‘Soft’ forms of direct democracy: Explaining the occurrence of referendum motions and advisory referendums in Finnish local government

Abstract

This study investigates 'soft' forms of direct democracy and identifies factors that explain their occurrence. Soft direct democracy refers to non-binding referendum motions and advisory referendums, which the literature on direct democracy has largely ignored. Strategic motives have dominated previous explanations of the occurrence of initiatives and referendums, but are less useful in exploring non-binding procedures of direct democracy. The article distinguishes four types of factors -socio-structural, party system, political support and learning -and tests hypotheses on their effects with sub-national data from Finland. The data enable us to compare two different types of instruments -non-binding referendum motions and advisory referendumswhile controlling for many unobserved factors. The findings show that erosion of political support, participatory traditions and policy diffusion explain the occurrence of bottom-up referendum motions, while the last two together with small population and party system factors predict the occurrence of advisory government-initiated referendums.

The Institutional Design of Referendums: Bottom‐Up and Binding

“…One could go either way. But if it is an empirical argument, it is more problematic if not downright wrong because there are many examples of interpretative manipulation of non‐binding referendum results by elected authorities (see e.g., Jäske ). This possibility is enhanced in two‐level situations in which authorities of different levels can “hide” behind each other and engage in all sorts of blame shifting.…”

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

“…As a result, the level of participatory democratisation, as well as the toolbox of particular PIs, varies substantially between municipalities. As in most European representative democracies, PIs are consultative in Finland (Jäske 2017). Surveys, public hearings and online channels are also among the tools used to consult citizens in decision making and service delivery (Christensen et al 2016).…”

“…H2 assumes that the number of PIs has a positive effect on citizens' satisfaction with policy outcomes. When local authorities do not consider participatory processes politically or morally binding in decision making (Jäske 2017;Michels 2011), these processes will less likely produce more responsive policies. This means that simply adopting more participation possibilities will not increase citizens' satisfaction with public services.…”

“…In many other countries, local participation has focused heavily on one particular procedure, such as referendums in Switzerland (Ladner & Fiechter 2012), citizen juries in the United Kingdom (Smith & Wales 2000) and PB in Brazil (Touchton & Wampler 2014). As in most European representative democracies, PIs are consultative in Finland (Jäske 2017). The participatory inputs they produce do not bind the hands of the representatives or public officials, but they serve as one input among others (Hendriks 2006).…”

“…Even if referendums and citizen committees are the most institutionalised forms of participation in terms of regulation, they are still non-binding processes. When local authorities do not consider participatory processes politically or morally binding in decision making (Jäske 2017;Michels 2011), these processes will less likely produce more responsive policies.…”