Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-mbr72 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-08-11T09:20:46.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The perceived problem‐solving potential of deliberative minipublics: Evidence from a survey of Belgian citizens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2026

Lisa Van Dijk Open the ORCID record for Lisa Van Dijk [Opens in a new window] ,
Hannah Werner Open the ORCID record for Hannah Werner [Opens in a new window]  and
Sofie Marien Open the ORCID record for Sofie Marien [Opens in a new window]
Lisa Van Dijk*
Affiliation:
Centre for Political Science Research, KU Leuven, Belgium Media, Movements, and Politics (M2P), University of Antwerp, Belgium
Hannah Werner
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Sofie Marien
Affiliation:
Centre for Political Science Research, KU Leuven, Belgium
*
Address for correspondence: Hannah Werner, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: lisa.vandijk@kuleuven.be
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Concerns about widespread democratic dissatisfaction have prompted a search for remedies, such as increasing citizens’ role in politics. While the public seems supportive, it remains unclear whether such newly introduced procedures can effectively tackle citizens’ dissatisfaction with present‐day politics. This paper develops a problem‐solving approach to studying this question. It proposes that combining insights on what ‘pushes’ and ‘pulls’ people to support procedural reform is crucial: Only then can we uncover if and how people consider procedural reform as addressing the problem(s) they see in the representative system today. Using the example of deliberative minipublics and original, pre‐registered survey data from Belgium (n = 1,579), we find that respondents generally think of minipublics as problem‐solvers rather than problem‐creators, albeit to different degrees. For instance, this perceived problem‐solving potential is more pronounced among discontent citizens. This study sheds new light on the importance of studying citizens’ reasoning about the roots and remedies for political dissatisfaction.

Keywords

deliberative minipublicsdemocratic innovationspolitical dissatisfactionprocess preferences

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 63 , Issue 3 , August 2024 , pp. 862 - 883
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 European Consortium for Political Research.

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for Realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azur, M. J., Stuart, E. A., Frangakis, C., & Philip, L. J. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained equations: What is it and how does it work? International Journal of Methods In Psychiatric Research, 20(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.329CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauvais, E., & Warren, M. E. (2019). What can deliberative mini‐publics contribute to democratic systems? European Journal of Political Research, 58(3), 893–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedock, C., & Pilet, J.‐B. (2021). Who supports citizens selected by lot to be the main policymakers? A study of French citizens. Government and Opposition, 56, 485–504. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2020.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedock, C., & Pilet, J.‐B. (2023). Enraged, engaged, or both? A study of the determinants of support for consultative vs binding mini‐publics. Representation, 59(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2020.1778511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å., & Mattila, M. (2009). Direct democracy and its critics: Support for direct democracy and ‘stealth’ democracy in Finland. West European Politics, 32(5), 1031–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380903065256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulianne, S. (2018). Mini‐publics and public opinion: Two survey‐based experiments. Political Studies, 66(1), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321717723507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulianne, S. (2019). Building faith in democracy: Deliberative events, political trust and efficacy. Political Studies, 67(1), 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321718761466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S., & Donovan, T. (2019). Perceptions of referendums and democracy: The referendum disappointment gap. Politics and Governance, 7(2), 227–241. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v7i2.1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2007). Enraged or engaged? Preferences for direct citizen participation in affluent democracies. Political Research Quarterly, 60(3), 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907304108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bussu, S., Bua, A., Dean, R., & Smith, G. (2022). Introduction: Embedding participatory governance. Critical Policy Studies, 16(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2022.2053179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caluwaerts, D., & Deschouwer, K. (2014). Building bridges across political divides: Experiments on deliberative democracy in deeply divided Belgium. European Political Science Review, 6(3), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773913000179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caluwaerts, D., & Reuchamps, M. (2018). The legitimacy of citizen‐led deliberative democracy. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S. (2009). Rhetoric and the public sphere: Has deliberative democracy abandoned mass democracy? Political Theory, 37(3), 323–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591709332336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, H. S. (2020). How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis. European Political Science Review, 12(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773920000107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, J., & Stoker, L. (2018). Political trust in a cynical age. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐polisci‐050316‐092550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosby, N., Kelly, J. M., & Schaefer, P. (1986). Citizens panels: A new approach to citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 46(2), 170. https://doi.org/10.2307/976169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, N., & Böker, M. (2016). Linking mini‐publics to the deliberative system: A research agenda. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077‐015‐9238‐5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, N., Dryzek, J. S., Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Twelve key findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus, 146(3), 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curato, N., Farrell, D. M., Geißel, B., Grönlund, K., Mockler, P., Pilet, J.‐B., Renwick, A., Rose, J., Setälä, M., & Suiter, J. (2021). Deliberative mini‐publics: Core design features. Bristol University Press.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, S., & Holmberg, S. (2014). Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular satisfaction. West European Politics, 37(3), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2013.830468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Río, A., Navarro, C. J., & Font, J. (2016). Ciudadanía, políticos y expertos en la toma de decisiones políticas: La percepción de las cualidades de los actores políticos importan. Revista Espanola de Investigaciones Sociologicas, 154, 83–102. https://doi.org/10.5477/cis/reis.154.83Google Scholar
denRidder, J., Fiselier, T., & van Ham, C. (2021). Draagvlak voor het burgerforum: Een verkenning van de Nederlandse publieke opinie. Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau & Radboud Univeristeit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Devillers, S., Vrydagh, J., Caluwaerts, D., & Reuchamps, M. (2021). Looking in from the outside: How do invited but not selected citizens perceive the legitimacy of a minipublic? Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 17(1), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dienel, P. C. (1989). Contributing to social decision methodology: Citizen reports on technological projects. In Vlek, C. & Cvetkovich, G. (Eds.), Social decision methodology for technological projects. Theory and decision library (vol 9). Springer.Google Scholar
Dommett, K., & Temple, L. (2019). What people want to see in parties today. University of Sheffield, ESRC, Involve, The Crick Centre.Google Scholar
Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2006). Popular support for direct democracy. Party Politics, 12(5), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068806066793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D., & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146. https://doi.org/10.1126/scienceaaw2694CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elstub, S., & Escobar, O. (Eds.). (2019). Handbook of democratic innovation and governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ESS Round 9. (2018). European Social Survey Round 9 Data (2018). Data file edition 1.1. NSD ‐ Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD‐ESS9‐2018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, D. M., & Stone, P. (2020). Sortition and mini‐publics: A different kind of representation. In Rohrschneider, R. & Thomassen, J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political representation in liberal democracies (pp. 227–246). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Felicetti, A. (2021). Learning from democratic practices: New perspectives in institutional design. Journal of Politics, 83(4), 1589–1601. https://doi.org/10.1086/711623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J. S. (1995). Bringing deliberation to democracy: The British experiment. The Good Society, 5(3), 45–49.Google Scholar
Font, J., Smith, G., Galais, C., & Alarcon, P. (2018). Cherry‐picking participation: Explaining the fate of proposals from participatory processes. European Journal of Political Research, 57(3), 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Font, J., Wojcieszak, M., & Navarro, C. J. (2015). Participation, representation and expertise: Citizen preferences for political decision‐making processes. Political Studies, 63(S1), 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9248.12191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. (2012). Continuous institutional innovation and the pragmatic conception of democracy. Polity, 44(4), 609–624. https://doi.org/10.1057/pol.2012.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García‐Espín, P., & Ganuza, E. (2017). Participatory skepticism: Ambivalence and conflict in popular discourses of participatory democracy. Qualitative Sociology, 40(4), 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133‐017‐9367‐6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J. (2018). The lessons and limitations of experiments in democratic deliberation. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 14, 271–291. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐lawsocsci‐110316‐113639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. (2020). Hope for democracy: How citizens can bring reason back into politics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gherghina, S., & Geißel, B. (2019). An alternative to representation: Explaining preferences for citizens as political decision‐makers. Political Studies Review, 17(3), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929918807713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S., & Bächtiger, A. (2023). Catching the “deliberative wave”? How (disaffected) citizens assess deliberative citizen forums. British Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 239–247. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123422000059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S., Wyss, D., & Bächtiger, A. (2020). Deliberating or thinking (twice) about democratic preferences: What German citizens want from democracy. Political Studies, 68(2), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719843967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro‐political uptake of mini‐publics. Politics & Society, 34(2), 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329206288152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K., Herne, K., & Setälä, M. (2015). Does enclave deliberation polarize opinions? Political Behavior, 37(4), 995–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109‐015‐9304‐xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, M. J., & Rudolph, T. J. (2015). Why Washington won't work: Polarization, political trust, and the governing crisis. The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss‐Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ belief about how government should work. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacquet, V. (2017). Explaining non‐participation in deliberative mini‐publics. European Journal of Political Research, 56, 640–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäske, M., & Setälä, M. (2020). A functionalist approach to democratic innovations. Representation, 56(4), 467–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2019.1691639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, W., Stoker, G., & Twyman, J. (2016). The dimensions and impact of political discontent in Britain. Parliamentary Affairs, 69(4), 876–900. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsv067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H.‐D. (2014). Dissatisfied democrats: Democratic maturation in old and new Democracies. In Dalton, R. J. & Welzel, C. (Eds.), The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens (pp. 116–157). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knobloch, K. R., Barthel, M. L., & Gastil, J. (2020). Emanating effects: The impact of the Oregon citizens’ initiative review on voters’ political efficacy. Political Studies, 68(2), 426–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719852254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuyper, J. W., & Wolkenstein, F. (2019). Complementing and correcting representative institutions: When and how to use mini‐publics. European Journal of Political Research, 58(2), 656–675. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lafont, C. (2020). Democracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Landa, D., & Pevnick, R. (2021). Is random selection a cure for the ills of electoral representation? Journal of Political Philosophy, 29(1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (2019). Recursive representation. In Castiglione, D. & Pollak, J. (Eds.), Creating political presence: The new politics of democratic representation (pp. 298–338).Google Scholar
Már, K., & Gastil, J. (2021). Do voters trust deliberative minipublics? Examining the origins and impact of legitimacy perceptions for the citizens’ initiative review. Political Behavior. 45, 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109‐021‐09742‐6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marien, S., & Hooghe, M. (2011). Does political trust matter? An empirical investigation into the relation between political trust and support for law compliance. European Journal of Political Research, 50(2), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475‐6765.2010.01930.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., Kennedy, R. P., Lazer, D. M. J., & Sokhey, A. E. (2010). What wants to deliberate—and why? American Political Science Review, 104(3), 566–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/339306da‐enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2022). Building trust to reinforce democracy: Main findings from the 2021 OECD survey on drivers of trust in public institutions. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c‐enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulis, E., Pilet, J.‐B., Panel, S., Vittori, D., & Close, C. (2021). The POLITICIZE dataset: An inventory of deliberative mini‐publics (DMPs) in Europe. European Political Science, 20, 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304‐020‐00284‐9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center. (2019, April 29). Many across the globe are dissatisfied with how democracy is working. [Report]. Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
Pilet, J.‐B., Bol, D., Vittori, D., & Paulis, E. (2023). Public support for deliberative citizens’ assemblies selected through sortition: Evidence from 15 countries. European Journal of Political Research, 62(3), 873–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilet, J.‐B., Vittori, D., Rojon, S., & Paulis, E. (2023). Who do Europeans want to govern? Exploring the multiple dimensions of citizens’ preferences for political actors in nine European countries. Party Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688231153932Google Scholar
Pow, J., van Dijk, L., & Marien, S. (2020). It's not just the taking part that counts: ‘Like me’ perceptions connect the wider public to mini‐publics. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 16(2), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saward, M. (2021). Democratic design. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Public support for referendums in Europe: A cross‐national comparison in 21 countries. Electoral Studies, 38, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.02.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, M. (2017). Connecting deliberative mini‐publics to representative decision making. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 846–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. (2014). Deliberative democracy and mini‐publics. In Geißel, B. & Newton, K. (Eds.), Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise? (pp. 90–111). Routledge.Google Scholar
Standard Eurobarometer 97. (2022). Standard Eurobarometer 97 ‐ Summer 2022. European Commission. https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2693Google Scholar
Ulbig, S. G. (2002). Policies, procedures, and people: Sources of support for government? Social Science Quarterly, 83(3), 789–809. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540‐6237.00115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Buuren, S. (2018). Flexible imputation of missing data (2nd Ed.). CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, L., & Lefevere, J. (2023). Can the use of minipublics backfire? Examining how policy adoption shapes the effect of minipublics on political support among the general public. European Journal of Political Research, 62(1), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12523CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vrydagh, J., & Caluwaerts, D. (2023). How do mini‐publics affect public policy? Disentangling the influences of a mini‐public on public policy using the sequential impact matrix framework. Representation, 59(1), 117–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2020.1862901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrydagh, J., Devillers, S., Talukder, D., Jacquet, V., & Bottin, J. (2020). Les mini‐publics en Belgique (2001‐2018): Expériences de panels citoyens délibératifs. Courrier Hebdomadaire Du CRISP, 2477‐24(32), 5–72. https://doi.org/10.3917/cris.2477.0005Google Scholar
Warren, M. E. (2008). Citizen representatives. In Warren, M. E. & Pearse, H. (Eds.), Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly (pp. 50–69). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. E. (2017). A problem‐based approach to democratic theory. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055416000605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, H., & Marien, S. (2022). Process vs. outcome? How to evaluate the effects of participatory processes on legitimacy perceptions. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123420000459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, H., Marien, S., & Felicetti, A. (2020). A problem‐based approach to understanding public support for referendums. European Journal of Political Research, 59(3), 538–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475‐6765.12368CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Van Dijk et al. supplementary material

Appendix A-F
Download Van Dijk et al. supplementary material(File)
File 367.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Van Dijk et al. supplementary material

Van Dijk et al. supplementary material 1
Download Van Dijk et al. supplementary material(File)
File 181.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Van Dijk et al. supplementary material

Van Dijk et al. supplementary material 2
Download Van Dijk et al. supplementary material(File)
File 48 KB