Abstract

Though commanding a prominent role in political theory, deliberative democracy has also become a mainstay of myriad other research traditions in recent years. This diffusion has been propelled along by the notion that deliberation, properly conceived and enacted, generates many beneficial outcomes. This article has three goals geared toward understanding whether these instrumental benefits provide us with good reasons – beyond intrinsic ones – to be deliberative democrats. First, the proclaimed instrumental benefits are systematized in terms of micro, meso, and macro outcomes. Second, relevant literatures are canvassed to critically assess what we know – and what we do not know – about deliberation’s effects. Finally, the instrumental benefits of deliberation are recast in light of the ongoing systemic turn in deliberative theory. This article adds to our theoretical understanding of deliberation’s promises and pitfalls, and helps practitioners identify gaps in our knowledge concerning how deliberation works and what its wider societal implications might be.

Highlights

  • Based on previous reviews and an inductive analysis of recent work, I suggest that the instrumental effects of deliberative democracy can be categorised across three dimensions: micro, meso, and macro- level changes

  • Many scholars claim that deliberation will instrumentally induce individuals to support decisions even if they disagree with the outcome, help mend differences across views, and promote democratization as laws gain stability

  • Research on public support should move beyond experiments and draw on studies of citizen behaviour in democracies, which seek to understand whether individuals are more accepting of policy decisions when elites justify their positions deliberatively (Colombo, forthcoming)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Based on previous reviews and an inductive analysis of recent work, I suggest that the instrumental effects of deliberative democracy can be categorised across three dimensions: micro- (individual), meso- (group), and macro- (polity) level changes. Qualitative case studies, for instance, will be important in understanding whether groups in public spheres can engage in social learning, inhibit polarization, or generate meta-consensus.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.