88
4.3 Do mini-publics lead to consequential
89 relegated to the role of academic toys that delight rather than political devices that ‘bite’” (pp. 225-226). Consequently, there is a gap in the literature that addresses the questions of when and why different mini-public designs ‘bite’ and how we can actually ‘make them bite’ so that they relate to existing representative institutions (thinking of potential and preconditions for institutionalization) (Bächtiger et al., 2014, p.
226). In line with this, O’Flynn and Sood (2014) and Michels and Binnema (2019) argue that there is a need for systematic comparative analyses across cases to understand better under which conditions mini-publics exert influence on the political decision-making.
Besides this gap in the literature on the political impact of mini-publics, there is also a scarcity of knowledge on the impact that a mini-public can have on society as a whole. Besides the goal of exerting some influence on policymaking, deliberative democrats also made the normative assumption that deliberative fora would both mobilise and activate the local community (Michels & Binnema, 2019). From the limited evidence on the social impact of mini-publics, we can deduce that in some cases mini-publics stimulate the public debate on specific policy issues (e.g., through their media coverage) or lead to follow-up actions in the local community, whereas in other cases their social impact seems to be rather limited (see e.g., Michels & Binnema, 2019).
Moreover, regarding the consequentiality of the social effects of mini-publics, Boogaard et al. (2016) argued that one of the challenges of especially longer participation processes is to maintain the initial enthusiasm and energy of the participants over a longer period.
However, according to Michels and Binnema (2019), to increase the democratic added value of mini-publics (e.g., as a possible solution to citizens’ declining satisfaction with political institutions and processes), mini-publics must also have “substantive and sustainable effects” on the local community (p. 766). As with their political impact, a systematic and long-term analysis of mini-publics is therefore needed to better understand the circumstances under which mini-publics have a
90
substantial and lasting impact on the participants as well as the local community.
4.3.1 Which factors may explain why some mini-publics have political and social effects?
In recent literature, factors that may explain why some mini-publics exert political and social impact while others do not, have not been extensively discussed and theorized to this point. In their study on two G1000 initiatives, Michels and Binnema (2019) concluded that five factors influence the type and degree of impact a mini-public can have:
“(1) the institutional design, (2) the embeddedness in the political system, (3) the policy issue, (4) the connection with the existing civil society, and (5) the interaction between actors” (p. 763).
Concerning the first factor, institutional design, Michels and Binnema (2019) argue that the length of a mini-pubic design could influence the
‘instrumental impact’ of a mini-public. In their article, they argue that the results of the G1000 initiatives studied could easily be disregarded by local politicians because the G1000 initiatives were designed as ‘one-off forums’, consisting of only one large-scale deliberation event. As a result, they argued that the longer a mini-public would last, the more pressure it would create on policy-making, and thus have more political impact. Michels and Binnema (2019) also refer to Pogrebinschi and Ryan (2018) who found that the number and spread of deliberative events is an institutional design feature on which the effectiveness of a mini-public can depend.
The second factor identified by Michels and Binnema (2019) is a mini-publics’ embeddedness in the political system. This refers to a growing body of literature in deliberative democracy theory that argues for the need for a so-called ‘systemic turn’ in deliberative theory. This ‘systemic turn’
is characterized by the idea that to understand the overall goal of
91 deliberation, scholars should go beyond the study of individual institutions and processes, such as mini-public designs, and study more of their interaction in the system as a whole (Mansbridge, et al., 2012;
Owen, & Smith, 2015; Curato & Böker, 2016). For example, Mansbridge, et al. (2012) argued that it is necessary to recognise that
“most democracies are complex entities in which a wide variety of institutions, associations, and sites of contestation accomplish political work – including informal networks, the media, organized advocacy groups, schools, foundations, private and non-profit institutions, legislatures, executive agencies, and the courts” (p. 1-2). Consequently, these scholars no longer consider mini-publics as “isolated spaces” (p.
765), stressing that their context plays a major role in their way of functioning (Michels & Binnema, 2019). In line with this, Michels and Binnema (2019) argued that the results of a mini-public would have more political impact (heard, accepted, and followed up by the established institutions) if it was “initiated or explicitly supported by politicians” (see also Caluwaerts & Reuchamps, 2016, p. 765).
Michels and Binnema’s (2019) third factor refers to the (policy) issue being dealt with in a mini-public. Several scholars have suggested in the past that the impact of a mini-public may be related to the specific nature of the topic discussed (see Curato & Böker, 2016; Michels, 2011;
Pogrebinschi & Ryan, 2017). Michels and Binnema (2019) concluded in their study that the G1000 initiatives examined, as they did not have a predetermined theme but followed an open agenda, would have led to
“rather abstract and unspecific proposals” that were already part of existing policies and therefore easily ignored by policymakers (p. 765).
In addition, Solomon and Abelson (2012) identify four types of policy issues that as particularly suitable for public deliberation, namely those that (1) involve conflicting values about the public good (such as setting priorities in public health care); (2) are highly controversial and divisive (e.g., gene therapy or building a nuclear power facility); (3) combine both technical and real-world knowledge (hybrid issues, e.g., urban planning); and (4) enjoy
92
low levels of public confidence (e.g., public health crises, some immunization programs) (see also Raisio & Ehrström, 2017, p. 6).
According to Michels and Binnema (2019), the fourth factor that can influence the impact of a mini-public is related to its social impact and thus to its connection with existing civil society. Based on their study results they argued that “communities with strong existing networks will be better able to create social impact as a result of deliberation” (Michels and Binnema, 2019. p. 766). In addition, from the literature on political participation we can derive that local political participation decreases with municipal population size (see e.g., Verba, Nie, & Kim’s (1979)
‘decline-of-community’ model; Denters et al.’s (2014) ‘Lovely Lilliput’
argument, or Van Houwelingen’s (2017) more recent metal study on this matter). One frequently mentioned reason for this is that the degree of autonomy is higher in larger municipalities (more than 100.000 inhabitants) than in smaller municipalities (less than 25.000 inhabitants) (Van Houwelingen & Dekker, 2015). From this, we can deduce that the population size of a municipality can be an important system variable when it comes to the social impact of a mini-public.
As a final factor that might influence a mini-public’s impact, Michels and Binnema’s (2019) highlight the importance of the interaction between actors within and outside the mini-public. They argue that the extent to which the results of mini-publics has political and/or social impact depends to a large extent on two things: Firstly, the “interaction between politicians and civil servants” on one side “and active citizens on the other” (Michels and Binnema, 2019, p. 766). And secondly, the willingness of politicians and civil servants to transfer power and responsibilities to the citizens.
However, the above five factors do not tell us much about why certain mini-public outcomes are or are not seriously considered by policymakers. For this purpose, we consulted the agenda and
policy-93 making model, also called the ‘Streams Model’, developed by the American political scientist Kingdon in 1984.
According to Kingdom (1995), two factors make politicians respond to a particular issue: actors and processes. Actors can range from the visible and influential actors in agenda-setting, such as local politicians and the mayor, to the less visible ones who play a more prominent role in suggesting alternatives than in drawing up the agenda itself (Kingdon, 1995). In addition, Kingdon (1995) identified three processes (so-called streams) that need to come together to put an issue on the political agenda: (1) problems; (2) policy/solutions; and (3) politics. According to the Kingdom (1985), the coupling of these streams at the right moment is the key to get a topic on the decision-making agenda (so-called ‘window of opportunity’). Yet, because a change in each of these three streams is mainly independent of changes in the other streams, what comes on the agenda depends mainly on timing. If the problem is not meaningful enough or its attention fades, and/or a (policy) solution is not available, and/or the political circumstances are inappropriate (e.g., through elections), it does not appear on the decision-making agenda (Kingdon, 1995). Yet, the streams seldom come together just like that. It is the policy entrepreneurs, who are willing to invest their resources and reputation, that often influence this coupling (Kingdon, 1995).
From the Kingdon model, we can learn the following about how public outcomes can come high on the political agenda. When a mini-public produces new ideas or solutions for a particular policy problem or an open issue, these ideas, and approaches flow into the three different streams. The recognition of a mini-public result in the
‘problem stream’ thus depends on the presence of indicators that show that the ideas and approaches address a relevant recognized problem (e.g., that it is linked to an event or that the media is paying attention to it). The recognition of the mini-public outcomes in the ‘policy stream’ largely
94
depends on the extent to which the proposed ideas and approaches are recognized as a possible solution to the relevant problems mentioned above. This will depend on the technical feasibility of the ideas and proposed plans, on whether the proposals are in line with people’s values, and finally on whether the proposed plans anticipate future constraints, such as a smaller available budget, changing public opinion and new political relations through, for example, elections. Whether the results of the mini-public end up in the ‘political stream’ depends on the strength of the political coalition that advocates the idea. This is determined by the size of the coalition and its political and administrative weight, its combativeness, the degree to which the objective is formulated concretely and, finally, the support of the public opinion. In addition, policy entrepreneurs can choose to actively try to link the different flows through their efforts.
They do this by investing their time, energy, network, reputation, or money in the promotion of mini-public outcomes. But a policy entrepreneur can slow down as much as speeding up the process. Policy entrepreneurs, therefore, have an intermedial effect. Framing also plays an important role in the process. Both supporters and opponents can frame the social and political debate in such a way that especially the pros or cons of the proposed ideas and proposals of the participants are presented to a mini-public. This, too, can speed up or slow down the framing process and has an intermedial effect. When the three streams are linked, a ‘policy window’ or an ‘opportunity’ opens up and the political and administrative actors will have a serious discussion to endorse the mini-public result in policy or legislation. Nevertheless, a policy window does not remain open forever. It can also close again after a while if an agreement is not reached in time. In that case, the process starts all over again.
95
4.3.2 Framework for analysing the political and social impact of a mini-public
To assess the external impact of a mini-public, Michels and Binnema (2019) developed a conceptual framework, which “differentiates between political and social impact but also refines these two types of impact by looking at instrumental, conceptual, and strategic aspects” (p.
750; see Table 4 for an overview).
According to Michels and Binnema (2019), a mini-public exerts instrumental impact when its outcomes directly influence decision-making. Politically, this implies that the outcomes of a mini-public lead to concrete decisions or actions by decision-makers. Socially, it implies that the outcomes of a mini-public lead to concrete actions by individuals or organisations in the local community (e.g., setting up new initiatives). The conceptual impact of mini-publics manifests itself more indirectly. Following Michels and Binnema (2019), mini-publics exert conceptual political impact when their outcomes become part of a larger debate on the participation and/or the topic of citizen participation becomes part of a political debate. In the social domain, mini-publics exert conceptual social impact when these deliberative forums lead to new forms of participation processes. And finally, Michels and Binnema (2019) argue that mini-publics can also be used by some parties to exert political or social strategic impact to strengthen the power of one or more political or social actors or organisations.
96
Table 4. A conceptual framework for the analysis of the impact of mini-publics.
Instrumental impact Conceptual Impact Strategic impact Politics Translation of
recommendations into decisions or concrete actions of decision-makers
Recommendations become part of a larger debate about participation;
participation is put on the political agenda
(Recommendations of) mini-publics are used to strengthen the power of one or some political actors (e.g., by legitimizing existing policy)
Society Translation of recommendation into concrete actions of individuals or organizations in the community
New and other forms of participation develop
Recommendations derived from mini-publics are used to strengthen the power of one or some individuals or organizations Source: Michels and Binnema (2019, p. 752)
98
Chapter 5
99
5 T HE D UTCH G1000 AND
WHY IS IT INTERESTING TO STUDY ?
Up to now, experiences with mini-publics have been mixed (see chapter 4). Because of their lack of representativeness and political impact, some scholars in the past have strongly questioned whether deliberative mini-publics contribute at all to increasing citizens’ involvement in the policy-making process and to improving the quality of political decision-making by the standards of deliberative democrats (cf. Boogaard et al., 2016; Hendriks 2006, 2009).
Deliberative mini-publics in particular have been criticised by some scholars in the past for allowing policymakers to ignore uncomfortable recommendations and ‘cherry-pick’ ideas and suggestions that best fit their political agenda (Smith, 2009, p. 93; Setälä, 2017). Despite these reservations and prominent critics, however, scholars in recent years have also advocated the development of new, more integrated, or even institutionalised mini-public designs within existing government institutions, so that citizens have a greater say in decision-making (see e.g., Fishkin, Luskin, & Jowell, 2000; Goodin, 2008; Smith, 2009; Setälä, 2017; Michels & Binnema, 2018).
100
In this dissertation, we explore one of these ‘newer’ politically more integrated and still underexposed mini-public designs: the Dutch G1000. In the following section, we provide a short background to the Dutch G1000 and its core design principles. In addition, we introduce the three case studies examined in this dissertation and explain what makes these three cases so interesting to study.