The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Connecting deliberative mini‐publics to representative decision making
Abstract
Despite some prominent critics, deliberative democrats tend to be optimistic about the potential of deliberative mini‐publics. However, the problem with current practices is that mini‐publics are typically used by officials on an ad hoc basis and that their policy impacts remain vague. Mini‐publics seem especially hard to integrate into representative decision making. There are a number of reasons for this, especially prevailing ideas of representation and accountability as well as the contestatory character of representative politics. This article argues that deliberative mini‐publics should be regarded as one possible way of improving the epistemic quality of representative decision making and explores different institutional designs through which deliberative mini‐publics could be better integrated into representative institutions. The article considers arrangements which institutionalise the use of mini‐publics; involve representatives in deliberations; motivate public interactions between mini‐publics and representatives; and provide opportunities to ex post scrutiny or suspensive veto powers for mini‐publics. The article analyses prospects and problems of these measures, and considers their applicability in different contexts of representative politics.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Research works printed but not linked: 67
- 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00699.x · DOI
- 10.7551/mitpress/2327.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1080/00344893.2015.1026205 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00245.x · DOI
- Carson L.&Hart P.(2005).What Randomness and Deliberation Can Do for Community Engagement. Paper presented at International Conference on Engaging Communities Brisbane.
- 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00206.x · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139175005.010 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-94-011-0131-8_8 · DOI
- 10.1007/s11077-015-9238-5 · DOI
- Dahl R.A., 1970, After the revolution?
- Dahl R.A., 1989, Democracy and its critics
- 10.1007/s13412-015-0299-8 · DOI
- 10.1177/0032329206288152 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0003055408080325 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139175005.006 · DOI
- Farrell D.M., 2014, 75 Years of the Constitution of Ireland: An Irish‐Italian dialogue
- 10.1002/pam.10101 · DOI
- Flinders M., 2016, Democracy matters: Lessons from the 2015 Citizens’ Assemblies on English devolution
- Fuji‐Johnson G., 2015, Democratic illusion, 10.3138/9781442693500 · DOI
- 10.1111/1467-9760.00181 · DOI
- Gastil J., 2013, Is Europe listening to us?
- Gastil J., 2011, Evaluation report to the Oregon state legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review
- 10.1177/0032329213483109 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511558320.002 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547944.001.0001 · DOI
- Grönlund K., 2014, Deliberative mini‐publics
- Gutmann A., 1996, Democracy and disagreement
- 10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500119 · DOI
- 10.1177/0032329206293641 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01459.x · DOI
- 10.1111/1475-6765.12123 · DOI
- Joss S., 1998, Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conference on Danish parliament and Danish public debate, Science and Public Policy, 25, 2
- 10.1017/CBO9781107110212 · DOI
- 10.1177/0951692800012001001 · DOI
- 10.1111/jopp.12031 · DOI
- Leib E.J., 2004, Deliberative democracy in America: A proposal for a popular branch of government
- Luskin R.C., 2002, Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain, British Journal of Political Science, 32, 455, 10.1017/S0007123402000194 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.01005.x · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198746959.003.0017 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0003055403000856 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139178914.002 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00873.x · DOI
- Niemeyer S., 2014, Deliberative mini‐publics
- 10.1017/CBO9781139178914.007 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00399.x · DOI
- 10.1093/019929111X.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2007.00866.x · DOI
- Perelman C., 1969, The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation
- 10.1017/CBO9780511509674 · DOI
- Roberts J., 2015, Involving communities in deliberation: A study of three citizens’ juries on onshore wind farms in Scotland
- 10.1080/00344893.2011.581080 · DOI
- 10.1057/9780230369900 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00822.x · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511609848 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.2041-6962.2006.tb00028.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00494.x · DOI
- Steiner J., 2004, Deliberative politics in action
- Suiter J., 2016, Constitutional deliberative democracy in Europe
- Sunstein C., 2002, The law of group polarization, Journal of Political Psychology, 10, 175, 10.1111/1467-9760.00148 · DOI · Paper page
- Sunstein C., 2003, Why societies need dissent
- 10.1017/CBO9780511491177.003 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070555 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533 · DOI
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333466.001.0001 · DOI
- Warren M.E., 2008, Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly, 10.1017/CBO9780511491177 · DOI
- 10.1086/680078 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511491177 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Setälä, M.
- Venue
- European Journal of Political Research
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 846-863
- ISSN
- 0304-4130
- 1475-6765
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Academy of Finland (274305)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Connecting deliberative mini‐publics to representative decision making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1475-6765.12207
- The paper
- Setälä, M. (2017). Connecting deliberative mini‐publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12207