broader contributions of PIs to the democratic system.…”

Political Regime and Learning Outcomes of Stakeholder Participation: Cross-National Study of 81 Biosphere Reserves

“…Alternatively, the structural barriers to participation in democratic states may have been underestimated. According to the path dependence hypothesis, democracies may be using such processes as a façade while capturing more control over management [58].…”