Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Participation in Written Government Consultations in Denmark and the UK: System and Actor-level Effects

  • Anne Rasmussen
Abstract

Despite the proliferation of instruments of public consultation in liberal democracies, little is known of how the design and use of these instruments affect stakeholder participation in practice. The article examines participation in written government consultations in an analysis of approximately 5,000 responses to consultations in Denmark and the UK in the first half of 2008. It shows that participation is highly conditional upon system- and actor-level characteristics in practice. Our findings indicate that, even if liberal democracies have adopted similar procedures for actor consultation in the last decades, the design and application of crucial rules vary considerably between systems. They emphasize how the conduct of consultation is heavily conditioned by the design of these processes, which is in turn constrained by the historical legacy of state–society structures of the system in question.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

Anne Rasmussen is Professor in the Department of Political Science at Copenhagen University and affiliated to the Department of Public Administration at Leiden University. Contact email: ar@ifs.ku.dk.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Alexandrova, P., Lindeboom, G.-J. and Rasmussen, A. (2011), ‘Involvement of Asian Actors in EU Policy-Making in Comparative Perspective’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 3: 3349.
Ballamingie, P. (2009), ‘Democratizing Public Consultation Processes: Some Critical Insights’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 5: Article 11.
Baroni, L., Carroll, B., Chalmers, A., Marquez, L.M.M. and Rasmussen, A. (2013), ‘Defining and Classifying Interest Groups’, Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3(2) 141159.
Baumgartner, F.R. and Leech, B.L. (2001), ‘Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics’, Journal of Politics, 63: 11911213.
Binderkrantz, A.S. (2005), ‘Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure’, Political Studies, 53: 694715.
Binderkrantz, A.S. (2008), ‘Different Groups, Different Strategies: How Interest Groups Pursue their Political Ambitions’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 31: 173200.
Bishop, P. and Davis, G. (2002), ‘Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61: 1429.
Blom-Hansen, J. (2001), ‘Organized Interests and the State: A Disintegrating Relationship? Evidence from Denmark’, European Journal of Political Research, 39: 391416.
Bozzini, E. (2007), ‘The Role of Civil Society Organisations in Written Consultation Processes: From the European Monitoring Centre to the European Fundamental Rights Agency’, in C. Ruzza and V.D. Sala (eds), Governance and Civil Society in the European Union, Vol 2: Exploring Policy Issues (Manchester: Manchester University Press): 93109.
Chabanet, D. and Trechsel, A.H. (2011), EU Member States’ Consultation with Civil Society on European Policy Matters, EUDO Report 2011/04 (Florence: European University Institute).
Christiansen, P.M. (2012), ‘The Usual Suspects: Interest Group Dynamics and Representation in Denmark’, in D. Halpin and G. Jordan (eds), The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics (London: Palgrave): 161179.
Crepaz, M.M.L. (1994), ‘From Semisovereignty to Sovereignty: The Decline of Corporatism and Rise of Parliament in Austria’, Comparative Politics, 27: 4565.
Damgaard, E. and Eliassen, K.A. (1978), ‘Corporate Pluralism in Danish Law-making’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 1: 285313.
Eising, R. (2007), ‘Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices’, European Union Politics, 8: 329362.
European Commission (2002), ‘Towards a Reinforced Culture of Consultation and Dialogue – General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission’, COM(2002)704 final, Brussels, 11 December 2002.
Fishkin, J., Luskin, R. and Jowell, R. (2000), ‘Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation’, Parliamentary Affairs, 53: 657666.
Gais, T. (1996), Improper Influence: Campaign Finance Law, Political Interest Groups, and the Problem of Equality (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).
Gais, T. and Walker, J.L. Jr (1991), ‘Pathways to Influence in American Politics’, in J.L. Walker, Jr (ed.), Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions and Social Movements (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press): 103121.
Grant, W. (2001), ‘Pressure Politics: From “Insider” Politics to Direct Action?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 54: 337348.
Grant, W. (2004), ‘Pressure Politics: The Changing World of Pressure Groups’, Parliamentary Affairs, 57: 408419.
Hagendijk, R. and Irwin, A. (2006), ‘Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe’, Minerva, 44: 167184.
Holland, I. (2002), ‘Consultation, Constraints and Norms: The Case of Nuclear Waste’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61: 7686.
Irvin, R.A. and Stansbury, J. (2004), ‘Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is it Worth the Effort?’, Public Administration Review, 64: 5565.
Jordan, G. and Greenan, J. (2012), ‘The Changing Contours of British Representation: Pluralism in Practice’, in D. Halpin and G. Jordan (eds), The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics (London: Palgrave): 6798.
Jordan, G. and Halpin, D. (2012), ‘Politics is Not Basketball: Numbers are not Results’, in D. Halpin and G. Jordan (eds), The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics (London: Palgrave): 245262.
Kane, J. and Bishop, P. (2002), ‘Consultation or Contest: The Danger of Mixing Modes’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61: 8794.
Kenworthy, L. (2003), ‘Quantitative Indicators of Corporatism’, International Journal of Sociology, 33: 1044.
Kerley, B. and Starr, G. (2000), ‘Public Consultation: Adding Value or Impeding Policy?’, Agenda, 7: 185192.
Kollman, K. (1998), Outside Lobbying. Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
Lijphart, A. and Crepaz, M.M.L. (1991), ‘Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages’, British Journal of Political Science, 21(2): 2351046.
Lindvall, J. and Sebring, J. (2005), ‘Policy Reform and the Decline of Corporatism in Sweden’, West European Politics, 28: 10571074.
McFarland, A.S. (2007), ‘Neopluralism’, Annual Review of Political Science, 10: 4566.
Marks, G. (1985), ‘Neocorporatism and Incomes Policy in Western Europe and North America’, Comparative Politics, 18: 253277.
Martin, G.P. (2008), ‘“Ordinary People Only”: Knowledge, Representativeness and the Publics of Public Participation in Healthcare’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 30: 3554.
Ministry of Justice (2005), Vejledning om Lovkvalitet (Copenhagen: Ministry of Justice).
Öberg, P., Svensson, T., Christiansen, P.M., Norgaard, A.S., Rommetvedt, H. and Thesen, G. (2011), ‘Disrupted Exchange and Declining Corporatism: Government Authority and Interest Group Capacity in Scandinavia’, Government and Opposition, 46(3): 365391.
OECD (1995), ‘Public Consultation and Government Regulation’, Public Management Forum, 1.
OECD (2000), Regulatory Reform in Denmark (Paris: OECD).
OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making (Paris: OECD).
OECD (2010a), Better Regulation in Europe: Denmark (Paris: OECD).
OECD (2010b), Better Regulation in Europe: United Kingdom (Paris: OECD).
Pateman, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Rasmussen, A. and Alexandrova, P. (2012), ‘Foreign Interests Lobbying Brussels: Participation of Non-EU Members in Commission Consultations’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 50: 614631.
Rasmussen, A. and Carroll, B. (2014), ‘Determinants of Upper-class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from European Commission Online Consultations’, British Journal of Political Science, 44: 445459.
Rasmussen, A. and Toshkov, D. (2013), ‘The Effect of Stakeholder Involvement on Legislative Duration: Consultation of External Actors and Legislative Duration in the European Union’, European Union Politics, 14: 366387.
Rasmussen, A., Carroll, B. and Lowery, D. (2014), ‘Representatives of the Public? Public Opinion and Interest Group Activity’, European Journal of Political Research, 53: 250268.
Rommetvedt, H. (2005), ‘Norway: Resources Count, but Votes Decide? From Neo-Corporatist Representation to Neo-Pluralist Parliamentarism’, West European Politics, 28: 740763.
Rommetvedt, H., Thesen, G., Christiansen, P.M. and Nørgaard, A.S. (2013), ‘Coping with Corporatism in Decline and the Revival of Parliament: Interest Group Lobbyism in Denmark and Norway, 1980–2005’, Comparative Political Studies, 46: 457485.
Rozell, M.J. and Wilcox, C. (1999), Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press).
Schlozman, K.L. (1984), ‘What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System’, Journal of Politics, 46: 10061032.
Schlozman, K.L. (2010), ‘Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus?: The Shape of the Organized Interest System’, in L.S. Maisel and J.M. Berry (eds), The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 425450.
Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S., Brady, H., Jones, P. and Burch, T. (2008), ‘Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus? Political Inequality and the Pressure System’, paper presented at the APSA 2008 Annual Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, MA, 28 August.
Schmitter, P. (1979), ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’, in P. Schmitter and G. Lehbruch (eds), Trends towards Corporatist Intermediation (New York: Sage): 752.
Schmitter, P. and Streeck, W. (1999), The Organization of Business Interests: Studying the Associative Action of Business in Advanced Industrial Societies, MPIfG Discussion Paper 99/1 (Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Social Sciences).
Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008), ‘Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options’, Political Research Quarterly, 61(2): 294308.
Siaroff, A. (1999), ‘Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement’, European Journal of Political Research, 36(2): 175205.
Streeck, W. and Kenworthy, L. (2005), ‘Theories and Practices of Neo-Corporatism’, in T. Janoski, R.R. Alford, A.M. Hicks and M.A. Schwartz (eds), A Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies and Globalization (New York: Cambridge University Press): 441460.
Thomas, C.S. (2001), Political Parties and Interest Groups: Shaping Democratic Governance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).
Thomas, J.C. (1990), ‘Public Involvement in Public Management: Adapting and Testing a Borrowed Theory’, Public Administration Review, 50: 435445.
Thomas, J.C. (1993), ‘Public Involvement and Governmental Effectiveness’, Administration and Society, 24: 444469.
Truman, D.B. (1951), The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf).
UK Government (2004), Code of Practice on Consultation (London: Regulatory Impact Unit, Cabinet Office).
UK Government (2008), Code of Practice on Consultation (London: Better Regulation Executive), www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdf
UK Government (2012), ‘Consultation Principles’, London, Cabinet Office, www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/UK-Consultation-Principles-3-4-June-stockholm-2013.pdf.
UK Government (2013), ‘Consultation Principles’, London, Cabinet Office, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255180/Consultation-Principles-Oct-2013.pdf.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Government and Opposition
  • ISSN: 0017-257X
  • EISSN: 1477-7053
  • URL: /core/journals/government-and-opposition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed