Key values for democratic governance innovation: Two traditions and a synthesis
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Author | Frank Hendriks |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12738 |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Key values for democratic governance innovation:
Two traditions and a synthesis
Frank Hendriks
Department of Public Law and Governance,
Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
Correspondence
Frank Hendriks, Department of Public Law
and Governance, Tilburg University, Professor
Cobbenhagenlaan 221 (Office M-513), 5037
DB Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Email: f.hendriks@tilburguniversity.edu
Abstract
This article advances our understa nding of the key values
for democratic-governance innovati on by integrating two
important, yet divergent, discou rses—the one on demo-
cratic innovations, the other on governance innovations—
thus capitalizing on their mutually rein forcing potential.
The result is an integrative framewo rk of core values,
related normative coordinates, and key questions for
improving democratic governance. The integrative va lues
framework refines our understand ing of the fundamental
value diversity surrounding democra tic governance
innovation, and facilitates, a s a sensitizing framework, criti-
cal analysis, evaluation, and desi gn thinking. The values
framework integrates core values—in clusiveness, effica-
ciousness, appropriateness, resil ience, and counterbal-
ance—which are complementary but not wi thout friction.
Mindfulness of the fundamental value di versity is critical
for handling democratic governance in novation in a more
encompassing value-sensitive way. For realistically applying
the values framework, acknowledging th e complementar-
ities and tensions between core va lues, roads ahead are
discussed stressing necessarily open and situated
conversations.
Received: 14 December 2020 Revised: 1 March 2021 Accepted: 30 March 2021
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12738
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors. Public Administration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Public Admin. 2022;100:803–820. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm 803
1|INTRODUCTION: KEY VALUES FOR IMPROVING DEMOCRATIC
GOVERNANCE
Democratic governance is the focus point of intensive debate, directed at its evolution, state of affairs, and potential
innovation. This article is focused on the latter, more particularly on the key values that are supposed to serve as bea-
cons for developing democratic-governance innovations—new processes or institutions advanced with the aim of
improving the quality of democratic governance. Democratic-governance innovations under broad umbrellas such as
collaborative governance, deliberative mini-publics, participatory budgeting, citizen initiatives, direct and digital vot-
ing are commonly justified as attempts to improve democratic governance for the “better”—to do “good”and add
“value”to democratic governance (cf. Fung, 2006; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Smith, 2009; Geissel & Newton, 2012;
Elstub & Escobar, 2019). But how can we recognize the value, the good and the better when we see it? This question
is not easily answered. The problem is not a lack of available answers, rather a confounding abundance of answers
coming from various directions (cf. Andrews, 2010; Beetham, 2012; Bryson et al., 2012; Bühlmann & Kriesi, 2013;
Lucardie, 2014; Hendriks, 2019; O'Flynn, 2019; Rosanvallon, 2015).
In this article, I will try to sharpen the understanding of the key values for democratic-governance innovation by
integrating in one values framework two important discourses with different strengths and focus points, thus capital-
izing on their mutually reinforcing potential. On the one hand, I go back to Dahl's seminal approach to democratic
values and the follow-up debate about “democratic goods”which should arguably inform the design, evaluation, and
calibration of democratic innovations (Dahl, 2000; cf. i.a. Smith, 2009; Fishkin, 2009; Michels, 2011; Geissel &
Newton, 2012). On the other hand, I return to Hood's equally seminal approach to values in public administration,
and the subsequent debate about shifts in governance and their pertaining values (Hood, 1991; cf. i.a. Toonen, 1998;
Rothstein & Teorell, 2008; Nabatchi, 2017; Chandra & Walker, 2019). The two literatures suggest varying
approaches to valuing democratic governance—with varying sensitivities and focus points—which can be fortified
through integration.
That different approaches can in fact learn from each other and work better together in a mutually reinforcing
way is one important motivation for developing an integrative values framework and exploring its scope. The
other, overriding, motivation is that citizens and demoi are confronte d with democratic-governance i nnovations as
comprehensive, mu lti-faceted inte rventions. Schol ars may usefully con centrate on one fac et, say the effect of a
particular innovation on the value of inclusiveness (Ansell et al., 2020; Wojcie chowska, 2019). But for citizens and
demoi at large democr atic-governanc e innovations are no t confined to one facet ; plural demoi are interested in
inclusive and effective democratic governance, in procedural appropriateness and systemic counterbalance, to
refer to just two value pai rs that are brought together in the inte grative values framework. From a civ ic and socie-
tal perspective the development of a comprehensive values framework is thus essenti al (in addition to rese arch
focused on particular values) to keep sight of the bigger picture and the wider set of values relevant to
democratic-governance innovation.
The article proceeds as follows. First, it reconstructs dominant thinking about key values, beacons for innovation,
in discourses focusing on the “democratic”element (Section 2) and the “governance”element (Section 3) of demo-
cratic governance. The focus is on seminal definitions and widely used formulations of key values, discussing relevant
variations in the two literatures. The larger objective here is to take a synthesizing step toward an integrative values
framework for democratic-governance innovation (Section 4) and to review this framework internally (how the com-
ponent parts work together, Section 5) as well as externally (how the framework could be used, Section 6). Section 7
contains concluding remarks and reflections.
Throughout the article, the term innovation—which has become the prominent signifier in recent discourse
about improvements in both democracy and governance (Elstub & Escobar, 2019; Goodin, 2010; Torfing &
Triantafillou, 2016)—will be used in a broad sense, taking on board longer-standing discourse on improvements in
democratic governance under the heading of reform (Fishkin, 1991; Hendriks, 2009; Jacobs & Leyenaar, 2011;
Renwick, 2010; Toonen, 2003). As Newton (2012), already noted, the exact dividing line between reform and
804 HENDRIKS
To continue reading
Request your trial