Addressing the Citizenship and Democratic Deficits: The Potential of Deliberative Democracy for Public Administration
Abstract
This article reviews and synthesizes diverse streams of literature to assess the potential of deliberative democracy for American public administration. It asserts that the field should refocus its attention on the role of citizens in the work of government to help address the pervasive citizenship and democratic deficits in the United States. American public administration has an obligation to address these deficits because (a) it is required to do so by democratic ethos, (b) it has contributed to the deficits with its widespread embrace of bureaucratic ethos, and (c) it must find ways to effectively engage citizens within modern network and collaborative governance structures. This article identifies deliberative democracy as one potential method to help fulfill these obligations and explains how deliberative processes may help address the deficit problems. The article concludes by identifying a preliminary research agenda for exploring the potential of deliberative democracy for public administration.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 183 · Cited by 321
- Authors
- Nabatchi, T.
- Affiliations
- Syracuse University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nabatchi, Tina
- ORCID
- Nabatchi, Tina
- Venue
- The American Review of Public Administration
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-05-18
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 376-399
- ISSN
- 0275-0740 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3357
- OpenAlex
- W2143596072
- Cited by
- 321
- References
- 183
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 89.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The American Review of Public Administration (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Political Analysis
- Keywords
- deliberative democracy, democratic deficit, public administration, citizen participation, network governance, collaborative governance, democratic governance, United States
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
