Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-wfgm8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-06T07:29:02.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coupling citizens and elites in deliberative systems: The role of institutional design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2026

Carolyn M. Hendriks
Carolyn M. Hendriks*
Affiliation:
Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
*
Address for correspondence:Carolyn M. Hendriks, Crawford School of Public Policy, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, JG Crawford Building 132, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia. E‐mail: carolyn.hendriks@anu.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A significant shortcoming in contemporary deliberative systems is that citizens are disconnected from various elite sites of public deliberation. This article explores the concept of ‘coupling’ as a means to better link citizens and elites in deliberative systems. The notion of ‘designed coupling’ is developed to describe institutional mechanisms for linking otherwise disconnected deliberative sites. To consider whether it is possible and indeed desirable to use institutional design to couple different sites in a deliberative system, the article draws on insights from a case study in which a mini‐public was formally integrated into a legislative committee. The empirical study finds that it is not only feasible to couple mini‐publics to legislative committees, but when combined, the democratic and deliberative capacity of both institutions can be strengthened. To be effective, ‘designed coupling’ requires more than establishing institutional connections; it also requires that actors to step outside their comfort zone to build new relationships and engage in new communicative spaces with different sets of ideas, actors and rules. This can be facilitated by institutional design, but it also requires leaders and champions who are well‐placed to encourage actors to think differently.

Keywords

Citizen engagementdeliberative democracydemocratic innovationlegislative committeesmini‐public

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , February 2016 , pp. 43 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 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

Bächtiger, A. (2014). Debate and deliberation in legislatures. In Marin, S., Saalfeld, T. & Strøm, K.W. (eds), The Oxford handbook of legislative studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, A., Setälä, M. & Grönlund, K. (2014). Towards a new era of deliberative mini‐publics. In Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A. & Setälä, M. (eds), Deliberative mini‐publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Beekun, R. & Glick, W.H. (2001). Organization structure from a loose coupling perspective: A multidimensional approach. Decision Sciences 32(2): 227–250.10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00959.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bessette, J.M. (1994). The mild voice of reason: Deliberative democracy and American national government. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Blaug, R. (2002). Engineering democracy. Political Studies 50(1): 102–116.10.1111/1467-9248.00361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonney, N. (2003). The Scottish Parliament and participatory democracy. Political Quarterly 74(4): 459–467.10.1111/1467-923X.00557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boswell, J., Ercan, S.A. & Hendriks, C.M. (forthcoming). Message received? Examining transmission in deliberative systems. Critical Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Brown, M.B. (2006). Citizen panels and the concept of representation. Journal of Political Philosophy 14(2): 203–225.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00245.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, S. (2004). Behind closed doors: Publicity, secrecy and the quality of deliberation. Journal of Political Philosophy 12(4): 349–410.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2004.00206.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiano, T. (1996). Deliberative equality and democratic order. In Shapiro, I. & Hardin, R. (eds), Political order. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, R.H. (1974). Representation and congressional committees. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 411: 48–62.10.1177/000271627441100105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, S. & Stark, A. (2011). Institutionalising public deliberation: Insights from Scottish Parliament. British Politics 6(2): 155–186.10.1057/bp.2011.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139173810CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryzek, J.S. (2009). Democratization as deliberative capacity building. Comparative Political Studies 42: 1379–1402.10.1177/0010414009332129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elstub, S. & McLaverty, P. (2014). Conclusion: The future of deliberative democracy. In Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748643509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ercan, S.A., Hendriks, C.M. & Boswell, J. (2015). Studying public deliberation after the systemic turn: The crucial role for interpretive research. Policy and Politics: 1–36.Google Scholar
Faggoto, E. & Fung, A. (2009). Sustaining public engagement: Embedded deliberation in local communities. East Hartford, CT: Everyday Democracy/Kettering Foundation.Google Scholar
Fenno, R.F. (1970). Congressmen in committeees. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case‐study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245.10.1177/1077800405284363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2005). Sequencing deliberative moments. Acta Politica 40: 182–196.10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. (2012). How can deliberative democracy get a grip? Political Quartely 83(4): 806–811.10.1111/j.1467-923X.2012.02356.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R.E. & Dryzek, J. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro‐political uptake of mini‐publics. Politics and Society 34(2): 219–244.10.1177/0032329206288152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Trans. Rehg, W.. Cambridge: Polity Press.10.7551/mitpress/1564.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R.L. (1996). Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, R.L. & Wayman, F.W. (1990). Buying time: Moneyed interests and the mobilization of bias in congressional committees. American Political Science Review 84(3): 797–820.10.2307/1962767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpin, D., MacLeod, I. & McLaverty, P. (2012). Committee hearings of the Scottish Parliament: Evidence giving and policy learning. Journal of Legislative Studies 18(1): 1–20.10.1080/13572334.2012.646707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitshusen, V. (2000). Interest group lobbying and US House decentralization: Linking informational focus to committee hearing appearances. Political Research Quarterly 53(1): 151–176.Google Scholar
Hendriks, C.M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society's dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies 54(3): 486–508.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2006.00612.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, C.M. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sciences 42(4): 341–368.10.1007/s11077-009-9095-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joss, S. (1998). Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish parliament and Danish public debate. Science and Public Policy 25(1): 2–22.Google Scholar
Kuyper, J. (2012). Deliberative democracy and the neglected dimension of leadership. Journal of Public Deliberation 8(1): 1–32.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, M.K. & Warren, M.E. (2012). Two trust‐based uses of minipublics in democratic systems. In Parkinson, J. & Mansbridge, J. (eds), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In Macedo, S. (ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. et al. (2012). A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In Parkinson, J. & Mansbridge, J. (eds), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McLaverty, P. (2009). Is deliberative democracy the answer to representative democracy's problems? A consideration of the UK government's programme of citizens’ juries. Representation 45: 379–389.10.1080/00344890903236957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2): 275–293.10.1177/0020852311399851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niemeyer, S. (2014). Scaling up deliberation to mass publics: Harnessing mini‐publics in a deliberative system. In Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A. & Setälä, M. (eds), Deliberative mini‐publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
New South Wales (NSW) Parliament (2015). About Parliament. Available online at: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/web/common.nsf/key/AboutParliamentGoogle Scholar
Owen, D. & Smith, G. (2015). Survey article: Deliberation, democracy and the system turn. Journal of Political Philosophy 23(2): 213–234.10.1111/jopp.12054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulos, Y. (2012). On the embeddedness of deliberative systems: Why elistist innovations matter more. In Parkinson, J. & Mansbridge, J. (eds), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. OxfordOxford University Press.10.1093/019929111X.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J. (2012). Democratizing deliberative systems. In Parkinson, J. & Mansbridge, J. (eds), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139178914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Public Accounts Committee (PAC) (2012). Report on the economics of energy generation. Sydney: Legislative Assembly of the NSW Parliament. Available online at: www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/Parlment/committee.nsf/0/6e0c25bf50c6aa0dca257abd00196735/$FILE/Report%206%2055%20‐%20Economics%20of%20Energy%20Generation%20v4.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ryan, M. & Smith, G. (2014). Defining mini‐publics. In Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A. & Setälä, M. (eds), Deliberative mini‐publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Setälä, M. (2011). The role of deliberative mini‐publics in representative democracy: Lessons from the experience of referendums. Representation 47(2): 201–213.10.1080/00344893.2011.581080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setälä, M. (2014). The public sphere as a site of deliberation: An analysis of problems of inclusion. In Elstub, S. & McLaverty, P. (eds), Deliberative democracy: Issues and cases. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, M. (1998). Parliamentary committees: A global perspective. Journal of Legislative Studies 4(1): 225–251.10.1080/13572339808420547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Steiner, J. et al. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: A cross‐national study of parliamentary debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C.R. (2009). Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195378016.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbinati, N. & Warren, M.E. (2008). The concept of representation in contemporary democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 11: 387–412.10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.190533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K.E. (1982). Management of organizational change among loosely coupled systems. In Goodman, P. et al. (eds), Change in organizations: New persepcetives on theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.Google Scholar
Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar