Improving Deliberative Participation: Connecting Mini-Publics to Deliberative Systems

Andrea Felicetti, Simon Niemeyer, Nicole CURATO

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    15 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This article argues for the assessment of deliberative mini-publics as a dynamic part of a wider deliberative system. The approach draws primarily on Dryzek’s (2009) deliberative capacity building framework, which describes the democratic process as ideally involving authentic deliberation, inclusiveness in the deliberative process, and consequentiality or deliberation’s influence on decisions as well as positive impact on the system. This approach is illustrated using the comparative assessment of two mini-public case studies: the Australian Citizens’ Parliament and Italy’s Iniziativa di Revisione Civica (Civic Revision Initiative). The application of deliberative capacity as a standard for evaluating mini-publics in systemic terms reveals differences between the cases. The deliberative capacity of both cases overlap, but they do so for different reasons that stem from the interconnections between their specific designs and other components of the deliberative system.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)427-448
    Number of pages22
    JournalEuropean Political Science Review
    Volume8
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2016

    Fingerprint

    deliberation
    participation
    interconnection
    parliament
    citizen

    Cite this

    @article{8508af6ae4574eddbde814c213f76321,
    title = "Improving Deliberative Participation: Connecting Mini-Publics to Deliberative Systems",
    abstract = "This article argues for the assessment of deliberative mini-publics as a dynamic part of a wider deliberative system. The approach draws primarily on Dryzek’s (2009) deliberative capacity building framework, which describes the democratic process as ideally involving authentic deliberation, inclusiveness in the deliberative process, and consequentiality or deliberation’s influence on decisions as well as positive impact on the system. This approach is illustrated using the comparative assessment of two mini-public case studies: the Australian Citizens’ Parliament and Italy’s Iniziativa di Revisione Civica (Civic Revision Initiative). The application of deliberative capacity as a standard for evaluating mini-publics in systemic terms reveals differences between the cases. The deliberative capacity of both cases overlap, but they do so for different reasons that stem from the interconnections between their specific designs and other components of the deliberative system.",
    keywords = "deliberative democracy, deliberative capacity, deliberative system, mini-publics",
    author = "Andrea Felicetti and Simon Niemeyer and Nicole CURATO",
    year = "2016",
    doi = "10.1017/S1755773915000119",
    language = "English",
    volume = "8",
    pages = "427--448",
    journal = "European Political Science Review",
    issn = "1755-7739",
    publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
    number = "3",

    }

    Improving Deliberative Participation: Connecting Mini-Publics to Deliberative Systems. / Felicetti, Andrea; Niemeyer, Simon; CURATO, Nicole.

    In: European Political Science Review, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2016, p. 427-448.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Improving Deliberative Participation: Connecting Mini-Publics to Deliberative Systems

    AU - Felicetti, Andrea

    AU - Niemeyer, Simon

    AU - CURATO, Nicole

    PY - 2016

    Y1 - 2016

    N2 - This article argues for the assessment of deliberative mini-publics as a dynamic part of a wider deliberative system. The approach draws primarily on Dryzek’s (2009) deliberative capacity building framework, which describes the democratic process as ideally involving authentic deliberation, inclusiveness in the deliberative process, and consequentiality or deliberation’s influence on decisions as well as positive impact on the system. This approach is illustrated using the comparative assessment of two mini-public case studies: the Australian Citizens’ Parliament and Italy’s Iniziativa di Revisione Civica (Civic Revision Initiative). The application of deliberative capacity as a standard for evaluating mini-publics in systemic terms reveals differences between the cases. The deliberative capacity of both cases overlap, but they do so for different reasons that stem from the interconnections between their specific designs and other components of the deliberative system.

    AB - This article argues for the assessment of deliberative mini-publics as a dynamic part of a wider deliberative system. The approach draws primarily on Dryzek’s (2009) deliberative capacity building framework, which describes the democratic process as ideally involving authentic deliberation, inclusiveness in the deliberative process, and consequentiality or deliberation’s influence on decisions as well as positive impact on the system. This approach is illustrated using the comparative assessment of two mini-public case studies: the Australian Citizens’ Parliament and Italy’s Iniziativa di Revisione Civica (Civic Revision Initiative). The application of deliberative capacity as a standard for evaluating mini-publics in systemic terms reveals differences between the cases. The deliberative capacity of both cases overlap, but they do so for different reasons that stem from the interconnections between their specific designs and other components of the deliberative system.

    KW - deliberative democracy

    KW - deliberative capacity

    KW - deliberative system

    KW - mini-publics

    UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/political-science-review-improving-deliberative-participation-connecting-mini-publics-deliberative-s

    U2 - 10.1017/S1755773915000119

    DO - 10.1017/S1755773915000119

    M3 - Article

    VL - 8

    SP - 427

    EP - 448

    JO - European Political Science Review

    JF - European Political Science Review

    SN - 1755-7739

    IS - 3

    ER -