Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, 41:293 | Cite as

Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy

Article

Abstract

Deliberative ideals have become commercial goods bought and sold in an expanding consultancy market. In this market, demand is generated by government and advocacy groups seeking innovative ways to engage with the public. On the supply side are a growing number of commercial organizations selling deliberative goods and services such as process design, facilitation and evaluation. This paper characterizes the nature of this deliberative market, and considers its implications for democracy and contemporary governance. An analysis of deliberative consultants finds that their professional world is more akin to a ‘community of practice’ rather than a marketplace. But the development of this community of deliberative practitioners could go in opposing directions. On the one hand consultants could become the entrepreneurs of deliberative democracy, promoting and demonstrating its benefits for policy making. On the other hand, if the motivations for deepening democracy are fully replaced by business imperatives and competition, then the deliberative project would be severely undermined. Rather than predict the future, the paper identifies some of the opportunities and challenges for democratic governance as elements of deliberative democracy are commodified.

Keywords

Deliberative democracy Deliberative practice Public participation Consultants Organizers Community consultation Commercialization Commodification Citizen engagement Public deliberation Professionalization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank participants of the Theory and Practice of Deliberative Democracy Workshop, held at the Australian National University, Canberra on 7–8 February 2008. We are also grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose words we have freely drawn upon to contextualize deliberative democracy in the field of policy theory and practice.

