Advisory councils exist at diverse government levels, making them especially appropriate to address the discussion about scaling up participatory institutions, by comparing their differences across different government levels. We analyze the characteristics of advisory councils in Spain, where they are quite similar at the national, regional, and local levels, allowing a controlled comparison of their functioning and results. Results show similarities across territorial levels and also signs of a better performance of the local and regional ones, especially regarding the satisfaction of participants. Relational goods and different understandings of what policy influence means are crucial explanations of these patterns.
AlarcónP.Fernandez-MartínezJ. L.FontJ. (2020). Comparing environmental advisory councils: How they work and why it matters. Sustainability, 12, 4286.
2.
ArnsteinS. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.
3.
AvritzerL.RamosA. (2016). Democracia, escala y participación. Reflexiones desde las instituciones participativas brasileñas [Democracy, scale and participation. Reflections from Brazilian participatory institutions]. Revista Internacional de Sociología, 74(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/ris.2016.74.3.040
4.
BächtigerA.WegmannA. (2014). Scaling up deliberation. In ElstubS.McLavertyP. (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases (pp. 118–135). Edinburgh University Press.
5.
BerryJ.PortneyK.ThomsonK. (1993). The rebirth of urban democracy. The Brookings Institution.
6.
BhererL.Fernández-MartínezJ. L.García EspínP.Jiménez SánchezM. (2016). The promise for democratic deepening: The effects of participatory processes in the interaction between civil society and local governments. Journal of Civil Society, 12(3), 344–363.
7.
BolithoA. (2013). The role and future of citizen committees in Australian local government. University of Technology, Sydney.
8.
BruguéJ.GallegoR. (2001). ¿Una administración pública democrática? [A democratic public administration?]. In FontJ. (Ed.), Ciudadanos y decisiones públicas (pp. 43-58). Ariel.
9.
BuaA. (2017). Scale and policy impact in participatory-deliberative democracy: Lessons from a multi-level process. Public Administration, 95(1), 160–177.
10.
BuaA.EscobarO. (2018). Participatory-deliberative processes and public policy agendas: Lessons for policy and practice. Policy Design and Practice, 1(2), 126–140.
11.
BurnsD.HambletonR.HoggerttP. (1994). The politics of decentralisation: Revitalising local democracy. Macmillan.
12.
CamposJ.GonzálezJ. (1999). Deliberation councils, government-business-citizen partnerships, and public policy-making: Cases from Singapore, Malaysia, and Canada. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 163, 429–448.
13.
CarvalhoM. C.TeixeiraA. C. (2000). Conselhos gestores de políticas públicas [Public policy management councils]. 37, 99–119.
14.
ChristiansenP.NorgaardA.RommetvedtH.SvenssonT.G.ÖbergP. (2010). Varieties of democracy: Interest groups and corporatist committees in Scandinavian policy making. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organization, 21(1), 22–40.
15.
CooperT.MussoJ. (1999). The potential for neighborhood council involvement in American metropolitan governance. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 2, 199–232.
16.
DahlR.TufteE. (1974). Size and democracy. Stanford University Press.
17.
DentersB.GoldsmithM.LadnerA.MouritzenP. E.RoseL. E. (2014). Size and local democracy. Edward Elgar.
18.
EliasophN. (2009). Avoiding politics. Cambridge University Press.
19.
Fernández-MartínezJ. L.García-EspínP.JiménezM. (2019). Participatory frustration: The unintended cultural effect of local democratic innovations. Administration & Society, 52(5), 718–748.
20.
FishkinJ. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press.
21.
FobéE.BransM.VancoppenolleD.Van DammeJ. (2013). Institutionalized advisory systems: An analysis of member satisfaction of advice production and use across 9 strategic advisory councils in Flanders (Belgium). Policy and Society, 32(3), 225–240.
22.
FontJ.GalaisC. (2011). The qualities of local participation: The explanatory role of ideology, external support and civil society as organizer. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 35(5), 932–948.
23.
FontJ.SmithG.GalaisC.AlarcónP. (2018). Cherry-picking participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes. European Journal of Political Research, 57(3), 615–636.
24.
FungA. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton University Press.
25.
GamsonW. A. (1975). The strategy of social protest. Dorsey Press.
26.
GoldsmithS.EggersW. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. The Brooking Institution.
27.
GoodinR.DryzekJ. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & Society, 34(2), 219–244.
28.
GreenJ. E. (2010). The eyes of the people: Democracy in an age of spectatorship. Oxford University Press.
29.
HendriksC.BolithoA.FoulkesC. (2013). Localism and the paradox of devolution: Delegated citizen committees in Victoria, Australia. Policy Studies, 34(5–6), 575–591.
30.
HibbingJ.Theiss-MorseE. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge University Press.
31.
InnerarityD. (2016). El Nuevo espacio público [The new public space]. Espasa.
32.
JacquetV.Van der DoesR. (2020). Deliberation and policy-making: Three ways to think about minipublics’ consequences. Administration & Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720964511
JiménezM. (2001). Sustainable development and the participation of environmental NGOs in Spanish environmental policy. In EderK.KousisM. (Eds.), Environmental politics in Southern Europe: Environment & policy (Vol. 29, pp. 225–253). Springer.
LandwherC.HolzingerK. (2010). Institutional determinants of deliberative interaction. European Political Science Review, 2(3), 373–400.
37.
ManinB. (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press.
38.
MansbridgeJ. (1980). Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago University Press.
39.
NavarroC. (2004). Participatory democracy and political opportunism: Municipal experience in Italy and Spain (1960–93). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(4), 819–838.
40.
NebloM.EsterlingK.KennedyR.LazerD. (2010). Who wants to deliberate—and why?American Political Science Review, 104(3), 566–583.
41.
NewtonK. (1982). Is small really so beautiful? Is big really so ugly? Size, effectiveness, and democracy in local government. Political Studies, 30(2), 190–206.
42.
PogrebinschiT.RyanM. (2017). Moving beyond input legitimacy: When do democratic innovations affect policy-making?European Journal of Political Research, 57(1), 135–152.
43.
SerdültU.WelpY. (2015). How sustainable is democratic innovation? Tracking neighborhood councils in Montevideo. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7, 2131–2148.
44.
SintomerY.De MaillardJ. (2007). The limits to local participation and deliberation in the French “politique de la ville.”European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), 503–529.
45.
SmithG. (2009). Democratic innovations. Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.
46.
UhlanerC. (2013). Relational goods and resolving the paradox of political participation. Recerca, 14, 47–72.
47.
WarrenM. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton University Press.
