Most of the research about participatory institutions has neglected the analysis of the role played by ideological preferences in their development. Do different political ideologies of governing parties develop different participatory processes? Our starting point is that diverse views on the core values of democracy should lead to different positions concerning the role and expected benefits of citizen participation. This article discusses two main questions. First, in case ideology matters, which is the crucial difference? Is this a matter of “right versus left” or is there a particular party family with special attentiveness to developing participatory institutions? Second, in case any difference exists, how exactly does it translate into the development of participatory institutions? Analyzing data from Spanish municipalities in the period 2003–2010, we show that the party families that had a relevant presence in local administrations in this time frame show more similarities than differences in the participatory activities implemented. However, some relevant differences are found related to the constituencies addressed and mobilized and the type of participatory processes developed.
AllegrettiUStortoneF (2014) Participatory Budgets in Italy: Reconfiguring a Collapsed Panorama In: Dias N (org.)Hope for Democracy: 25 Years of Participatory Budgeting Worldwide. São Brás de Alportel: In Loco Association, pp.313–323.
2.
ArendtH (1958) The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
ArnsteinS (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35 (4): 216–224.
4.
BaiocchiGGanuzaE (2014) Participatory Budgeting as If Emancipation Mattered. Politics & Society42 (1): 29–50.
5.
BarberB (1984) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
6.
BarneyDDLaycockD (1999) Right-Populists and Plebiscitary Politics in Canada. Party Politics5 (3): 317–339.
7.
BauerPBarberáPAckermannK, et al. (2017) Is the Left-Right Scale a Valid Measure of Ideology?Political Behavior39: 553–583.
8.
BennettC (1991) What Is Policy Convergence and What Causes It?British Journal of Political Science21 (2): 215–233.
9.
BerlinI (1969) Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.
10.
BessetteJ (1994) The Mild Voice of Reason. Deliberative Democracy and American National Government. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
11.
BobbioN (1996) Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
BorgeRColomboCWelpY (2009) Online and Offline Participation at the Local Level. A Quantitative Analysis of the Catalan Municipalities. Information, Communication and Society12: 899–928.
13.
BräutigamD (2004) The People’s Budget? Politics, Participation and Pro-poor Policy. Development Policy Review22 (6): 653–668.
14.
CharalambousGLamprianouI (2017) The (non) Particularities of West European Radical Left Party Supporters: Comparing Left Party Families. European Political Science Review9 (3): 375–400.
15.
CohenJFungA (2004) Radical Democracy. Swiss Political Science Review10 (4): 23–34.
16.
DeanR (2017) Beyond Radicalism and Resignation: The Competing Logics for Public Participation in Policy Decisions. Policy & Politics45 (2): 213–230.
17.
Del PinoEColinoC (2008) Democracia participativa en el nivel local: debates y experiencias en Europa. Revista Catalana de Dret Públic37: 247–283.
FarnetiR (2012) Cleavage Lines in Global Politics: Left and Right, East and West, Earth and Heaven. Journal of Political Ideologies17 (2): 127–145.
20.
FontJDella PortaDSintomerY (eds) (2014) Participatory Democracy in Southern Europe. Causes, Characteristics and Consequences. London: Rowman & Littlefield.
21.
FontJBlancoI (2005) ¿Qué hay detrás de la oferta de participación? El rol de los factores instrumentales e ideológicos en los mecanismos españoles de participación. Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia31: 1–17.
22.
FontJSmithGGalaisC, et al. (2018) Cherry-Picking Participation: Explaining the Fate of Proposals from Participatory Processes. European Journal of Political Research57 (3): 615–636.
23.
FreireA (2015) Left-Right Ideology as a Dimension of Identification and of Competition. Journal of Political Ideologies20 (1): 43–68.
24.
GalaisCFontJAlarcónP, et al. (2012) Methodological Challenges for the Large N Study of Local Participatory Experiences. Combining Methods and Databases. Revista Internacional de Sociología70 (2): 65–87.
25.
GanuzaEFrancesF (2012) El círculo virtuoso de la democracia: los presupuestos participativos a debate. Madrid: CIS.
26.
GherghinaSPiletJB (2021) Populist Attitudes and Direct Democracy: A Questionable Relationship. Swiss Political Science Review27: 496–505.
27.
GiddensA (1998) The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
28.
GoldfrankB (2007) The Politics of Deepening Local Democracy: Decentralization, Party Institutionalization, and Participation. Comparative Politics39 (2): 147–168.
29.
GoodinR (1992) Green Political Theory. London: Polity.
30.
HabermasJ (1994) Three Normative Models of Democracy. Constellations1 (1): 1–10.
31.
HeineltH (2013) Councillors’ Notions of Democracy, and Their Role Perception and Behaviour in the Changing Context of Local Democracy. Local Government Studies39 (5): 640–660.
32.
HeldD (2006) Models of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
33.
HeywoodA (2012) Political Ideologies. An Introduction, 5th edn.New York: Palgrave.
34.
HibbingJTheiss -MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy. Americans’ Beliefs on How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
HilmerJ (2010) The State of Participatory Democratic Theory. New Political Science32 (1): 43–63.
36.
JahnD (2010) Conceptualizing Left and Right in Comparative Politics: Towards a Deductive Approach. Party Politics17 (6): 745–765.
37.
JäskeM (2017) “Soft” Forms of Direct Democracy: Explaining the Occurrence of Referendum Motions and Advisory Referendums in Finnish Local Government. Swiss Political Science Review23 (1): 50–76.
38.
KitscheltH (2004) Diversification and Reconfiguration of Party Systems in Postindustrial Democracies. Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
39.
MairPMuddeC (1998) The Party Family and Its Study. Annual Review of Political Science1: 211–229.
40.
MansbridgeJ (1980) Beyond Adversary Democracy. New York: Basic Books.
41.
MarchLMuddeC (2005) What’s Left of the Radical Left? The European Radical Left after 1989: Decline and Mutation. Comparative European Politics3 (1): 23–49.
42.
MichelsA (2008) Debating Democracy: The Dutch Case. Acta Politica43: 472–492.
43.
NavarroC (2004) Participatory Democracy and Political Opportunism: Municipal Experience in Italy and Spain (1960–93). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research28 (4): 819–838.
44.
NezHTalpinJ (2010) Démocratie participative et communisme municipal en banlieue rouge. In: BacquéMHSintomerY (eds) La democratie participative inachevée. Saint Etienne: Yves Michel, pp.209–228.
45.
OECD (2020) Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. Paris: OECD Publishing.
46.
PatemanC (1970) Participation and Democratic Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
PettitP (1997) Republicanism. A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48.
RamírezFWelpY (2011) Presentation Dossier: New Participatory and Democratic Institutions in Latin America. Iconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales40: 11–20.
49.
RamisRSmithGGanuzaE, et al. (2022) Mini-Publics and the Ideology of Their Commissioners: A Closer Look at the Deliberative Wave at Europe. Turku: Summer School in Deliberative Democracy and Public Opinion.
50.
Rico MotosC (2019) “Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!” Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain. Politics and Governance7 (2): 187–197.
51.
RousseauJJ (1996) On the Social Contract. In: WootonE (ed.) Modern Political Thought. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, pp.464–534.
52.
ShahA (2007) Participatory Budgeting. Public Sector Governance and Accountability. Washington, DC: World Bank.
53.
SintomerYDel PinoE (2014) The National and Regional Contexts of Participatory Experiences. In: FontJDella PortaDSintomerY (eds) Participatory Democracy in Southern Europe. London: Rowman & Littlefield, pp.21–36.
54.
SintomerYHerzbergCRöckeA (2008) Participatory Budgeting in Europe: Potentials and Challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research32 (1): 164–178.
55.
SpadaPRyanM (2017) The Failure to Examine Failures in Democratic Innovation. PS: Political Science & Politics50 (3): 772–778.
56.
TamanoK (2021) Deliberative Democracy and the Paradox of Participation. International Journal of Japanese Sociology30: 122–139.
57.
VallbéJJIglesiasA (2018) Exogenous and Endogenous Determinants of Spanish Mayors’ Notions of Democracy: A Multilevel Regression Analysis. Revista Española de Ciencia Política46: 49–75.
58.
VergeT (2007) Modelos alternativos de participación ciudadana en los partidos políticos españoles: un estudio del PSOE, el PP e IU. Revista Española de Ciencia Política17: 155–177.
59.
VitaleD (2006) Between Deliberative and Participatory Democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism32 (6): 739–766.
60.
Von BeymeK (1985) Political Parties in Western Democracies. Aldershot: Gower.
61.
WamplerBGoldfrankB (2022) The Rise, Spread and Decline of Brazil’s Participatory Budgeting. Cham: Palgrave.
62.
WebbP (2013) Who Is Willing to Participate? Dissatisfied Democrats, Stealth Democrats and Populists in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research52 (6): 747–772.
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.