References

  1. Adaman, F., & Devine, P. (2001). Participatory planning as a deliberative democratic process: A response to Hodgson’s critique. Economy and Society, 30(2), 229–239. doi: 10.1080/03085140120042299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action Science, concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, M., Newman, J., & Sullivan, H. (2007). Power, participation and political renewal: Case studies in public participation. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  5. Benhabib, S. (1996). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political (pp. 67–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bessette, J. M. (1994). The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American National Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bickford, S. (1996). The dissonance of democracy – Listening, conflict and citizenship. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bohman, J. F. (1998). The coming age of deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(4), 399–423. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bohman, J. F., & Rehg, W. (Eds.). (1997). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Button, M., & Mattson, K. (1999). Deliberative democracy in practice: Challenges and prospects for civic deliberation. Polity, 31(4), 609–637. doi: 10.2307/3235238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carson, L. (2008). Creating democratic surplus through citizens’ assemblies. Journal of Public Deliberation, 4(1), Article 5.Google Scholar
  13. Carson, L. (Ed.). (2004). Consult your community: A guide to running a youth jury. Sydney: NSW Premier’s Department. Available at http://www.activedemocracy.net/articles.htm.
  14. Carson, L., & Hart, P. (2005). What randomness and deliberation can do for community engagement. In: International Conference on Engaging Communities, Brisbane, 14–17 August.Google Scholar
  15. Carson, L., & Hartz-Karp, J. (2005). Adapting and combining deliberative designs: Juries, polls and forums. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the 21st century (pp. 120–138). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Carson, L., White, S., Hendriks, C., & Palmer, J. (2002). Community consultation in environmental policy making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  17. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democracy theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In James F. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy (pp. 67–91). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Correy, S. (1999). Background briefing 20 June 1999: The Consultocracy, ABC Radio National.Google Scholar
  20. Crombie, A., & Ducker, C. (2000). Evaluation report: Phase 2. The First Australian Consensus Conference: Gene technology in the food chain. Canberra: Commissioned by the Consensus Conference Steering Committee. March 10–12, 1999.Google Scholar
  21. Crosby, N., & Nethercut, D. (2005). Citizens Juries: Creating a trustworthy voice of the people. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century (pp. 111–119). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Dienel, P. C. (2002). Die Planungszelle. Die Bürger als Chance (5th ed.). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 5th Edition with Status Report.Google Scholar
  23. Dryzek, J. (2007). The empirical turn in deliberative democracy. Presentation to Conference on Deliberation and Democratic Governance. Stockholm Centre for Organisational Research, 3–4 May.Google Scholar
  24. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Einsiedel, E. F., & Eastlick, D. L. (2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy. Science Communication, 21(4), 323–343. doi: 10.1177/1075547000021004001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Einsiedel, E. F., Jelsøe, E., & Breck, T. (2001). Publics at the technology table: The Australian, Canadian and Danish consensus conferences on food biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 10(1), 83–98. doi: 10.1088/0963-6625/10/1/306.Google Scholar
  28. Elster, J. (1997). The market and the forum: Three varieties of political theory. In R. E. Goodin & P. Pettit (Eds.), Contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (pp. 128–142). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  29. Fishkin, J. (1997). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University.Google Scholar
  30. Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367. doi: 10.1111/1467-9760.00181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Fung, A. (2006a). Democratising the policy process. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 669–685). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Fung, A. (2006b). Varieties of participation in complex governance varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1-Supplementary), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (Eds.). (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  35. Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Guston, D. H. (1999). Evaluating the first U.S. Consensus Conference: The impact of the citizens’ panel on telecommunications and the future of democracy. Science, Technology & Human Values, 24(4), 451–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Translated by William Rehg. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  38. Harrison, S., & Mort, M. (1998). Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimation. Social Policy and Administration, 32(1), 60–70. doi: 10.1111/1467-9515.00086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hartz-Karp, J. (2007). How and why deliberative democracy enables co-intelligence and brings wisdom to governance. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), Article 6.Google Scholar
  40. Hendriks, C. (2005). Participatory storylines and their impact on deliberative forums. Policy Sciences, 38(4), 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s11077-005-0870-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hendriks, C., & Carson, L. (2002). Deliberative designs down under: Australia’s experiences with innovative forms of citizen participation. Paper read at Taking Democracy to Scale – A Conference on deliberative models of citizen engagement, at Virginia, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Hendriks, C. M. (2002). Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: Roles, tensions and incentives. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 64–75. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.00259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hindess, B. (2002). Deficit by design. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 30–38. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.00256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hodge, G. A., & Bowman, D. (2006). The ‘consultocracy’: The business of reforming government. In G. A. Hodge (Ed.), Privatisation and market development: Global movements in public policy (pp. 97–126). Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  46. Hood, C., & Jackson, M. (1991). Administrative argument. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
  47. IAP2. (2007). IAP2 Skills Symposium at November 12–16, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.Google Scholar
  48. IAP2 Australasia. (2007). Growing up our own. Australasia Affiliate Report to IAP2 International. In Participation Quarterly (IAP2): IAP2 International.Google Scholar
  49. Involve. (2005). The true costs of public participation. http://83.223.102.125/involvenew/mt/archives/blog_37/True%20Costs%20Full%20Report.pdf. Last Accessed 29 April 2009.
  50. Joss, S. (2002). United Kingdom: From ‘public understanding’ to ‘public involvement’. In S. Joss & S. Bellucci (Eds.), Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives (pp. 140–154). London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.Google Scholar
  51. Joss, S., & Durant, J. (Eds.). (1995). Public participation in Science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  52. Karpowitz, C., & Mansbridge, J. (2005). The importance of dynamic updating in public deliberation. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty-first century. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  53. Kashefi, E., & Mort, M. (2005). Grounded citizens’ juries: A tool for health activism? Health Expectations, 7, 290–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Khan, U. (Ed.). (1999). Participation beyond the ballot box: European case studies in state-citizen political dialogue. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  55. Kjær, A. M. (2004). Governance. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  56. Klüver, L. (2002). Project management – A matter of ethics and robust decisions. In S. Joss & S. Bellucci (Eds.), Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives (pp. 179–208). London: Centre for the Study of Democracy.Google Scholar
  57. Lee, C. (2007). The professionalization of public participation public participation. Paper read at Amercial Sociological Association Annual Meeting, August, at New York City.Google Scholar
  58. Lee, C. (2008). Disciplining democracy: Market logics in the public deliberation industry. Paper read at Amercial Sociological Association Annual Meeting, at Boston.Google Scholar
  59. Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487. doi: 10.1017/S0007123402000194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maginn, P. J. (2007). Deliberative democracy or discursively biased? Perth’s dialogue with the city initiative. Space and Polity, 11(3), 331–352. doi: 10.1080/13562570701811619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics – Essays on democracy and disagreement (pp. 211–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mayer, I., de Vries, J., & Geurts, J. (1995). An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference. In S. Joss & D. John (Eds.), Public participation in Science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 109–124). London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  63. McKay, E. (1999). Evaluation report: Phase 1. In First Australian Consensus Conference: Gene technology in the food chain. 10–12 March, 1999. Canberra. Commissioned by the Consensus Conference Steering Committee: PJ Dawson & Associates.Google Scholar
  64. McKay, E. (2001). Independent evaluation of the citizens’ forum on container deposit legislation. Canberra: P. J. Dawson Associates.Google Scholar
  65. McLaverty, P., & Halpin, D. (2008). Deliberative drift: The emergence of deliberation in the policy process. International Political Science Review, 29(2), 197–214. doi: 10.1177/0192512107085612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Metherell, M. (2008). Talkfest at little cost to taxpayer. The Sydney Morning Herald, 22(April), 6.Google Scholar
  67. Milewa, T., Dowswell, G., & Harrison, S. (2002). Partnerships, power and the ‘new’ politics of community participation in British Health Care. Social Policy and Administration, 36(7), 796–809. doi: 10.1111/1467-9515.00318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mintrom, M. (2003). Market organizations and deliberative democracy – Choice and voice in public service delivery. Administration & Society, 35(1), 52–81. doi: 10.1177/0095399702250346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mosse, D. (2003). The making and marketing of participatory development. In P. Quarles, P. van Ufford, & A. K. Giri (Eds.), A moral critique of development (pp. 43–75). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Newman, J. (2005). Participative governance and the remaking of the public sphere. In J. Newman (Ed.), Remaking governance: Peoples, politics and the public sphere (pp. 119–138). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  71. Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the wilderness: Displacing symbolic politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347–372. doi: 10.1080/0964401042000209612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Offenbacker, B. (2007). P2 Software simplies record keeping, reporting and evaluation. Participation Quarterly (IAP2) February 2007.Google Scholar
  73. Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), 180–196. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Parkinson, J. (2004). Why deliberate? The encounter between deliberation and new public managers. Public Administration, 82(2), 377–395. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00399.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Renn, O., Webler, T., & Wiedemann, P. (Eds.). (1995). Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  76. Renouf, C. (1999). Rebirthing democracy: The experience of the first Australian Consensus Conference. Consuming Interest, 79, 16–19.Google Scholar
  77. Renton, D. (2008). Personal communication via email between Lyn Carson and Desley Renton (President, Australasian Chapter, International Association of Public Participation) (IAP2), 1 February. Google Scholar
  78. Rowe, G., Marsh, R., & Frewer, L. (2004). Evaluation of a deliberative conference. Science, Technology & Human Values, 21(1), 88–121. doi: 10.1177/0162243903259194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rowe, R., & Shepard, M. (2002). Public participation in the new NHS: No closer to citizen control? Social Policy and Administration, 36(3), 275–290. doi: 10.1111/1467-9515.00251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organisations. Political Communication, 19(3), 359–377. doi: 10.1080/01957470290055547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Ryfe, M. (2003). Deliberative democracy and public discourse. In J. Rodin & S. P. Steinberg (Eds.), Public discourse in America: Conversation and community in the twenty-first century (pp. 40–49). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  82. Saint-Martin, D. (1998). The new managerialism and the policy influence of consultants in government: An historical-institutionalist analysis of Britain, Canada and France. Governance, 11(3), 319. doi: 10.1111/0952-1895.00074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sam, M. P., & Scherer, J. (2006). The steering group as policy advice instrument: A case of “consultocracy” in stadium subsidy deliberations. Policy Sciences, 39(2), 169–181. doi: 10.1007/s11077-006-9014-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Spash, C. L. (2007). Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change. Ecological Economics, 63, 690–699. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sunstein, C. (2007). The empirical turn in deliberative democracy. Roundtable on deliberative democracy and it limits, Conference of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, 2 September.Google Scholar
  86. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  88. Wilson, P. A., & Padgett, J. D. (2007). New Orleans Community Congress II: Towards the next era of participatory democracy. An evaluation report commissioned by AmericaSpeaks Office of Research and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  89. Zimmer, R. (2002). Begleitende Evaluation der Bürgerkonferenz “Streitfall Gendiagnostik”. Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer-Institut für Systemtechnik und Innovationsforschung.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crawford School of Economics & GovernmentThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Government & International Relations, and US Studies CentreThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations