When the Forum Meets Interest Politics: Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation

Abstract

This article explores the interface between public deliberation and interest politics. It empirically examines how and when actors with vested interests support and oppose processes of direct citizen deliberation, such as citizens’ juries. An analysis of four cases finds that interest groups and activists respond to citizen deliberation in a variety of ways from cooperative engagement to disruptive disengagement. The research suggests that partisan actors are most likely to support citizens’ forums when the ideational and political context offers instrumental reasons to go public. The article explores what this strategic approach to public deliberation implies for the practice and theory of deliberative democracy.

Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?

“…This increases the credibility and legitimacy of the forum and its outcomes (Hendriks 2006). Further, speakers under public observation are more likely to treat their opponents in a respectful way and take their arguments seriously (Thompson 2008).…”

“…Scientists, for example, might get recognition from peers if they are selected to report on a given issue (The LSE GV314 Group 2013). An important reason why actors engage or support a deliberative forum is the potential to improve their public image, or to avoid a negative image due to non-participation (Hendriks 2006).…”

“…Policy forums allow for the exchange of technical know-how, knowledge about policy options and their potential consequences (Kinzig and Starrett 2003), as well as the preferences of other actors (Leach et al 2002;Leifeld and Schneider 2012). Especially deliberative forums are likely to foster social learning among actors (Hoppe 2011;Choi and Robertson 2014), or actors' learning about citizens' preferences (Hendriks 2005(Hendriks , 2006. Bridging or boundary organizations bring together policy makers and experts and aim at establishing a knowledge exchange between groups of actors with different types of knowledge (Cash et al 2006;Crona and Parker 2012).…”

“…Corporatist arrangements (Öberg 2002), boundary organizations (Hahn et al 2006) and deliberative forums (Hendriks 2006) all create trust and a common understanding of given issues among participating actors, which facilitates a long-term dialogue (Feldman and Khademian 2007;Crona and Parker 2012). For example, bargaining between trade unions and employers' associations relies on the experience of employers' associations that their concessions indeed lead to cooperative behavior of the trade unions' constituency.…”

A quem servem as conferências de políticas públicas? Desenho institucional e atores beneficiados

“…Para dar conta dessa tensão, autores como Fung (2004), Hendriks (2006), Mansbridge (1999Mansbridge ( , 2007Mansbridge ( , 2010 O OP apresenta um desenho de baixo para cima (bottom-up), que se caracteriza pela livre entrada e pela participação de qualquer cidadão no processo de discussão e tomada de decisão acerca do orçamento público local e da forma de alocação deste. Nele, os cidadãos apresentam autonomia para definir as regras dos processos decisórios e autoridade para decidir sobre a distribuição e a destinação de recursos orçamentários (Avritzer, 2008(Avritzer, , 2009.…”