Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:06:25.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberation and civic virtue: lessons from a citizen deliberation experiment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2010

Kimmo Grönlund ,
Maija Setälä  and
Kaisa Herne
Kimmo Grönlund*
Affiliation:
Social Science Research Institute, Åbo Akademi University, Finland
Maija Setälä*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Turku, Finland
Kaisa Herne*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Turku, Finland
*
* E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
* E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
* E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes whether democratic deliberation enhances ‘civic virtues’ such as political knowledge, efficacy, trust, and preparedness for political and other collective action. The empirical analysis is based on an experiment held in November 2006 in Finland. The topic of this citizen deliberation experiment was nuclear power. Two treatments were enforced; half of the small groups made a decision through secret ballot, whereas the other half formulated a common statement. Even though both treatments were designed to be ‘deliberative’ with discussion rules and moderators, the common statement procedure was expected to lead to more thorough deliberation. Therefore, we anticipate more increase in civic virtues in the common statement treatment. Based on the empirical analyses, this expectation is partially confirmed. Most notably, the participants’ knowledge of energy-related issues increased more in the common statement treatment, but also the increase of political trust and readiness for collective action shows a similar pattern. Finally, deliberation did not increase the participants’ overall preparedness to act politically, but did not decrease it either.

Keywords

deliberationdeliberative democracycivic virtueexperimental researchmini-publics
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 95 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, B. Fishkin, J.S. (2002), ‘Deliberation day’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2): 129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, J. (2004), ‘How deliberation affects policy opinions’, American Political Science Review 98(4): 687–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, B. (1984), Strong Democracy. Participatory Politics for a New Age, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. (1996), Public Deliberation. Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy, Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Brown, M.B. (2006), ‘Survey article: citizen panels and the concept of representation’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 14: 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S. (2001), ‘Constitutional referendums and democratic deliberation’, in M. Mendelson and A. Parkin (eds), Referendum Democracy: Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation Referendum Campaigns, Basingstoke: Palgrave, 231–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delli Carpini, M.X. (1997), ‘The impact of the “money+politics” citizen assemblies on assembly participants’. Report to Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, M.X., Lomax, C.F. Jacobs, L.R. (2004), ‘Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement’, Annual Review of Political Science 7: 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. List, C. (2003), ‘Social choice theory and deliberative democracy: a reconciliation’, British Journal of Political Science 33: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. Niemeyer, S. (2006), ‘Reconciling pluralism and consensus as political ideals’, American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 634–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. (1986), ‘The market and the forum: three varieties of political theory’, in J. Elster and A. Hylland (eds), Foundations of Social Choice Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 103–133.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J.S. (2003), ‘Consulting the public through deliberative polling’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 22: 128–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J.S., Luskin, R.C. Jowell, R. (2000), ‘Deliberative polling and public consultation’, Parliamentary Affairs 53: 657–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, D. Laver, M. (2009), ‘Participation bias, durable opinion shifts and sabotage through withdrawal in citizens’ juries’, Political Studies 57: 422–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. (2003), ‘Survey article: recipes for public spheres: eight institutional design choices and their consequences’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 11(3): 338–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J. (2008), Political Communication and Deliberation, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J., Deess, P.E. Weiser, P. (2002), ‘Civic awakening in the jury room: a test of the connection between jury deliberation and political participation’, The Journal of Politics 64(2): 585–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannetti, D., Lewanski, R. (2006), ‘Deliberation in Practice: Evidence from Italy’. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Session of Workshops in Nicosia, Cyprus.Google Scholar
Goodin, R.E. Dryzek, J.S. (2006), ‘Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics’, Politics and Society 34: 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K. Setälä, M. (2007), ‘Political trust, satisfaction and voter turnout’, Comparative European Politics 5: 400–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, A. Thompson, D. (1996), Democracy and Disagreement. Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in Politics, and What to Do about It, Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gutmann, A. Thompson, D. (2004), Why Deliberative Democracy?, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996), Between Facts and Norms, Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, K.M. (2004), Deliberative Democracy and Opinion Formation, Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Hansen, K.M. Andersen, V.N. (2003), ‘Deliberative democracy and the deliberative poll on the Euro’, Scandinavian Political Studies 3: 261–286.Google Scholar
Lomax Cook, F., Delli Carpini, M.X. Jacobs, L.R. (2007), ‘Who Deliberates? Discursive Participation in America’, in S. W. Rosenberg (ed.), Can the People Govern?, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 25–44.Google Scholar
Luskin, R.C., Fishkin, J.S. Jowell, R. (2002), ‘Considered opinions: deliberative polling in Britain’, British Journal of Political Science 32: 455–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, E. Lindsay, C.A. (1966), ‘Machiavellian attitudes: some measurement and behavioral considerations’, Sociometry 29(3): 228–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaverty, P. Halpin, D. (2008), ‘Deliberative drift: the emergence of deliberation in the policy process’, International Political Science Review 29(2): 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, T. Karpowitz, C. (2007), ‘How people deliberate about justice: groups, gender, and decision rules’, in S. W. Rosenberg (ed.), Can the People Govern?, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 101–129.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. (1858/1991), ‘Considerations on representative government’, in J. S. Mill, On Liberty and Other Essays, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 205–447.Google Scholar
Morrell, M.E. (2005), ‘Deliberation, democratic decision-making and internal political efficacy’, Political Behaviour 27(1): 49–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muhlberger, P. (2006), ‘Lessons from the virtual agora project: the effects of agency, identity, information, and deliberation on political knowledge’, Journal of Public Deliberation 2(1): 1–35.Google Scholar
Mutz, D.C. (2006), Hearing the Other Side. Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemi, R.G. (1988), ‘Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 national election study’, American Political Science Review 85(4): 1407–1413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellikaan, H. van der Veen, R.J. (2002), Environmental Dilemmas and Policy Design, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, V., Cappella, J.N. Nir, L. (2002), ‘Does disagreement contribute to more deliberative opinion?’, Political Communication 19: 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R.D. (2000), Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1993), Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Setälä, M., Grönlund, K. Herne, K. (2010), ‘Citizen deliberation on nuclear power: a comparison of two decision-making methods’, Political Studies, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. Wales, C. (2000), ‘Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy’, Political Studies 48: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steenbergen, M.R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. Steiner, J. (2003), ‘Measuring political deliberation: a discourse quality index’, Comparative European Politics 1: 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2002), ‘The law of group polarization’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2): 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. (2005), ‘Group judgements: statistical means, deliberation, and information markets’, New York University Law Review 80: 962–1049.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. (2008), ‘Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M.E. (1999), ‘Conclusion’, in M. E. Warren (ed.), Democracy and Trust, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar