Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The systemic turn in deliberative democratic theory has shifted the focus away from seeking to design separate, internally deliberative ‘mini-publics’ and towards a new appreciation of their external, systemic quality. Yet, so far, such accounts have not gone beyond recognising a potential for mini-publics to contribute to deliberative systems. In this paper, we argue that a systemic conceptualisation of mini-publics must recognise their fundamentally ambivalent character: Since mini-publics have the potential both to foster and to undermine systemic deliberation, it is insufficient to celebrate their positive potential alone, and vital to develop frameworks that allow for a critical evaluation of mini-publics’ systemic role. To this end, we propose a framework based on the systemic qualities of deliberation-making, legitimacy-seeking and capacity-building, and conclude that key to mini-publics’ quality, when judged against these criteria, is not just their own features, but the degree of ‘co-development’ of all system components.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We borrow the term ‘functional imperatives’ from Parsons’ (1971) account of the social system which is composed of various components that fulfil particular functions to ensure the system’s survival.

References

  • Bevir, M., & Ansari, N. (2012). Should deliberative democrats eschew modernist social science? In Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association.

  • Carson, L., Gastil, J., Hartz-Karp, J., & Lubensky, R. (2013). The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the future of deliberative democracy (vol. 8). Penn State Press.

  • Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curato, N., Niemeyer, S., & Dryzek, J. S. (2013). Appreciative and contestatory inquiry in deliberative forums: Can group hugs be dangerous? Critical Policy Studies, 7(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. (2009). The Australian Citizens' Parliament: A world first. Journal of Public Deliberation, 5(1), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Foundations and frontiers of deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., & Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 864–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elstub, S. (2014). Mini-publics: Issues and cases. In S. Elstub & P. McLaverty (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases (pp. 166–188). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elstub, S., & McLaverty, P. (Eds.). (2014). Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felicetti, A., Niemeyer, S., & Curato, N. (2015). Improving deliberative participation: Connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. European Political Science Review. doi:10.1017/S1755773915000119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J. (2008). Conclusion: The Citizens’ Assembly Model. In M. Warren & H. Pearse (Eds.), Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly (pp. 192–213). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. S. (2003). Consulting the public through deliberative polling. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(1), 128–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, D., & Laver, M. (2009). Participation bias, durable opinion shifts and sabotage through withdrawal in citizens’ juries. Political Studies, 57(2), 422–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freschi, A. C., & Mete, V. (2009). The political meanings of institutional deliberative experiments: Findings on the Italian case. Sociologica,. doi:10.2383/31358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E. (2008). Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & society, 34(2), 219–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A., & Setälä, M. (Eds.). (2014). Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, K., Setälä, M., & Herne, K. (2010). Deliberation and civic virtue: Lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment. European Political Science Review, 2(01), 95–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartz-Karp, J., & Carson, L. (2009). Putting the people into politics: The Australian Citizens’ Parliament. International Journal of Public Participation, 3(1), 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartz-Karp, J., Anderson, P., Gasti, J., & Felicetti, A. (2010). The Australian Citizens' Parliament: Forging shared identity through public deliberation. Journal of Public Affairs, 10(4), 353–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, M. R. (2008). Descriptive representation in the British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly’. In M. E. Warren & H. Pearse (Eds.), Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly (pp. 106–126). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Joly, P. B., Marris, C., Assouline, G., & Lemarié, J. (1999). Quand les candides évaluent les OGM: Nouveau modèle de “démocratie technique” ou mise en scène du débat public? (pp. 12–21). Avril: Annales des Mines.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanra, B. (2012). Binary deliberation: The role of social learning in divided societies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knobloch, K. R., & Gastil, J. (2013). Participant accounts of political transformation. In L. Carson, J. Gastil, J. Hartz-Karp, & R. Lubensky (Eds.), The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the future of deliberative democracy (pp. 235–247). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knops, A. (2014). Deliberative systems: A network approach. In: Paper presented at the PSA Participatory and Deliberative Democracy specialist group conference ‘scaling and innovation: contemporary difficulties and future prospects for participatory and deliberative democracy’, Newcastle, July 9–11, 2014.

  • Lafont, C. (2015). Deliberation, participation, and democratic legitimacy: Should deliberative mini-publics shape public policy? Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), 40–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, A. (2007). But is it for real? The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly as a model of state-sponsored citizen empowerment. Politics and Society, 35(1), 35–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, M. K., & Warren, M. E. (2014). Two trust-based uses of minipublics in democratic systems. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 95–124). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin, B. (1987). On legitimacy and democratic deliberation. Political Theory, 15(3), 338–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., & Warren, M. E. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mirenowicz, J. (2001). The Danish consensus conference model in Switzerland and France: On the importance of framing the issue. PLA Notes, 40, 57–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemeyer, S. (2011). The emancipatory effect of deliberation: Empirical lessons from mini-publics. Politics and Society, 39(1), 103–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Niemeyer, S. (2014). Scaling up deliberation to mass publics: Harnessing mini-publics in a deliberative system. In K. Grönlund, A. Bächtiger, & M. Setälä (Eds.), Deliberative mini-publics: Involving Citizens in the democratic process (pp. 177–202). Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemeyer, S., & Dryzek, J. S. (2007). The ends of deliberation: Meta-consensus and inter-subjective rationality as ideal outcomes. Swiss Political Science Review, 13(4), 497–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, E. D., & Trenz, H. J. (2014). From Citizens’ deliberation to popular will formation? Generating democratic legitimacy in transnational deliberative polling. Political Studies, 62(S1), 117–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1971). The system of modern societies. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics, 10(01), 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogrebinschi, Thamy. (2013). The squared circle of participatory democracy: Scaling up deliberation to the national level. Critical Policy Studies, 7(3), 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rinke, E. M., Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., & Carson, L. (2013). Mediated meta-deliberation: Making sense of the Australian citizens’ parliament. In L. Carson, J. Gastil, J. Hartz-Karp, & R. Lubensky (Eds.), The Australian Citizens’ Parliament and the future of deliberative democracy (pp. 260–283). Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secko, D. M., Preto, N., Niemeyer, S., & Burgess, M. M. (2009). Informed consent in biobank research: a deliberative approach to the debate. Social Science and Medicine, 68(4), 781–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.

  • Smith, G. (2012). Deliberative democracy and mini-publics. In K. Newton & B. Geissel (Eds.), Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise? (pp. 90–112). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A. Spörndli, & Steenbergen, M. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D., & Gutmann, A. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E., & Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008). Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank John Dryzek for his comments on an early draft of this manuscript and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Funding

This project is partially funded by an Australian Research Council Grant ‘Deliberative democracy in the public sphere: achieving deliberative outcomes in mass publics’ (DP120103976).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance, Innovation Centre, University of Canberra, Bruce, ACT, 2602, Australia

    Nicole Curato

  2. Keele University, Staffordshire, UK

    Marit Böker

Authors
  1. Nicole Curato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marit Böker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Curato.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Curato, N., Böker, M. Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda. Policy Sci 49, 173–190 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9238-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9238-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation