Scaling Up? Unpacking the Effect of Deliberative Mini-Publics on Legitimacy Perceptions
| Published date | 01 May 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00323217221137444 |
| Author | Micha Germann,Sofie Marien,Lala Muradova |
| Date | 01 May 2024 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217221137444
Political Studies
2024, Vol. 72(2) 677 –700
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00323217221137444
journals.sagepub.com/home/psx
Scaling Up? Unpacking
the Effect of Deliberative
Mini-Publics on Legitimacy
Perceptions
Micha Germann1, Sofie Marien2
and Lala Muradova3
Abstract
Deliberative mini-publics are increasingly used to try to tackle public discontent with the
functioning of democracy. However, the ability of mini-publics to increase perceptions of
legitimate decision-making among citizens at large remains unclear, given especially that existing
studies have not considered the potentially damaging effects of mini-public recommendations not
being followed. We designed, pre-registered, and ran a survey experiment in Ireland to test the
effects of mini-publics on legitimacy perceptions conditional on whether or not their non-binding
policy recommendations are honored (N = 1309). We find that mini-publics increase legitimacy
perceptions among the broader citizenry; however, these beneficial effects are largely limited to
situations in which their recommendations are honored. Additional results suggest that it makes
no difference whether mini-public recommendations are overturned by elected representatives or
by citizens in a referendum. Finally, we find that the legitimacy-enhancing effects of participatory
processes are driven by citizens with low political trust.
Keywords
mini-publics, deliberative democracy, participatory democracy, legitimacy perceptions,
procedural fairness
Accepted: 20 October 2022
Introduction
Deliberative theories of democracy have increasingly caught the interest of activists,
policy-makers, and political scientists. One of the most prominent proposals by delibera-
tive democrats are mini-publics, sometimes also referred to as citizens’ assemblies or
1Department of Politics, Languages & International Studies, University of Bath, Bath, UK
2Centre for Political Science Research, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
3Department of Political and Social Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain
Corresponding author:
Micha Germann, Department of Politics, Languages & International Studies, University of Bath, Wessex
House, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
Email: m.germann@bath.ac.uk
1137444PSX0010.1177/00323217221137444Political StudiesGermann et al.
research-article2022
Article
678 Political Studies 72(2)
citizens’ conventions. The broad idea behind mini-publics is to enable a randomly
selected group ranging from around 20 to several hundred ordinary citizens to deliberate
on socio-political issues after having heard from experts about the implications of differ-
ent policy directions (Curato et al., 2021).1 Mini-publics are seen as an answer to several
worrying trends including reduced electoral engagement, decreasing civility in political
discourse, and, more generally, declining political legitimacy (Caluwaerts and
Reuchamps, 2018; Dryzek et al., 2019; Thompson, 2008). Accordingly, experimentation
with mini-publics has increased in recent years, including in Belgium (e.g. G1000),
France (e.g. Citizens Convention for Climate), Ireland (e.g. Irish Citizens’ Assembly),
and the United Kingdom (e.g. Climate Assembly). However, the extent to which mini-
publics are able to deliver on their promises remains unclear. While the last two decades
have seen the emergence of an increasingly sophisticated empirical literature on mini-
publics, almost all existing research has focused on the small number of people who
actually participate in mini-publics. Therefore, a key open question is how the broader
citizenry reacts to the introduction of mini-publics (van der Does and Jacquet, 2021).
In this article, we present new experimental evidence on the potential of mini-publics
to strengthen legitimacy perceptions among citizens at large. More specifically, we focus
on the potential of mini-publics to strengthen perceptions of fair decision-making and the
willingness to accept political decisions. Procedural fairness perceptions and decision
acceptance are widely considered key elements of legitimacy perceptions and they can
contribute to broader, system-level perceptions of state legitimacy (Tyler, 2006). We
focus on the acceptance of negative political decisions—that is, decisions that go against
citizens’ political preferences—because decision winners are likely to perceive decision
processes as fair and accept decision outcomes irrespective of how the decision comes
about (Esaiasson et al., 2019).
Political theorists have long suggested that mini-publics are likely to increase percep-
tions of legitimate decision-making among citizens at large (Cohen, 1989; Goodin and
Dryzek, 2006). However, only a small number of studies have assessed this claim empiri-
cally, and the existing evidence remains inconsistent (Devillers et al., 2021; Werner and
Marien, 2022). Moreover, existing empirical work has studied mini-publics in isolation
while ignoring the institutional context in which they necessarily have to operate
(Beauvais and Warren, 2019; Chambers, 2009; Lafont, 2020). Mini-publics are typically
envisaged as an advisory complement to established democratic procedures, which raises
the question how citizens will react if another democratic body, such as parliament,
decides not to honor a mini-public recommendation.
To shed causal light on this question, we designed, pre-registered, and fielded a sce-
nario experiment in the Republic of Ireland. The design of our experiment builds on a
small body of literature that has used randomized descriptions of fictitious political deci-
sion-making processes to compare the effects of decision-making by elected representa-
tives and by citizens in a referendum (e.g. Arnesen, 2017; Christensen et al., 2020;
Esaiasson et al., 2012, 2019; Towfigh et al., 2016; see Werner and Muradova, 2022, for a
broader discussion of scenario experiments). We go beyond these studies and vary
whether, prior to the final decision, a mini-public deliberates on the issue at stake.
Furthermore, we vary whether or not the mini-public’s policy recommendation is subse-
quently adopted. In keeping with prior studies, we also vary how the final decision on the
policy issue is made—by elected representatives or by citizens in a referendum. Consistent
with our interest in the acceptance of negative decisions, subjects always end up losing in
our experiment, that is, the final decision is always counter to their previously stated
To continue reading
Request your trial