The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?
Abstract
The overall project aims to establish a dialogue between normative democratic theory and research on policy formulation and implementation. This introductory article first notes the growth of various participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making, portrays the context of this growth and justifies the cases selected. It then presents the conceptual framework used for the study of these procedures, which mainly draws on participatory and deliberative democratic theory and the literature on the shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. Based on this conceptual framework, the article focuses on four research questions the authors consider particularly important for the assessment of the contribution of the devices under scrutiny to democratic and effective decision making: questions of openness and access (input-legitimacy); questions regarding the quality of deliberation (throughput); questions of efficiency and effectiveness (output-legitimacy); and the issue of their insertion into the public space (questions of transparency and accountability).
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
Putnam, R. (2000) · doi:10.1145/358916.361990 · Cited by 17,114
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
The Logic of Collective Action.
Golembiewski, R. T., & Olson, M. (1966) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091298 · Cited by 11,364
Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy
Stern, F., & Putnam, R. (1993) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20045657 · Cited by 11,137
Participation and Democratic Theory
Pateman, C. (1970) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511720444 · Cited by 6,159
Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age
Bostaph, S., & Barber, B. R. (1985) · Southern Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/1059650 · Cited by 4,000
Young, I. M. (2002) · doi:10.1093/0198297556.001.0001 · Cited by 3,250
Governing in Europe: Effective and Democratic?
Scharpf, F. (1999) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198295457.001.0001 · Cited by 3,201
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-3548 · Cited by 2,975
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400826339 · Cited by 2,657
Cited by
Wesselink, A., Paavola, J., Fritsch, O., & Renn, O. (2011) · Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space · doi:10.1068/a44161 · Cited by 280
Parkhurst, J. (2016) · London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · doi:10.4324/9781315675008 · Cited by 756
Behagel, J., & Turnhout, E. (2011) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2011.607002 · Cited by 51
Theoretical Perspectives on Bureaucrats: A Quest for Democratic Agents
Železnik, A., & Fink-Hafner, D. (2023) · Administration & Society · doi:10.1177/00953997231165998 · Cited by 21
Metadata
- Authors
- Papadopoulos, Y., & Warin, P.
- Venue
- European Journal of Political Research
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 445-472
- ISSN
- 0304-4130 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-6765
- OpenAlex
- W2156932694
- Cited by
- 395
- References
- 84
- FWCI
- 66.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x
- The paper
- Papadopoulos, Y., & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.