Public Deliberation Consortium
Not a member yet
327 research outputs found
Sort by
Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and Why It Matters
No full textThis paper presents the foundations of a systematic epistemic case for democracy as a collective decision-rule and explores the implications of this epistemic claim for normative justifications of democracy, scientific explanations of its empirical success, and policy reforms. As far as the epistemic case is concerned, the paper proposes an account based on the concept of “democratic reason,” or the collective intelligence of the people in politics. The paper argues that, counter-intuitively, democratic reason is more a function of the cognitive diversity of the individuals taking part in the decision than of their individual ability. As an account of democracy’s epistemic benefits, the argument from democratic reason supplements procedural accounts based on fairness and equality to provide a complete functionalist explanation of democracy. Finally, the argument supports policy reforms increasing citizens’ participation in the collective decision-process
An Unlikely Success: Peru’s Top-Down Participatory Budgeting Experience
No full textThis article focuses on the unlikely success of Peru’s top-down participatory budget experience. As part of democratization and decentralization efforts in the early 2000s, Peruvians mandated participatory budgeting in all subnational governments. The article suggests that, while success is constrained in many ways, Peruvians can point to two important accomplishments: 1) engaging a significant number of civil society organizations in debating public resources; and 2) an increased focus on “pro-poor” projects. The article concludes that the current challenge in Peru is to improve the process and engage an even more diverse array of participants. Only then will the process have real potential to improve local governance
Participatory budgeting - the Australian way
No full textFor the first time in Australia a local council has used a deliberative democracy approach to obtain citizen advice on key decisions regarding the full range of Council services, service levels and funding. Typically a participatory budget (PB) gives citizens authority in relation to a component of the local government budget. The City of Canada Bay Council, in metropolitan Sydney, went well beyond this. In this paper the Canada Bay Citizens’ Panel (CP), the name given to the PB, is compared to the traditional PB process highlighting three distinctive features of this process: (1) the use of a randomly selected group of citizens; (2) the role of the newDemocracy Foundation as a ‘nonpartisan intermediary organisation’ (Kadlec and Friedman, 2007); and (3) the engagement of council staff through a parallel process convened by the Council, using a randomly selected staff panel. Whilst it is too early yet to make any final judgments, there is promising evidence that the recommendations of this CP will be seriously considered and that this engagement model will be used again by the City of Canada Bay, for the next four-year delivery plan and other contentious issues. Even though the Canada Bay Citizens’ Panel process is not yet complete, it is already clear that its impact will be felt, not only on the budget of the City of Canada Bay, but more broadly as an exemplar for local governments in Australia thinking about engaging their citizens
Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment
No full textMethodological evaluations of deliberative mini-publics usually focus on the internal and external validity of experimental designs. Even though such a focus on causal inference and generalization is important, it is incomplete. We argue that the epistemic validity of experimental designs should also be taken into account in order to ensure measuring truly a deliberative exercise rather than just a regular discussion. By ensuring the inclusion and publicity of all arguments, the process of arguing back-and-forth between multiple positions is theoretically claimed to generate better outcomes and should therefore be validated along epistemic lines. Here, we suggest some methodological techniques for enabling the epistemic validity assumption of deliberative experimental designs. These techniques relate to the sampling of the groups and the treatments they receive
The World Bank and the Globalization of Participatory Budgeting
No full textThis article addresses the long-standing controversy over the World Bank’s role in the promotion of participatory budgeting (PB). Some on the left have celebrated the Bank’s funding and advocacy for PB as signifying the legitimacy or mainstream success of the process, while others see the Bank’s endorsement of PB as a sign that participatory budgeting is becoming watered down and losing its transformative potential, if it ever had such potential. This debate has mostly been an ideological one, and little research has been done to provide evidence to either side. The article is the first to address what the Bank is doing to promote PB and why. It makes six main points. First, the originators of participatory budgeting, the Workers’ Party in Brazil, is not promoting it as strongly as it used to. Second, the World Bank has become the most active promoter of PB (perhaps alongside the United Nations Development Program). Third, within the Bank, some promote PB as part of its fairly standard pro-market agenda, while others share many of the same goals as PB’s originators. Fourth, though the Bank has become very important for the diffusion of PB, overall PB remains marginal within the Bank. Fifth, the Bank has little influence over the eventual outcomes of PB in different countries because it has little or no control over many of the factors that affect PB in practice. And sixth, because PB’s effects have strong potential to be positive, the Bank’s role in promoting PB should be encouraged
Collective Identity and Voice at the Australian Citizens\u27 Parliament
No full textThis paper examines the role of collective identity and collective voice in political life. We argue that persons have an underlying predisposition to use collective dimensions, such as common identities and a public voice, in thinking and expressing themselves politically. This collective orientation, however, can be either fostered or weakened by citizens’ political experiences. Although the collective level is an important dimension in contemporary politics, conventional democratic practices do not foster it. Deliberative democracy is suggested as an environment that might allow more ground for citizens to express themselves not only in individual but also in collective terms. We examine this theoretical perspective through a case study of the Australian Citizens’ Parliament, in which transcripts are analyzed to determine the extent to which collective identities and common voice surfaced in actual discourse. We analyze the dynamics involved in the advent of collective dimensions in the deliberative process and highlight the factors—deliberation, nature of the discussion, and exceptional opportunity—that potentially facilitated the rise of group identities and common voice. In spite of the strong individualistic character of the Australian cultural identity, we nonetheless found evidence of both collective identity and voice at the Citizens’ Parliament, expressed in terms of national, state, and community levels. In the conclusion, we discuss the implications of those findings for future research and practice of public deliberation
Cultivating Deliberation for Democracy
No full textDiamond\u27s Liberation Technology describes how new communication technologies can help bring about democracy, but not how they can help improve an existing democracy. One natural idea is that technologies developed specifically for improving deliberation might help improve in quantity and quality the public deliberation required for a healthy democracy. To date, this has failed to happen; deliberation technologies have not been taken up by the public to any significant degree. I suggest that this is because such technologies have taken the wrong approach, imposing too much structure on deliberative discourse. An alternative is to cultivate better deliberation. This approach is taken by YourView, a new kind of virtual forum, which aims to enhance democracy by providing an opportunity for citizens easily access key arguments on major issues, take a stand on those issues, and help shape the collective wisdom - the considered collective view. By identifying when participants exhibit epistemic virtues, and rewarding such behaviors, it encourages rather than imposes better-quality deliberation
By the People, For the People: Participatory Budgeting from the Bottom Up in North America
No full textIn the pilot year of Participatory Budgeting in New York City, around 8,000 people decided how to spend almost $6 million across four city districts. After years advocating for participatory budgeting (PB) in the US, our organization - The Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) - served as lead technical assistance partner. In this article, we share some of the lessons learned from our work in New York and other North American cities. Two main concerns have haunted PB in the US (and elsewhere) - that it will only attract the “usual suspects” and that it will merely be a token effort. We argue for tackling these challenges by crafting PB around four key principles - strategic funds, grassroots leaders, accessible design, and targeted outreach. Through this bottom-up approach, PB can better achieve its potential to transform democracy and build social justice - in North America and beyond
It Takes More than Good Intentions: Institutional and Attitudinal Impediments to Engaging Young People in Participatory Planning
No full textWhile participatory processes have become an important part of planning, young people are a particularly vulnerable group in terms of potential marginalisation and exclusion from effective participation. Including the views of young people in participatory planning is not simply a matter of bringing them into existing processes. Instead, participatory processes must find ways to integrate and accommodate their needs and ways of expressing their views. Without these adjustments young people may simply move from being kept outside the planning process to a situation where, although they are formally included, their claims are not taken seriously and they are not treated with equal respect. In this paper we reflect on the success of a community advisory committee, formed to consider water planning issues, in integrating the views of young people into their deliberations. Using Iris Marion Young’s (1995) ideas of communicative democracy we highlight the challenges and opportunities presented by this participatory approach, as articulated by both the young people involved and the adult participants. We specifically consider how the elements of greeting, rhetoric and narrative were reflected in the committee process. We argue that both planners and adult participants need to ensure that participatory processes allow for the equal engagement of all participants and place equal value on their contributions. Our research shows that this involves both an institutional and attitudinal commitment to include the views of young people. The institutional commitment requires young people to be included in processes and for their involvement to be supported. However, the attitudinal commitment it is equally important and requires that adult participants be prepared not only to accept the views of younger participants but to actively encourage and support their full participation
Learning from Your Neighbor: The Value of Public Participation Evaluation For Public Policy Dispute Resolution
No full textPublic policy dispute resolution [PPDR] and public participation [PP] are closely related fields of practice. Despite many similarities, we identify gaps in most evaluation studies conducted in the two fields. Evaluators of PPDR can better draw upon PP evaluations.
The values, concepts, objectives, and practices of PP and PPDR are compared for similarities and differences. Focusing on the last 15 years, PPDR and PP evaluation literature is analyzed, with attention to four PP evaluation studies of special relevance to PPDR. Five ways that PPDR evaluation can be improved by drawing on PP evaluation studies are identified. Two promising works that begin to bridge the PPDR-PP evaluation gap are summarized