Policy-makers are increasingly experimenting with various ways to involve citizens in policy-making. Deliberative forums composed of lay citizens (minipublics) count among the most popular of such innovations. Despite their popularity, it is often unclear in what ways such minipublics could affect policy-making. This article addresses this issue of conceptual ambiguity by drawing on an original systematic review of the literature. It shows that the literature has approached these consequences in three ways: congruence with decisions, consideration in the policy-making process, and structural change. The article discusses the implications for empirical research and points out trajectories for future research on deliberative minipublics.
BächtigerA.ParkinsonJ. (2019). Mapping and measuring deliberation: Towards a new deliberative quality. Oxford University Press.
2.
BeachD.PedersenR. B. (2019). Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. University of Michigan Press.
3.
BoulianneS.LoptsonK.KahaneD. (2018). Citizen panels and opinion polls: Convergence and divergence in policy preferences. Journal of Public Deliberation, 14(1), 1–19.
4.
BouriciusT. (2018). Why hybrid bicameralism is not right for sortition. Politics & Society, 46(3), 435–451.
5.
BoussaguetL. (2016). Participatory mechanisms as symbolic policy instruments?Comparative European Politics, 14(1), 107–124.
6.
CaluwaertsD.ReuchampsM. (2016). Generating democratic legitimacy through deliberative innovations: The role of embeddedness and disruptiveness. Representation, 52(1), 13–27.
7.
CarsonL.MartinB. (1999). Random selection in politics. Praeger.
8.
ChambersS. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy?Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350.
9.
ColliF. (2019). Beyond the inside-outside divide: Fuzzy-set measurement of configurations of strategies in NGO campaigns. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 8(4), 519–551.
10.
CuccinielloM.PorumbescuG. A.GrimmelikhuijsenS. (2017). 25 Years of transparency research: Evidence and future directions. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 32–44.
11.
CuratoN.BökerM. (2016). Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: A research agenda. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 173–190.
12.
De BruyckerI. (2016). Pressure and expertise: Explaining the information supply of interest groups in EU legislative lobbying. Journal of Common Market Studies, 54(3), 599–616.
13.
de Cock BuningT.BroerseJ. E.BundersJ. F. (2008). Public perception of prenatal genetic testing: Arguments put forward by the public during a participatory policy project in The Netherlands. Public Health Genomics, 11(1), 52–62.
14.
De VriesH.BekkersV.TummersL. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146–166.
15.
DryzekJ. S. (2017). The forum, the system, and the polity: Three varieties of democratic theory. Political Theory, 45(5), 610–636.
16.
DryzekJ. S.BächtigerA.ChambersS.CohenJ.DruckmanJ. N.FelicettiA.… WarrenM. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146.
17.
DryzekJ. S.GoodinR. E.TuckerA.ReberB. (2009). Promethean elites encounter precautionary publics: The case of GM foods. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(3), 263–288.
18.
DryzekJ. S.TuckerA. (2008). Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France, and the United States. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 864–876.
19.
DürA. (2008). Measuring interest group influence in the EU: A note on methodology. European Union Politics, 9(4), 559–576.
20.
EinsiedelE. F.EastlickD. L. (2000). Consensus conferences as deliberative democracy: A communications perspective. Science Communication, 21(4), 323–343.
21.
ElstubS. (2010). The third generation of deliberative democracy. Political Studies Review, 8(3), 291–307.
22.
ElstubS.EscobarO. (2019). Handbook of democratic innovation and governance. Edward Elgar.
23.
FanM.-F. (2013). Evaluating the 2008 consensus conference on genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Public Understanding of Science, 24(5), 533–546.
24.
FarrellD. M.SuiterJ.HarrisC. (2019). “Systematizing” constitutional deliberation: The 2016-18 citizens’ assembly in Ireland. Irish Political Studies, 34(1), 113–123.
25.
FelicettiA.NiemeyerS.CuratoN. (2016). Improving deliberative participation: Connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. European Political Science Review, 8(3), 427–448.
26.
FishkinJ. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy & public consultation. Oxford University Press.
27.
FontJ.BlancoI. (2007). Procedural legitimacy and political trust: The case of citizen juries in Spain. European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), 557–589.
28.
FontJ.SmithG.GalaisC.AlarconP. (2018). Cherry-picking participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes. European Journal of Political Research, 57(3), 615–636.
29.
FournierP.van de KolkH.CartyK.BlaisA.RoseJ. (2011). When citizens decide: Lessons from citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform. Oxford University Press.
30.
FungA. (2007). Minipublics: Deliberative designs and their consequences. In RosenbergS. W. (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern? (pp. 159–183). Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
FungA. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522.
32.
GastilJ.WrightE. O. (2019). Legislature by lot: Transformative designs for deliberative governance. Verso Books.
33.
GeisselB.HessP. (2017). Explaining political efficacy in deliberative procedures: A novel methodological approach. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13(2), 1–25.
34.
GoodinR.DryzekJ. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society, 34(2), 219–244.
35.
GoodinR.ReinM.MoranM. (2006). The public and its policies. In MoranM.ReinM.GoodinR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 3–35). Oxford University Press.
36.
GourguesG. (2010). Studying regions as spaces for democracy: A political sociological approach. Regional & Federal Studies, 20(3), 353–369.
37.
GrönlundK.BächtigerA.SetäläM. (2014). Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. European Consortium for Political Research Press.
38.
HendriksC. M. (2005). Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums. Policy Sciences, 38(1), 1–20.
39.
HendriksC. M.DryzekJ. S.HunoldC. (2007). Turning up the heat: Partisanship in deliberative innovation. Political Studies, 55(2), 362–383.
40.
HowlettM.GiestS. (2013). The policy-making process. In AraralE.FritzenS.HowlettM., et al. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public policy (pp. 17–28). Routledge.
41.
HüllerT. (2010). Playground or democratisation? New participatory procedures at the European Commission. Swiss Political Science Review, 16(1), 77–107.
42.
JacquetV.van der DoesR. (2020). The consequences of deliberative minipublics: Systematic overview, conceptual gaps, and new directions, representation, online first, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2020.1778513
43.
JohnsonG. F. (2015). Democratic illusion: Deliberative democracy in Canadian public policy. University of Toronto Press.
44.
JonesM.EinsiedelE. (2011). Institutional policy learning and public consultation: The Canadian xenotransplantation experience. Social Science & Medicine, 73(5), 655–662.
45.
JunkW. M. (2019). Representation beyond people: Lobbying access of umbrella associations to legislatures and the media. Governance, 32(2), 313–330.
46.
LafontC. (2015). Deliberation, participation, and democratic legitimacy: Should deliberative mini-publics shape public policy?Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), 40–63.
47.
LandaD.PevnickR. (2020). Is random selection a cure for the ills of electoral representation?Journal of Political Philosophy. Advance online publication, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12219
48.
LöblováO. (2018). When epistemic communities fail: Exploring the mechanism of policy influence. Policy Studies Journal, 46(1), 160–189.
49.
MansbridgeJ.BohmanJ.ChambersS.ChristianoT.FungA.ParkinsonJ.ThompsonD. F.WarrenM. E. (2013). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In ParkinsonJ.Mansbridge JK. (Eds.), Deliberative systems (pp. 1–26). Cambridge University Press.
50.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P. (1995). Democratic governance. Free Press.
51.
MasuharaN.BabaK.TokaiA. (2016). Clarifying relationships between participatory approaches, issues, processes, and results, through crosscutting case analysis in Japan’s environmental, energy, and food policy areas. Environment Systems and Decisions, 36(4), 421–437.
52.
MichelsA. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy?International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 275–293.
53.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ., & The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
54.
NiemeyerS. (2014). Scaling up deliberation to mass publics: Harnessing min-publics in a deliberative system. In GrönlundK.BächtigerA.SetäläM. (Eds.), Deliberative mini-publics (pp. 177–202). European Consortium for Political Research Press.
55.
ParkinsonJ. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.
56.
ParkinsonJ.MansbridgeJ. (2012). Deliberative systems. Cambridge University Press.
57.
PettsJ. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of deliberative processes: Waste management case-studies. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44(2), 207–226.
58.
PogrebinschiT.RyanM. (2018). Moving beyond input legitimacy: When do democratic innovations affect policy making?European Journal of Political Research, 57(1), 135–152.
59.
PourtoisH. (2016). Les élections sont-elles essentielles à la démocratie ? [Are elections essential for democracy ?]. Philosophiques, 43(2), 411–439.
60.
RitzA.BrewerG. A.NeumannO. (2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 414–426.
61.
RyanM. (2014). Advancing comparison of democratic innovations: A medium-N fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis of participatory budgeting. University of Southampton.
62.
SafaeiJ. (2015). Deliberative democracy in health care: Current challenges and future prospects. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 7(1), 123–136.
63.
SeifertF. (2006). Local steps in an international career: A Danish-style consensus conference in Austria. Public Understanding of Science, 15(1), 73–88.
64.
SmithG. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.
65.
SpadaP.RyanM. (2017). The failure to examine failures in democratic innovation. Political Science & Politics, 50(3), 772–778.
66.
StreetJ.DuszynskiK.KrawczykS.Braunack-MayerA. (2014). The use of citizens’ juries in health policy decision-making: A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 109, 1–9.
67.
TeismanG. R. (2000). Models for research into decision-making processes: On phases, streams and decision-making rounds. Public Administration, 78(4), 937–956.
68.
van der HeijdenJ.KuhlmannJ. (2017). Studying incremental institutional change: A systematic and critical meta-review of the literature from 2005 to 2015. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 535–554.
69.
van der VeerR. A.HaverlandM. (2019). The politics of (de-) politicization and venue choice: A scoping review and research agenda on EU financial regulation and economic governance. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(9), 1395–1416.
70.
VoltoliniB.EisingR. (2017). framing processes and lobbying in EU foreign policy: Case study and process-tracing methods. European Political Science, 16(3), 354–368.
71.
WatanabeR. (2016). After the Fukushima disaster: Japan’s nuclear policy change from 2011 to 2012. Review of Policy Research, 33(6), 623–645.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
