Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-mm7gn Total loading time: 0.72 Render date: 2022-08-11T19:01:53.844Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 December 2021

Tara Grillos*
Affiliation:
Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA
*
Corresponding author. Email: tgrillos@purdue.edu

Abstract

Citizen participation in decision making has been widely lauded as a method for improving societal outcomes. Deliberative discussion, in particular, is believed to be more transformative than a mere aggregation of individual preferences, leading to more socially optimal decision making and behavior. I report the results from a laboratory experiment with 570 subjects in Nairobi, directly testing the effect of participation in deliberative group decision making on collective outcomes. Participants engage in a group task to earn compensation toward a shared group fund. Randomly assigned treatments vary according to whether decision making over the task to be completed involves: (1) external assignment; (2) non-deliberative majority voting; or (3) consensus through deliberative discussion. I find that deliberation improves collective decision making. Deliberation is also associated with changes in preferences, greater agreement with decision outcomes, and greater perceived fairness. Evidence for behavior change is weaker, but there is some support for further research into the relationship between preference change and behavior change.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, B and Fishkin, JS (2002) Deliberation day. Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2), 129152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aga, DA, Noorderhaven, N and Vallejo, B (2017) Project beneficiary participation and behavioural intentions promoting project sustainability: the mediating role of psychological ownership. Development Policy Review. 36(5), 527546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A (2005) Environmentality: community, intimate government, and the making of environmental subjects in Kumaon, India. Current Anthropology 46(2), 161190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bächtiger, A et al. (2010) Disentangling diversity in deliberative democracy: competing theories, their blind spots and complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1), 3263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, J (2004) How deliberation affects policy opinions. American Political Science Review 98(4), 687701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, RM and Kenny, DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 11731182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birnbaum, S (2016) Environmental co-governance, legitimacy, and the quest for compliance: when and why is stakeholder participation desirable? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 18(3), 306323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, G (1992) The free-rider problem in intergroup conflicts over step-level and continuous public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(4), 597–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, JS et al. (2012) How national context, project design, and local community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(52), 2126521270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caluwaerts, D and Ugarriza, J (2012) Favorable conditions to epistemic validity in deliberative experiments: a methodological assessment. Journal of Public Deliberation 8(1). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2343409Google Scholar
Cardenas, JC (2004) Norms from outside and from inside: an experimental analysis on the governance of local ecosystems. Forest Policy and Economics 6(3), 229241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpini, MXD et al. (2004) Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: a review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science 7, 315344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6(1), 307326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn, New Jersey, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cohen, J (2009) Truth and public reason. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37(1), 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, RM, van de Kragt, AJC and Orbell, JM (1990) Cooperation for the benefit of us—Not me, or my conscience. In Mansbridge, J (ed.), Beyond Self-Interest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 97110.Google Scholar
Dryzek, JS (1994) Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryzek, JS et al. (2019) The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science 363(6432), 11441146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duit, A and Hall, O (2014) Causes and consequences of stakeholder participation in natural resource management: evidence from 143 biosphere reserves in fifty-five countries. In Duit A (ed.), State and Environment: The Comparative Study of Environmental Governance, Cambridge MA: MIT Press, pp. 293320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J (1986) The market and the forum. In Elster, J and Hylland, A (eds), Foundations of Social Choice Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 103132.Google Scholar
Esterling, KM, Neblo, MA and Lazer, DMJ (2011) Means, motive, and opportunity in becoming informed about politics: a deliberative field experiment with members of Congress and their constituents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(3), 483503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esterling, KM, Fung, A, and Lee, T (2021) When deliberation produces persuasion rather than polarization: Measuring and modeling small group dynamics in a field experiment. British Journal of Political Science, 51, 666684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D (1998) The insularity of the reasonable: why political liberalism must admit the truth. Ethics 108(2), 252275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, A and Heckman, JJ (2009) Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences. Science 326(5952), 535538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farrar, C, Fishkin, J, Green, D, Luskin, R, Paluck, EL. (2010) Disaggregating deliberation's effects: an experiment within a deliberative poll. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 333347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischbacher, U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experimental Economics 10(2), 171178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, JS and Luskin, RC (2005) Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta Politica 40(3), 284298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, BS, Benz, M, Stutzer, A (2004) Introducing procedural utility: not only what, but also how matters. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE 160(3), 377401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review 66(s1), 6675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A and Wright, EO (2001) Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society 29(1), 542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A and Wright, EO (Eds) (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Ganuza, E and Baiocchi, G (2012) The power of ambiguity: how participatory budgeting travels the globe. Journal of Public Deliberation 8(2), 8.Google Scholar
Gerber, M et al. (2018) Deliberative abilities and influence in a transnational deliberative poll. British Journal of Political Science 48(4), 10931118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, D and Prowse, V (2012) A structural analysis of disappointment aversion in a real effort competition. American Economic Review 102(1), 469503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldfrank, B (2012) The World Bank and the globalization of participatory budgeting. Journal of Public Deliberation 8(2), 7.Google Scholar
Grillos, T (2017) Participatory budgeting and the poor: tracing bias in a multi-staged process in Solo, Indonesia. World Development 96, 343358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grillos, T (2018) Women's participation in environmental decision-making: quasi-experimental evidence from Northern Kenya. World Development 108, 115130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grillos, T (2021) “Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya” https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/HT35YO, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, G and Baldassarri, D (2012) The impact of elections on cooperation: evidence from a lab-in-the-field experiment in Uganda. American Journal of Political Science 56(4), 964985.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutman, A and Thompson, D (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J (1975) Legitimation Crisis (Vol. 519 ). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J (1984) Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry Into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habyarimana, J et al. (2009) Public goods provision in Kampala. In Coethnicity: Diversity and the Dilemmas of Collective Action. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 2535.Google Scholar
Hafer, C and Landa, D (2007) Deliberation as self-discovery and institutions for political speech. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(3), 329360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamman, JR, Weber, RA, and Woon, J (2011) An experimental investigation of electoral delegation and the provision of public goods. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 738752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heller, P and Rao, V (eds) (2015) Deliberation and development: Rethinking the role of voice and collective action in unequal societies, World Bank Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, J, Heine, SJ, and Norenzayan, A (2010) Beyond WEIRD: towards a broad-based behavioral science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33(2–3), 111135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, R and Tingley, D (2011) Causal mediation analysis. The Stata Journal 11(4), 605619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, S and Cho, BS (2018) Citizen participation and the redistribution of public goods. Public Administration 96(3), 481496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpowitz, C, Mendelberg, T, and Shaker, L (2012) Gender inequality in deliberative participation. American Political Science Review 106(3), 533547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, RA et al. (2018) Many labs 2: investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science 1(4), 443490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koontz, TM and Thomas, CW (2006) What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review 66(s1), 111121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landa, D (2015) Behavioral political economy, argumentation, and democratic theory. The Good Society 24(1), 8697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H (2017) Beyond the fact of disagreement? The epistemic turn in deliberative democracy. Social Epistemology 31(3), 277295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, DM et al. (2015) Expanding the conversation: multiplier effects from a deliberative field experiment. Political Communication 32(4), 552573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledyard, JO (1995) Public goods: a survey of experimental research. In Kagel, J and Roth, A (eds), The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 111194.Google Scholar
Lerner, J and Secondo, D (2012) By the people, for the people: participatory budgeting from the bottom up in North America. Journal of Public Deliberation 8(2), 2.Google Scholar
Levitt, SD and List, JA (2007) What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(2), 153174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, EA and Tyler, TR (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C et al. (2012) Deliberation, single-peakedness, and the possibility of meaningful democracy: evidence from deliberative polls. The Journal of Politics 75(1), 8095.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopez, MC and Villamayor-Tomas, S (2017) Understanding the black box of communication in a common-pool resource field experiment. Environmental Science & Policy 68, 6979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubell, M (2004) Collaborative environmental institutions: all talk and no action? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23(3), 549573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, RC, Fishkin, JS, and Jowell, R (2002) Considered opinions: deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science 32(3), 455487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, B (1987) On legitimacy and political deliberation. Political Theory 15(3), 338368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J (1999) On the idea that participation makes better citizens. In Elkin S and Soltan KE (Eds) Citizen Competence and Democratic Institutions. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. pp. 291325.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J et al. (2010) The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy 18(1), 64100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J et al. (2012) A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In Parkinson, J and Mansbridge, J (eds), Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Theories of Institutional Design. pp. 126.Google Scholar
