6 - Discourse and its consequences

Summary

In the previous chapter, we considered the antecedents of political discourse. That chapter established a variety of institutional conditions that facilitate (or, conversely, hinder) high-quality discourse. But does the quality of discourse matter for political outcomes? While high-quality discourse may be beneficial in its own right, at least from the vantage point of political philosophy, institutional scholars will want to know if better deliberation also produces better outcomes. This chapter takes up this important question.

It is useful to note at the outset an important design difference from the previous chapter. Whereas institutional features were the key variables in chapter 5, we hold them constant in the present chapter. Here we want to demonstrate that discourse matters for political outcomes independently of institutional characteristics. To that effect we study the implications of discourse in one institutional setting: the German Mediation Committee (Vermittlungsausschuss).

We focus on two aspects of political outcomes. First, we consider a formal dimension of outcomes, namely the degree of unification in a decision outcome. In chapter 4 we developed the following hypothesis for this dimension: unified decisions, in the form of a genuine consensus or a reasoned compromise, are more likely when there is a high level of parliamentary deliberation (hypothesis 7). The second aspect of political outcomes is the substantive dimension of social justice. chapter 4 presented the following hypothesis for this dimension: (weak) egalitarian decision outcomes are more likely when there is a high level of parliamentary deliberation, defined in particular in terms of the content of justification (hypothesis 8).