Strengthen governability rather than deepen democracy: why local governments introduce participatory governance
| DOI | 10.1177/0020852318801508 |
| Author | Daniel Kübler,Su Yun Woo,Nico van der Heiden,Philippe E. Rochat |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review of
Administrative
Article
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
Strengthen governability
Sciences
2020, Vol. 86(3) 409–426
!
rather than deepen
The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
democracy: why local
DOI: 10.1177/0020852318801508
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
governments introduce
participatory governance
Daniel Ku¨bler
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Philippe E. Rochat
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Su Yun Woo
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Nico van der Heiden
University of Zurich, Switzerland
Abstract
Innovations in participatory governance have been widely discussed but their introduc-
tion as such is rarely examined. This article seeks to understand why, in a context of
established democracy, local authorities engage in participatory governance. Using a
data set on the implementation of mini-publics in 1505 Swiss municipalities in the
period 2000 to 2012, we test five hypotheses about the introduction of participatory
governance. We find that mini-publics in Swiss municipalities are policy-oriented pro-
cedures that involve only a small proportion of the citizenry. Municipalities who imple-
ment mini-publics are those that do not have a municipal assembly tradition, whose
public services are under growth pressure, who feature many different political groups
as well as strong party and community ties, and who have a strongly professionalized
public administration. We conclude that the expansion of participatory governance is
Corresponding author:
Daniel Ku¨bler, University of Zurich – Department of Political Science, Affolternstrasse 56, Zu¨rich 8850,
Switzerland.
Email: daniel.kuebler@ipz.uzh.ch
410
International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(3)
driven by an agenda to increase governability in an adversarial context with strong and
fragmented group interests.
Points for practitioners
This study explores the introduction of mini-publics in Swiss municipalities. Mini-publics
are participatory designs in which small groups of citizens deliberate on a topic related
to municipal policymaking. Most mini-public exercises found in this study were related
to spatial planning, but sustainability and youth were recurrent fields as well. Mini-
publics have become part of public administration practice and are set up in the
hope that they will help find solutions to conflicts and foster the acceptance of
policy decisions.
Keywords
local government, mini-publics, participatory governance, Switzerland
Introduction
New instances of citizen participation beyond electoral democracy have prolifer-
ated in the last three decades. Within the broad range of such ‘democratic inno-
vations’ (Smith, 2009), instances of participatory governance have been a
particular focus of scholarly attention. Participatory governance can be defined
as processes and structures of public decision-making that involve actors who are
not normally charged with decision-making (Newig et al., 2017: 273), and that
complement – but do not replace – traditional institutions of democracy
(Goodhart et al., 2012: 33). Participatory governance has gained increased atten-
tion as scholars and practitioners seek new avenues for engaging citizens in public
policymaking, not only in established democracies, but also in fledgling democra-
cies, and even in non-democracies. A prominent example is participatory budget-
ing, which, after its inception in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre, has diffused
widely across the globe (Porto de Oliveira, 2017; Sintomer et al., 2016; Wampler
et al., 2018).
The scientific debate on participatory governance has focused on its functioning
and effects (see Ansell and Gash, 2007; Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015), the criteria
by which the democratic quality of various instances of participatory governance
can be assessed (see Geissel and Newton, 2012), its potential to contribute to the
development of democracy more generally (see Michels, 2011; Warren, 2009), and,
more recently, its contribution to the quality of policy outcomes such as social
equity and health (see Gonc¸alves, 2014; Touchton et al., 2017). However, what has
been neglected until now is the introduction of participatory governance as such.
Many studies simply assume that participatory governance is introduced in
response to the inadequacies, limits or deficits of the existing institutions of
Ku¨bler et al.
411
democracy, especially in clientelistic or developing contexts (see Goodhart et al.,
2012). However, participatory governance should also be seen as a strategic inter-
vention used to achieve certain goals, and therefore as a ‘choice rather than as a
necessity’ (Newig et al., 2017: 271). As Warren (2009: 3) has argued, the prolifer-
ation of participatory governance should be questioned rather than be taken for
granted: ‘Who would have thought that policy and policy-making – the domain of
technocrats and administrators – would move into the vanguard of democratiza-
tion?’ Against this backdrop, this article seeks to understand the motivations
underlying the introduction of participatory governance in an established democ-
racy, based on a study at the local government level in Switzerland.
Why introduce participatory governance?
Regarding the rationale of participatory governance, the literature on the topic
emphasizes two main points. First, mechanisms of participatory governance are
considered democratic innovations (Geissel and Newton, 2012; Smith, 2009), mean-
ing that they represent procedures or instruments that open up opportunities for
citizen participation that did not previously exist in a particular context. Second,
participatory governance is discussed in light of deliberative democratic theory
focusing on a ‘talk-centric’ approach (Chambers, 2003), where the legitimacy of
democratic decisions is rooted in discursive exchanges of arguments. Accordingly,
the normative justification for mechanisms of participatory governance lies in their
contribution to the strengthening of the deliberative dimension of political process-
es (Goodin, 2008), in that they enable a greater number of citizens to take part in
the discussion of political decisions.
Reasons for the introduction of participatory governance: five hypotheses
While the causes for introducing participatory governance have not been a prom-
inent scholarly focus, five general hypotheses about the reasons leading to partic-
ipatory governance can nevertheless be derived from the literature.
A response to deficits of representative democracy. The most common line of argument
is to view participatory governance as a remedy for the crisis of representative
(local) democracy (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2002: 142). More particularly, it is
argued that decreasing participation in traditional democratic institutions has
led to legitimacy deficits that, in turn, increase the pressure for democratic renewal
and ultimately foster the introduction of participatory governance (Fung, 2015).
Goodhart et al. (2012: 50) additionally view participatory governance as a response
to democratic deficits in contexts of strong social inequality, such as is found in
developing countries and/or young democracies. Due to the low participation of
marginalized groups in traditional institutions of electoral democracy, govern-
ments tend to be unresponsive to the demands of such groups. Participatory gov-
ernance thus has the potential to restore social justice because it creates new
412
International Review of Administrative Sciences 86(3)
opportunities for marginalized groups to voice their claims (Touchton and
Wampler, 2014). The hypothesis that flows from this first line of argument
is that mechanisms of participatory governance are more likely to be found in
contexts characterized by low citizen participation in traditional democratic
institutions and high social inequality.
A strategy to improve governance effectiveness. However, this first line of argument
mainly operates at the system level, thereby neglecting the intentions of individual
actors. This is unsatisfactory because, as a rule, mechanisms of participatory
governance in concreto can only be introduced with the approval of existing
authorities. To plausibly explain the introduction of participatory governance,
we therefore have to look for reasons why authorities seek to relinquish some of
their power to citizens. One such important reason, as Fung (2015) argues, is that
authorities seek to achieve effective governance, and expect participatory mecha-
nisms to contribute to governance effectiveness. Klijn and Koppenjan (2002) offer
two expectations that governments formulate in this respect: the improvement of
policy quality; and the increase of policy acceptability by the public.
Due to a lack of knowledge and understanding of local situations, administra-
tive decisions often appear ‘aloof’ or ‘bureaucratic’ to stakeholders. By including
local stakeholders in the decision-making process, participatory governance can
counteract these problems: ‘[b]y reorganizing themselves to incorporate greater
citizen participation, public agencies can increase their effectiveness by drawing
on more information and the distinctive capabilities and resources of citizens’
(Fung, 2015: 517). Participatory governance is thereby seen to contribute to
social learning and as facilitating public agencies’ adaptation to developments in
their environment (Emerson and Nabatchi, 2015). A second hypothesis can thus be
formulated: the greater the pressure to act on policy problems, or the more difficult
these problems appear...
To continue reading
Request your trial