Civil Society Making Political Claims Outcries, Interest Advocacy, and Deliberative Claims (pages 413–422).pdf
Civil Society Making Political Claims: Outcries, Interest Advocacy, and Deliberative Claims
Th is article contributes to these
discussions by exploring the quality of arguments that citizens
put forward when initiating contacts with public administra-
tion and participating in public
processes.
414 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014
during 2011; (2) all written complaints about school closure processes in one municipality during the period 2007–09. In this article, we show that citizens provide clear statements and reasons to an unexpected extent, given the one-shot character of the activity and the issue studied. We also show that groups are more likely to engage in a reasoned exchange of arguments by providing reasons for their positions and signaling a willingness to discuss them.
Deliberative Civic Engagement and Political Claim Making
Th e concern with modern public administration from a demo- cratic point of view has renewed interest in citizen involvement. Scholars argue that in the United States, there is “an erosion of civil society and civic engagement and, more specifi cally, an erosion of civic skills and dispositions among the general public” (Nabatchi 2010, 378). Th e cure is seen in intelligent and eff ective citizen par- ticipation (Nabatchi 2010, 381, citing Wildavsky 1979). Although this solution might imply several diff erent things, it is often con- nected to ideas of deliberative democracy (Fung 2006; Lukensmeyer and Brigham 2005; Nabatchi 2010, 384; Rosenberg 2007). For example, discussion of “collaborative governance” presumes that citizen participation will take the form of problem solving and that stakeholders are involved in reason-based deliberation (Ansell and Gash 2008). Consequently, one of the interactive processes in col- laborative governance is deliberation or “candid and reasoned com- munication” (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012, 12). However, as stated in the introduction, there are disagreements over the pos- sibilities of deliberative civic engagement in public policy.
Some of the criticism has been taken seriously by researchers interested in empirical research on deliberation. Th ey propose to relax the requirement of perfect deliberation in every situation and instead acknowledge that several components can contribute diff er- ent functions to a deliberative system (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2010; Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012). Th is means that the deliberative- ness of civic engagement in the real world (as opposed to abstract ideal situations) can be interpreted in a meaningful way. We argue that even written questions and complaints from the public—which are often one-shot inputs—may contribute to a deliberative system under certain circumstances. New and better information provided by citizens as input to a policy process may contribute to delibera- tive knowledge enhancement (Barabas 2004; Papadopoulos 2012, 127). Furthermore, reason giving might spur deliberation among other citizens (Rosenberg 2007) and reinforce a norm of delibera- tion in a larger context (cf. Gambetta 1998). On the other hand, if skeptics such as Hibbing and Th eiss-Morse (2002) are right and civic engagement mainly consists of outcries without the intention
to contribute to a reasoned discussion, it is diffi cult to see how this kind of engagement could contribute to a deliberative system.
While we are interested in the deliberative quality of civic engagement and use that phrase throughout this article, the charac- ter of the activity studied here implies that
we focus on only parts of deliberation. We ask whether positions are clearly stated, whether reasons for the position are provided, and whether there are intentions to engage in a discussion with the authorities. Defi nitions of deliberation usually include several
literature that connects theoretical and empirical research on delibera- tion (Th ompson 2008; Bächtiger and Hangartner 2010).
We acknowledge that written complaints are far from a traditional deliberative process, but we are encouraged by recent studies emphasizing that every situation cannot be perfectly deliberative. Instead, diff erent institutions may contribute with diff erent func- tions to produce system-level deliberation (Dryzek and Niemeyer 2010; Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012, 2). We consider the main component of deliberation to be a social interaction based on reasoned discussion (Bächtiger et al. 2010; Dryzek and Niemeyer 2010; Parkinson and Mansbridge 2012) and therefore examine the degree of reason giving. Th is means that we exclude other important
parts of deliberation, such as listening to others with respect with a preparedness to change preferences, and focus only on the quality of arguments provided by citizens who interact with public offi cials. If citizen-initiated contacts involve a lot of reason giving, this might provide new information and fi ll a knowledge-enhancing function (i.e., an epistemic function) in a deliberative system (Parkinson and
Mansbridge 2012, 11). In this way, citizen engagement can contrib- ute to democratic legitimacy and improve the quality of decisions in public administration.
Prior empirical studies of citizens’ reason giving have mainly focused on participation in small groups (Black 2012; De Vries et al. 2010) or online participation (Loveland and Popescu 2011; Schlosberg, Zavestoski, and Shulman 2008). While the qualities of reasoned discussion in face-to-face situations are well documented, only modest equivalent evidence is found for online practices. Empirical evaluations of citizens’ deliberation beyond mini-publics or online forums are rare, and little is said about individual–group diff erences. Th erefore, this article addresses these two issues. First, we exam- ine whether critics of deliberation are correct: do citizens use little reason giving and mostly express their discontent through simple “outcry,” or do they actually make clear statements with reasons and even signal a willingness for serious interaction with public offi cials? Second, we explore whether the degree of reason giving varies sig- nifi cantly across participating individuals and groups.
Our evaluation of reason provision is based on an analysis of writ- ten contributions from members of the public regarding public school issues in Sweden. Although school issues might not be fully representative for all citizen-initiated contacts with local authorities, this is an important area for civic engagement in many countries. In Sweden, school policy is an important part of the welfare state, and schooling is organized at the municipal level (Edlund and Johansson Sevä 2013). Because municipalities have a high degree of local self-government (Sellers and Lidström 2007), contacting municipal authorities about school issues represents a classical engagement in pub- lic decision making. In fact, discontent with the issues of education and schooling is one of the most important drivers of citizens’ politi- cal activism in Sweden (Kriesi and Westholm 2010; Solevid 2009).
We use a unique data set on citizens’ contacts with local authorities in Sweden and analyze two types of data: (1) all written complaints regarding elementary and preschool issues sent to 12 municipalities
Th e character of the activ- ity studied here implies that we focus on only parts of deliberation.
Civil Society Making Political Claims: Outcries, Interest Advocacy, and Deliberative Claims 415
they are, in fact, engaged in a “reasoned exchange of arguments” with policy makers. Th is, in turn, may force the policy makers to reply in the same matter. Consequently, such a claim has better opportunities to contribute to a deliberative system. Hence, the deliberative quali- ties of claims in this article refer only to the content of the claim, as we do not study deliberation before submitting the comments or the whole interaction with representatives of the authorities. Considering that eventual claims are located somewhere between the described ideal types, we examine whether the claim is clearly stated and elaborated (opinion stating), whether there are reasons given for the opinion (reason giving), and whether the contact has any intention to open up an interaction (constructive, serious interaction). Th e relationship between the content of verbal statements and the delib- erative quality of the claim is shown in table 1.
We regard a claim that contains all the content in the fi rst column of table 1—a plain statement, clear opinion stating, reason giving, and an invitation to constructive (serious) interaction—to be a deliberative claim. A claim with a clearly stated opinion and reason giving but without obvious reference that the author has any inten- tion to discuss the matter in a constructive interaction is labeled an interest advocacy. A stated opinion without any reason given is only a proclamation of a position; it is a declaration of an opinion without really arguing why it is important and without trying to persuade others to endorse it. Finally, if the verbal statement only informs the audience about some facts, a situation, or a process, it is
a plain statement. A claim that just consists of a plain statement is, from a deliberative quality point of view, only an outcry; it is just a remark or a protest against the current state regarding something of
importance to the complaining person(s). 1 Th e diff erences among these categories are described in more detail in the Method and Data section of this paper, but here, it suffi ces to say that we expect to see variation of the deliberative quality of claims across individu- als and groups.
Th ere is little empirical knowledge on whether participating citizens actually contribute some reasoned opinion (Baccaro and Papadakis 2009). Prior studies on citizens’ online participation in policy processes have found that the structure of such forums in general facilitates nondeliberative arguments, for example, self-expressive monologue rather than reasoned arguments that welcome negotia- tion of diff erent arguments (e.g., Wilhelm 2000). Written com- plaints are probably closer to online participation than mini-publics or other small-scale forums. Hence, our fi rst hypothesis suggests that citizens’ written complaints mainly fall into the category of outcry.
Even though a direct contact with authorities is often assumed to
be an individually based form of participation (Aars and Strømsnes
components: that the actors justify their positions, listen to each other, show mutual respect, and are willing to reevaluate their initial preferences (e.g., Steenbergen et al. 2003, 31). Th e examination of all these components would require diff erent, dialogue-based mate- rial. Data on citizen-initiated contacts allow us to study only how actors justify their position, that is, reason giving (sometimes reason providing). Th is is an important part of deliberation because an opinion has to be expressed, and it has to be possible for others to evaluate the reason for that opinion (Habermas 1984; Mercier and Landemore 2012, 245). Still, to study citizens’ contacts or political claim making (Giugni 2011, 300) can be seen as problematic from
a deliberative perspective. However, we diverge from components of ideal communicative action (Bächtiger et al. 2010, 34, 40) and agree with others that self- interest (Mansbridge et al. 2010), interest advocacy (Hendriks 2011), and even certain kinds of rhetoric can be accepted in deliberation, given certain conditions (Dryzek 2010).
One can imagine two ideal types of claims for deciding whether they are part of deliberative reasoning. First, a claim can be an angry or perhaps aggressive remark or complaint. It has no argument for the position given, and the author(s) has no serious intention to be involved in an interaction with others: “You [expletive] idiots should do something to make children’s roads to school safer” is an example of such an outcry. It is very diffi cult to know what this person wants or why and how the problem should be solved. Should bus stops be safer? Should slippery winter walkways be treated with sand or salt? Speed limits decreased outside schools? Moreover, it is unlikely that the speaker seriously expects the claim to be taken into account by anyone. It is just an expression of disapproval or anger. In fact, many petitions actually state claims that are nothing more than outcries (e.g., a petition against school closure claims, “Save our school!”).
Second, a deliberative claim would involve more precise opin- ion stating, with reason giving based on a small investigation and references to expert knowledge. It might also include alternative suggestions and an explicit invitation to discuss the matter to fi nd solutions to the problem. Consider this ideal type of deliberative claim:
I have noticed that accidents outside schools in our munici- pality have increased. School Y is one particular example.
I have attached a document of injuries outside School Y over the last three years. According to the police, this problem is due to the high maximum speed limit. Moreover, I have attached an investigation of the situation, which shows that every second car exceeds the speed limit. According to research, a reduction of the speed limit by XX would decrease accidents by XX. Th erefore, we demand that the speed limit outside schools is reduced by XX. An alternative action would
be to make road crossings safer by installing traffi c lights or building a tunnel or a bridge. Th is has been done in munici- pality Q and has proven very effi cient, but also expensive.
I expect you to contact me very soon to discuss a solution to this problem.
We argue that the deliberative quality of participation with claims in line with the second ideal type is greater than that of claims like the fi rst, less elaborated one. A more elaborated claim that provides reasons indicates that citizens believe that arguing matters and that
Table 1 Citizen Engagement in Public Policy and Deliberative Quality
Content of Verbal Statements
Deliberative Quality of Claim
Outcry
Proclamation
Interest Advocacy
Deliberative Claim
Plain statement
Opinion stating
Reason giving
Constructive ( serious)
interaction
416 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014
on paper or digitally, they are considered public documents unless they contain personal information. Th e municipalities had removed all personal information from the documents we examined.
Our empirical data encompassed two types of complaints. Th e fi rst type comprised 451 written complaints sent to the committee of elementary and preschool policies in 12 of 290 Swedish municipali- ties—Ale, Degerfors, Falköping, Flen, Håbo, Höganäs, Knivsta, Kramfors, Landskrona, Uppsala, Varberg, and Ånge—during 2011. Th e sample was stratifi ed to represent diff erent-sized municipalities, as the size of the population was considered likely to aff ect the kinds
of problems that citizens complain about. 3 Th e sample includes small municipalities such as Degerfors (9,641 inhabitants), medium ones such as Kramfors (18,911 inhabitants), and the largest ones such as Uppsala (197,787 inhabitants). Th e data provide a good pic- ture of the contacts between citizens and municipality bureaucrats regarding elementary and preschool issues and are a good basis for exploring the deliberative character of citizens’ claims in Sweden.
Th e second set of data comprised 47 written complaints regarding proposals to close three primary schools in Uppsala municipality during the period 2007–09. Th e issue of school closures is decided by the same committee as elementary and preschool policies, but the issue has higher salience than other, more typical issues that the committee deals with (including the quality of school build- ings, education, and personnel). Uppsala municipality was selected because it had many proposals for closing primary schools during
a short period of time. Th is allowed us to focus on the deliberative quality of the complaints and, at the same time, keep constant the factors related to time and municipality, which could aff ect the vari- ation of deliberative quality of citizens’ complaints.
Our focus on school issues has some advantages and caveats. Th e major advantage is that it engages a majority of Swedish citizens. Education is seen as an important part of the welfare state, and these questions mobilize more political activism than health care or envi- ronmental issues (Kriesi and Westholm 2010; Solevid 2009). One possible weakness of the data set is the fact that school issues tend to
be more emotional and personal than, for example, environmental issues. Hence, we might fi nd fewer well-reasoned claims than in other policy areas. On the other hand, such a focus on a least likely case would also strengthen our argument about the prevalence of deliberative claims in Swedish public administration.
It may be questioned whether this kind of civic engagement, which often has a one-shot character, can be analyzed as taking place in a public arena with elements of deliberation. However, it is a com- munication over public issues directed to targeted receivers of the message. Th e municipal administrations are obliged to read and respond. Hence, it is a two-way communication, or “a transfer of information wherein individuals act both as senders and receiv- ers” (Nabatchi 2012, 702). On the fi ve-point continuum of the International Association for Public Participation’s Spectrum of Public Participation, such communication should be positioned somewhere between “consult” and “involve,” and thus at the point in the spectrum when public input begins to be considered. Because the documents are publicly available, it is a semipublic arena in which the correspondence may be read by outsiders, for example, by other citizens, politicians, and journalists.
2007, 95), many citizens discuss their opinions with friends, neigh- bors, colleagues, or a civil society organization they belong to. Every society contains innumerable such deliberative groups (Sunstein 2000, 72) where citizens meet and “test” their arguments. Th is begs
a classic question in political science, namely, how public delibera- tion is aff ected by the fact that some individuals deliberate in groups (or factions; see, e.g., Rousseau 1762) before entering the public arena.
A “standard view of deliberation” is that group discussions lead to better outcomes (Sunstein 2000, 73, referring to Aristotle and Rawls, for example). Th is might be so because groups prepare their claims, formulate their positions, and strengthen their arguments in internal discussion before deliberating in a larger, open arena (Van der Meer and Van Ingen 2008). Group collaboration also allows mustering common resources to fi nd evidence for (and against) the position taken and may help drop extreme arguments that do not help the cause. Th e growing self-confi dence that comes with pooled resources, in combination with a laundering of preferences (Goodin 1986), could induce a tone and way of approaching poli- ticians and bureaucrats that promotes deliberative behavior. If this is the case, written communication signed by groups should tend to provide reason to well-argued positions, while individuals should tend to use this channel more as a safety valve for their outcries and grievances.
However, prior research also indicates that groups do not necessar- ily contribute positively to deliberation. Groups are often less likely to be impartial and less ready to shift their selected preferences (Hendriks 2011, 5). Because of their self-insulation and engage- ment in enclave deliberation, groups may create “serious deliberative trouble” by boosting initial anger and going to “extremes” (Sunstein 2000, 119). Instead of contributing to constructive interaction with reasons, this might lead to unreasonable outcries and threats of protest actions or obstruction of public policy—that is, a lower deliberative quality of claims delivered by groups.
Hence, there are diverging arguments in the literature regarding the deliberative quality of claims across individuals and groups (Mercier and Landemore 2012, 243). Considering the long-term Swedish tradition of collective mobilization (Öberg and Svensson 2012), it is reasonable to expect that arguments stated in written complaints sent by groups would fall into the category of deliberative claim more often than those sent by individuals.
Before we proceed to examine which of the expectations has empiri- cal support in the case of Swedish citizens’ contacts with their local municipalities, we describe our data and measures.
Method and Data
Th e citizen-initiated participation in public administration that we study here refers to the possibility of submitting complaints to
local governments. 2 In Sweden, all citizens can send “suggestions and complaints” to municipalities regarding anything for which the municipality is responsible. We examined complaints regarding ele- mentary and preschool issues. According to the Swedish Education Act (Skollag), the school authority (i.e., the municipality) must have written procedures for receiving and investigating complaints regarding education (Skollag 2010:800, 4 §8). Whether submitted
Th e letters we examined were on paper or were sent to the munici- sources other than personal experience to support their argument, pality by e-mail 4 and were categorized as “suggestions and com-
do not present an alternative solution, and are not clearly open for plaints” to the committee of elementary and preschool issues in the
discussion, they are categorized as proclamations. A typical example stated 12 municipalities during 2011. Many of the letters (127)
is a letter that provides a precise description of the problems with were continuations of some earlier “conversation” and thus were
some preschool facilities (for example, the lack of places in general excluded from further analysis. We also discovered that some of the
and the quality of food or education) and demonstrates the author’s letters (44) sent to the municipalities were not actually “complaints” negative attitude toward the situation. Th e letters that clearly express but rather direct questions about educational services or unclear
opposition to a proposed school closure and give some simple rea-
sons for this statement fall into this category. from our analysis and carefully read, coded, and categorized 370 letters (including the 46 letters on school closures). 6 If the argument in the letter is supported by any source of informa- tion, regardless of whether it is biased or correct (Bächtiger et al.
statements that could not be coded. 5 We excluded all these cases
Th ere are no standard measurements of deliberation to be used 2010; cf. Renwick and Lamb 2012), it is considered an indica- (Gastil, Knobloch, and Kelly 2012; Th ompson 2008, 505). Th e
tor of reason giving. References to personal experience only (the most developed and widely used measurement, the Discourse
most common source; cf. Stromer-Galley 2007, 5), however, are Quality Index (DQI) (Bächtiger and Hangartner 2010; Steiner et
not considered a suffi cient reason to qualify as deliberative com- al. 2004), is not applicable to our case, for two reasons. First, it was
munication in this study. We agree, for example, with Chambers developed for studies of parliamentary debates and is too detailed,
(2009) and Dryzek (2010) that rhetoric and even storytelling can requiring information that is not available in our citizens’ com-
be acceptable elements in deliberation, but only in certain forms. plaints. Second, the DQI is anchored in Habermasian discourse
References to personal experience in our material are usually only an ethics, which we diverge from and which makes several of the DQI
explanation for why the citizen has approached local authorities and measures inapplicable here. We categorized the letters on the basis
are seldom components of a more universal argument or examples of the deliberative quality of the claims presented in the letters:
used to persuade the audience. To include this kind of personal outcry, proclamation, interest advocacy, and deliberative claim (as
experience would dilute the meaning of “reason-based.” Hence, if in table 1). Hence, we tried to capture whether the claim maker had the author has made some personal investigation or used a scientifi c taken a less or more developed position and whether reasons were
or media source to support an argument, it is considered a reasoned given for that position. Table 2 demonstrates how the categories
claim. We agree with Stromer-Galley (2007, 4) that sourcing and of deliberative quality are related to the indicators of the quality of
reasoned opinion are closely related and do not require a category of verbal statements. To simplify the analysis, we composed a cumula-
their own. Such letters mostly express the (reasoned) interests of the tive index of deliberative quality ranging from 0 to 5.
authors and do not present any alternative solutions, nor are they open to further discussion of the argument. Hence, they fall into
A (usually) shorter letter that only states some position but does not the category of interest advocacy. An example is the following letter present a clear opinion or an elaborated argument is an indicator
to Håbo municipality:
of a plain statement and therefore categorized as an outcry. Here are three typical examples:
Th e ratio of children to adults in the municipalities’ kinder- gartens has increased from 5.0 to 5.7 from 2006 to 2010.
Save Jumkil school! (a petition with 1,151 names) Research has shown that large groups are threatening chil- dren’s development, learning, and health. Th e current political
All the families of the children who started preschool in the majority has recognized the problem and distributed money autumn were invited to the school today, but we were not!
for solving it. When do we see the results? We learned about that on Facebook! It is very bad! (an e-mail signed by “annoyed parents”)
Finally, if the document has some indicators of constructive interac- tion, it is considered a deliberative claim. Such indicators, however,
Keep the library open during the city festival next year! (an are diffi cult to fi nd. We suggest that constructive interaction has anonymous e-mail)
the following characteristics: the author of the letter provides some alternative solutions, demonstrates openness to diff erent opinions,
Claims that clearly state a position and also motivate their opinion and does not use an aggressive or upset tone in the argument. are indicators of opinion stating. As these claims do not use any
We have tried to distinguish pure passion, which is acceptable in
Table 2 Coding of the Deliberative Quality of Claims
Indicators of Quality in Verbal Statements
Constructive Interaction Deliberative Quality of
Reason Giving
Is Open to Different Tone Is Not Upset Claim (value of index)
Plain Statement
Opinion Stating
(has an elaborated
Presents Alternative
Opinions or Aggressive Outcry (0)
(only states a position) (clearly states an opinion)
argument with sources)
Solution
Proclamation (1)
Interest advocacy (2)
Deliberative claim (3–5) X X X X X Note : See the appendix for an overview of the coding scheme.
Civil Society Making Political Claims: Outcries, Interest Advocacy, and Deliberative Claims 417 Civil Society Making Political Claims: Outcries, Interest Advocacy, and Deliberative Claims 417
too high requirements for deliberative claims used in the citizen- index could theoretically range from 3 to 5. Few cases, however, fall
initiated participation. In summary, the answer to the fi rst question into this category. One example is an e-mail in which the author
is no, because the outcries form only one-fi fth of citizen-initiated expresses disappointment with the fact that there is a defi cit of 40
contacts. Th e same proportion of claims state opinions that are sup- preschool places in his part of the city and authorities have just
ported by elaborated arguments that make use of sources other than closed one preschool. He has looked for several sources for the
personal experience and propose an alternative solution. Table 4 explanation and suggests some solutions for the situation—all in a
describes the kinds of sources of information that citizens used. friendly tone, that is, not upset or aggressive. Half of the sources referred to were based on something more than We also coded other characteristics of these letters: the actor(s) who
just personal experience (personal experience is often related to a sin- sent the letter, the main aim and issue of the letter, the frame of the
gle event, such as the behavior of a teacher). Th is means that citizens argument, and whether the letter was answered. Coding was mostly
in many cases do contribute “knowledge” that might not have been done by a research assistant, but the authors made reliability checks, noticed otherwise. Th is is particularly noticeable in the case of the and in the case of disagreements, the majority opinion was used.
letters against school closures (e.g., Jumkil school), which provided Th e coding details for these categories are described in the appendix. detailed analysis of a municipal proposal and demonstrated its fl aws. In summary, citizen-initiated contacts seem to be a channel by which
Findings: Outcries or Deliberative
citizens deliver opinions, sometimes sup-
Claims?
ported by evidence and in a tone that invites Th e fi rst question to be answered is whether
interaction. Th is means that citizen-initiated citizen-initiated contacts with local authori-
Citizen-initiated participation
participation in local politics is a factor that ties are mostly outcries, as the prior research
in local politics is a factor that
can contribute to a deliberative system. To on online participation suggests. Table 3
can contribute to a deliberative
some extent, this depends on how the authori- describes our fi ndings, which show that
system.
ties react, a question that is beyond the aim of citizens sometimes use deliberative claims
this study. 7
when they contact local authorities (22 percent of all examined letters). Still, outcries (22 percent) and proclamations (26 percent)
Prior studies suggest that some issues call for more deliberative form almost half of all statements (48 percent). As expected, there
claims and discussions than other issues. To examine this, we coded are more outcries (28 percent) and fewer deliberative claims (11 per- our letters on the basis of the issue at stake, in other words, depend- cent) in the more confl ictual school closures. Th is is also described
ing on the claims made by the author as well as comparing the let- by the signifi cantly lower mean index (1.23) for school closures than ters about less contested school issues to the ones about the school for all examined claims (1.52).
closures. We have already noted that the mean index varies across the degree of confl ict, as the index for the letters on school clo-
Th e majority of the 82 deliberative claims fulfi ll only one of the sures is lower than for the letters on other school issues. Th is is also three requirements (alternative solution, open to diff erent opinion,
noticeable in table 5, which presents the distribution of the index or tone not upset) and therefore have an index of 3 rather than 4
across fi ve fi rst-stated aims of the letter. 8
Table 3 Citizens Contacting Municipalities: Outcries or Deliberative Claims?
Our second expectation suggested that letters from groups would
All School Issues
School Closures
Total
score higher on our deliberative quality index than the letters from
individuals and thereby would contribute more to a delibera-
tive system. We categorized the senders based on how the letters
Outcry
68 21.0 13 28.0 81 22 were signed. When two parents from the same family signed, we
Proclamation
84 26.0 14 30.5 98 26
30 grouped them together under “one individual or family.” Loose and
Interest advocacy
95 29.5 14 30.5 109
77 23.5 5 11.0 82 22 temporary groups, such as a group of parents who apparently have
Deliberative claim
come together for the issue at hand, were coded “ad hoc group.”
Mean index (SD) 1.56 (1.07)
1.23 (0.99)
1.52 (1.07)
Social movements and interest groups were separated based on their organizational structure. Interest groups (e.g., trade unions) have a
T able 4 Sources Used When Reasons Given for an Opinion Sources
Number
% of Total
Tab le 5 Deliberative Quality by Issue
Mean Index No. of Cases Own simple investigation
Personal experience
Own advanced investigation (calculations, legal
1.83 234 references)
21 4.3 Everyday activities
2.09 23 Reference to media
Decision procedure
2.10 48 Use of offi cial reports and documents
5 1.0 Legal mistake
1.76 (2.08)** 43 Use of scientifi c resources
12 2.4 Made decision
1.67 (1.84)** 31 Other (undefi ned sources)
26 5.3 Made proposal
1.92 38 Note : The total number 492 is far larger than 370 because the letters could use
85 17.3 Other issues
Note : For the categories “Made decision” and “Made proposal,” the mean index multiple sources. For example, 72 letters used no sources, 99 used only personal
is signifi cantly higher if the letters on school closures (the mean in parentheses) experience, and 59 used the writers’ own simple investigation and personal
are excluded. Some of the letters are categorized by multiple issues, so the experience.
number of cases adds to more than 370.
418 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014
Civil Society Making Political Claims: Outcries, Interest Advocacy, and Deliberative Claims 419
Conclusion
Citizen-initiated contact with local authorities is often more than just outcries or proclamations, and the deliberative quality of stated claims clearly varies across individuals and groups. More than half of the coded contacts provided reasons for clearly stated positions and even invited a constructive dialogue with authorities. Considering that we examined a very “personal” type of citizens’ participation— written complaints to municipalities often express discontent with something important to the complaining person—this is a surpris- ingly high fi gure. In the case of the more political issue of school closures, the outcries are more common than the fully deliberative claims. Hence, our general fi ndings provide clear empirical support for proponents of deliberative participation (cf. Fung 2006), who argue that citizens are able and willing to provide reasoned argu- ments even in confl icts that aff ect them personally. However, it is important to note that the deliberative quality of the claims varies across the issues at stake.
We found more outcries and fewer deliberative claims when citizens protested against the closure of their schools. Interest advocacy is also common; although these lack alternative proposals, some of the most elaborated argumentation is given in such complaints. As stated earlier in relation to Hendriks (2011), this is not necessar- ily bad news to proponents of deliberation. Reason giving is a key aspect of deliberation, and even if these actors do not explicitly state the intention to participate in constructive dialogue, it forces civil servants and politicians to argue. Moreover, several diff erent sources are used, even some “own simple investigation” or more advanced investigations, which means that civil society presents alternative information to local authorities. Some complaints are supported by detailed analyses with (correct) objections to the municipality’s offi cial economic calculation and include elaborated alternative suggestions. At least to a certain extent, citizen-initiated contact can contribute to an epistemic function in a deliberative system.
Our results, which demonstrate that the quality of arguments is higher when citizens participate in groups and when the issue is framed as a collective good, support scholars arguing for group
reasoning. Hence, civil society delivers more reason-based input to democratic decision making when citizens prepare their position in groups than when they participate as individu- als. It may well be that groups are only better to formulate reasons and are still less open- minded, so we should draw cautious conclu- sions. However, only a few letters from groups are outcries or proclamations, and the diff er- ence between individuals and groups is larger in regard to deliberative claims than interest
advocacy. Hence, groups not only provide resources for reason giving but also aff ect the tone in a deliberative direction.
Although our study is good news for those who believe that citizen- initiated participation can contribute positively to a deliberative system, several caveats have to be taken into account. Th e data used in the article are indeed limited in several aspects, and, to some extent, this should be considered an exploratory study in which we illustrate an approach that could be applied in more complex issues and in other contexts before more defi nite conclusions can
traditional organization with formal memberships and statutes that state internal decision-making bodies. Social movements are loose networks of sustained collective action (e.g., neighborhood socie- ties). Table 6 describes the distribution of the index across these actors.
As expected, a large majority of the letters are sent by individuals or families; the deliberative quality of these letters (1.49) is signifi cantly
lower than the index of any of the groups. 9 Th is supports the argu- ment that groups provide an arena for deliberation before eventual participation and have more resources for performing their own investigations or making use of numerous sources—all of which increases the deliberative quality of their arguments. Hence, there are no indications that “groups go to extremes.”
Th e quality of claims also varies across framing. We coded letters that frame the issues as only important to the author as “personal interest” and letters that frame their argument as something impor- tant to the community or some group as “group interest.” Letters that frame the claims as something that is an improvement for the municipal situation are coded as “municipal- ity interest.” Cases we could not defi ne fell into the category of “other.” Table 7 describes the distribution of the index across these categories; it is clear that letters with mainly personal frames have lower deliberative qual- ity, that is, fewer reasons are given and fewer sources provided to support personal interests.
Once again, we can see that a more collective approach is conducive to more deliberative claims, and the low deliberative index of the letters on school closures “pulls down” the total index for groups. Th e quality of deliberation index is higher for claims that are not framed as a personal interest. Th is is not self-evident. Th ere are reasons to expect that claims that are framed as personal interests need to be even better argued and delivered in a deliberative tone in order to be accepted. Th is does not seem to be the case in the claims in this study.
Tabl e 7 Deliberative Quality by Frame
Frame
All School Issues School Closures
Total No. of
No. of Letters
Mean Index
No. of Letters
Mean Index
Personal interest 59 1.58 4 1 63 1.54 Group interest
149 1.94 33 1.51 182 1.86 Municipality interest
59 1.86 59 1.86 Other/unidentifi ed
57 0.24 9 0.33 66 0.26
Civil society delivers more rea- son-based input to democratic decision making when citizens
prepare their position in groups than when they participate as individuals.
Table 6 Deliberative Quality by Actors All school Issues
School Closures Total No. of
No. of Letters
Mean Index
No. of Letters
Mean Index
One individual or family 277 1.53 30 1.10 307 1.49 Ad hoc group
14 2.57 6 1.26 20 2.10 Social movements
1 3.00 6 1.83 7 2.00 Interest group
3 2.67 3 2.33 6 2.50 Other
18 0.92 1 0 19 0.89 Note : The total number of letters is 359 because in 11 cases we had no
information about the actor.
be drawn. First, we do not know how representative our material
4. Municipalities usually have guidelines for archiving e-mails and letters, while the
is for citizen-initiated contact in Sweden or elsewhere. Th e written
content of the phone calls is not similarly archived and was inaccessible for our
complaints regarding the issues of elementary school or education
analysis.
could be diff erent from those on the environment or infrastructure.
5. We also know how municipalities respond to these letters, but such an analysis is
As noted previously, the issues that involve some confl ict, such as
beyond the aim of this article.
the question of school closures, might encourage less deliberative
6. Coding was mostly done by the research assistant, but to improve the coding
participation. Th erefore, it would be important to pay attention to
reliability, both of the authors were also involved in the fi rst stage of the coding
a larger variety of issues in further research. Second, comparative
process. Th e codebook is available upon request.
research in other contexts would be most welcome. In their study,
7. We know that 69 percent of the letters were answered by the municipality and
Neblo et al. (2010, 577) found that respondents seemed more
that there is no signifi cant correlation between the probability of responding and
willing to deliberate with a government in which they had more
our index of the deliberative quality of the letters.
trust. Hence, we might expect less deliberative behavior in countries
8. “Everyday activities” in table 5 refers to service-related questions usually handled
where government and interpersonal trust are lower than in Sweden.
by bureaucrats and often related to various benefi ts and entitlements that citizens
Moreover, Sweden is known to be particularly rational, techno-
think they should receive.
cratic, and pragmatic compared to most other countries (Bergh and
9. Th e diff erence of the means for individuals and groups is signifi cant at the 95
Erlingsson 2009). If this is true, it might very well be the case that
percent level for the total sample and for the cases of “Municipalities 2011” but
we are dealing with self-reinforcing processes: citizens behave more
not for the letters against school closures.
deliberatively—state opinions clearly supported by reason—if they know that it pays off in the context in which they participate (cf.
References
Gambetta 1998). In such contexts, individuals’ capacity to deliber-
Aars, Jacob, and Kristin Strømsnes. 2007. Contacting as a Channel of Political
ate may evolve (cf. Rosenberg 2007). In other contexts, in which
Involvement: Collectively Motivated Individually Enacted. West European Politics
citizens believe that offi cials care less for reason, a negative reinforc-
ing mechanism that contradicts deliberation might operate. If this
Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2008. Collaborative Governance in Th eory and
is the case, it has important implications for democratic theory and
Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Th eory 18(4): 543–71.
empirical research. Establishing institutions for deliberative par-
Baccaro, Lucio, and Konstantinos Papadakis. 2009. Th e Downside of Participatory-
ticipation may have diff erent eff ects on democracy and democratic
Deliberative Public Administration. Socio-Economic Review 7(2): 245–76.
legitimacy in diff erent contexts (Bächtiger and Hangartner 2010,
Bächtiger, André, and Dominik Hangartner. 2010. When Deliberative Th eory Meets
625). What contextual factors could explain such negative or posi-
Empirical Political Science: Th eoretical and Methodological Challenges in
tive self-reinforcing processes? (if they exist). Th is is one of several
Political Deliberation. Political Studies 58(4): 609–29.
aspects of deliberative civic engagement that calls for more research. Bächtiger, André, Simon Niemeyer, Michael Neblo, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Jürg
Steiner. 2010. Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing
We have shown that many citizens think that reason and evidence
Th eories, Th eir Blind Spots and Complementarities. Journal of Political
matter when they try to infl uence public administration. Such an
Philosophy 18(1): 32–63.
engagement might also encourage policy makers to respond with rea- Barabas, Jason. 2004. How Deliberation Aff ects Policy Opinions. American Political soned arguments, which, in turn, will have implications for how we
Science Review 98(4): 687–701.
train and recruit personnel to public administration. Th e challenge is Bergh, Andreas, and Gissur Ó. Erlingsson. 2009. Liberalization without to create conditions for public administration to be infl uenced by a
Retrenchment: Understanding the Consensus on Swedish Welfare State Reforms.
reasoned exchange of arguments, without opening itself up to lobby-
Scandinavian Political Studies 32(1): 71–93.
ing and manipulation that may exacerbate political inequality.
Black, Laura W. 2012. How People Communicate during Deliberative Events. In Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic
Acknowledgments
Engagement, edited by Tina Nabatchi, John Gastil, G. Michael Weiksner, and
We would like to thank Chris Ansell, Jörgen Hermansson, Mar-
Matt Leighninger, 59–81. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
cus Holdo, Malin Holm, Julia Jennstål, Oscar Söderlund, Torsten
Chambers, Simone. 2009. Rhetoric and the Public Sphere: Has Deliberative
Svensson, and the editors and anonymous reviewers for their
Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy? Political Th eory 37(3): 323–50.
valuable comments. Th e study is part of the research program “Civil De Vries, Raymond, Aimee Stanczyk, Ian F. Wall, Rebecca Uhlmann, Laura Society and Enlightened Welfare Politics,” which is funded by the
J. Damschroder, and Scott Y. Kim. 2010. Assessing the Quality of
Swedish Research Council.
Democratic Deliberation: A Case Study of Public Deliberation on the Ethics of Surrogate Consent for Research. Social Science and Medicine 70(12):
Notes
1. It is apparent that the complainer is dissatisfi ed—it is an expression of dissatis- Dryzek, John S. 2010. Rhetoric in Democracy: A Systematic Appreciation. Political faction—but it is not clear exactly what the complaint is about, or even whether
Th eory 38(3): 319–39.
the issues are within the municipality’s decision-making competence. No clear Dryzek, John S., and Simon Niemeyer. 2010. Foundations and Frontiers in opinion is stated.
Deliberative Governance. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 2. Th is diff ers from another form of contacting called “citizens’ advice,” which
Edlund, Jonas, and Ingemar Johansson Sevä. 2013. Is Sweden Being Torn Apart? many municipalities have initiated since 2002. We look only at actions taken by
Privatization and Old and New Patterns of Welfare State Support. Social Policy citizens’ initiative.
and Administration 47(5): 542–64.
3. We initially selected 30 municipalities, but only 14 of them had a system for Emerson, Kirk, Tina Nabatchi, and Stephen Balogh. 2012. An Integrative archiving the public complaints received in 2011. Of the 14 examined, two—
Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Lycksele and Ödeshög—had no complaints registered during 2011.
Research and Th eory 22(1): 1–29.
420 Public Administration Review • May | June 2014
Fung, Archon. 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance. Special Öberg, PerOla, and Torsten Svensson. 2012. Civil Society and Deliberative issue, Public Administrative Review 66: 66–75.
Democracy: Have Voluntary Organisations Faded from National Public Policy? Gambetta, Diego 1998. Claro! An Essay on Discursive Machismo. In Deliberative Demo-
Scandinavian Political Studies 35(3): 246–71.
cracy, edited by Jon Elster, 19–43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Papadopolus, Yannis. 2012. On the Embeddedness of Deliberative Systems: Why Gastil, John, Katie Knobloch, and Meghan Kelly. 2012. Evaluating Deliberative
Elitist Innovations Matter More. In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy Public Events and Projects. In Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and
at the Large Scale, edited by John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, 125–50. Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement, edited by Tina Nabatchi, John Gastil,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
G. Michael Weiksner, and Matt Leighninger, 205–20. Oxford, UK: Oxford Parkinson, John, and Jane Mansbridge. 2012. Deliberative Systems: Deliberative University Press.
Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Giugni, Marco. 2011. Welfare States, Political Opportunities, and the Mobilization
Petersson, Olof. 1999. Demokrati på svenskt vis. Demokratirådets rapport 1999. of the Unemployed: A Cross-National Analysis. Mobilization: An International
Stockholm, Sweden: SNS Förlag.
Journal 13(3): 297–310. Renwick, Alan, and Michael Lamb. 2012. Th e Quality of Referendum Debate: Th e Goodin, Robert E. 1986. Laundering Preferences. In Foundation of Social Choice
UK’s Electoral System Referendum in the Print Media. Electoral Studies 32(2): Th eory, edited by Jon Elster and Aanund Hylland, 75–101. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press. Rosenberg, Shawn W. 2007. Rethinking Democratic Deliberation: Th e Limits and Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. Th e Th eory of Communicative Action: Reasons and
Potential of Citizen Participation. Polity 39(3): 335–60. Rationalization of Society. Trans. Th omas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.