Mansuri, G and Rao, V (2004) Community-based and-driven development: A critical review. The World Bank Research Observer 19(1), 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansuri, G and Rao, V (2012) Localizing development: Does participation work? A World Bank Research Report. Washington DC: World BankGoogle Scholar
Martí, JL (2006) The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended: reasons, rightness and equal political autonomy. In Besson S and Marti J (eds), Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, Hampshire UK: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 2756.Google Scholar
Mayka, L (2019) Building Participatory Institutions in Latin America: Reform Coalitions and Institutional Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miguel, E and Gugerty, MK (2005) Ethnic diversity, social sanctions, and public goods in Kenya. Journal of Public Economics 89(11–12), 23252368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrell, ME (1999) Citizen's evaluations of participatory democratic procedures: normative theory meets empirical science. Political Research Quarterly 52(2), 293322.Google Scholar
Mutz, DC (2008) Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory? Annual Review of Political Science 11, 521538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, M (2005) Thinking through democracy: between the theory and practice of deliberative politics. Acta Politica 40(2), 169181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, MA (2007) Change for the better? Linking deliberative opinion change to normative theory. Working Paper. Available at: http://www.michaelneblo.net/working-papers.htmlGoogle Scholar
Neblo, MA, Esterling, KM, and Lazer, DMJ (2018) Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy (Vol. 555 ). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemeyer, S (2011) The emancipatory effect of deliberation: empirical lessons from mini-publics. Politics & Society 39(1), 103140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, MI, Mochon, D, and Ariely, D (2012) The IKEA effect: when labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22, 453460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olken, BA (2010) Direct democracy and local public goods: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. American Political Science Review 104(2), 243267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: presidential address, APSA, 1997. American Political Science Review 92(1), 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E, Gardner, R, and Walker, J (1994) Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poteete, A, Janssen, M, and Ostrom, E (2009) Multiple Methods in Practice: Collective Action and the Commons. Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J (1993) The domain of the political and overlapping consensus. In Copp, D, Hampton, J, and Roeme, J (eds), The Idea of Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 245269.Google Scholar
Reed, MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141(10), 24172431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rey-Biel, P, Sheremeta, RM, and Uler, N (2011) (Bad) Luck or (lack of) effort? Comparing social sharing norms between US and Europe. ESI Working Paper 11-11. Available from http://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/esi_working_papers/97Google Scholar
Rich, JA, Mayka, L, and Montero, AP (2019) Introduction: the politics of participation in Latin America: new actors and institutions. Latin American Politics and Society 61(2), 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryfe, DM (2005) Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science 8, 4971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sally, D (1995) Conversation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a meta-analysis of experiments from 1958 to 1992. Rationality and Society 7(1), 5892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanyal, P and Rao, V (2018) Oral Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroop, JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 18(6), 643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sintomer, Y, Herzberg, C, and Röcke, A (2008) From porto alegre to Europe: potentials and limitations of participatory budgeting. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulkin, T and Simon, AF (2001) Habermas in the lab: a study of deliberation in an experimental setting. Political Psychology 22(4), 809826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibaut, JW and Walker, L (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale NJ: L. Erlbaum Ass.Google Scholar
Thompson, DF (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science 11, 497520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touchton, M and Wampler, B (2014) Improving social well-being through new democratic institutions. Comparative Political Studies 47(10), 14421469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touchton, M, Sugiyama, NB, and Wampler, B (2017) Democracy at work: moving beyond elections to improve well-being. American Political Science Review 111(1), 6882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, TR (1990) Why People Obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, TR and Blader, SL (2000). Essays in Social Psychology. Cooperation in groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. New York, NY, US: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Wampler, B (2004) Expanding accountability through participatory institutions: Mayors, citizens, and budgeting in three Brazilian municipalities. Latin American Politics and Society 46(2), 7399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wampler, B and Touchton, M (2017) Participatory Budgeting: Adoption and Transformation. Making All Voices Count Research Briefing. Brighton: IDS.Google Scholar
Wang, R, Fishkin, JS, and Luskin, RC (2020) Does deliberation increase public-spiritedness? Social Science Quarterly 101(6), 21632182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, LS (1992) The Harambee Movement and efficient public good provision in Kenya. Journal of Public Economics 48(1), 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, X, Lynch, JG, and Chen, Q (2010) Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 37(2), 197206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Grillos Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: File

Grillos supplementary material

Grillos supplementary material

Download Grillos supplementary material(File)
File 70 KB

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *