IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v58y2010i4p688-714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Maija Setälä
  • Kimmo Grönlund
  • Kaisa Herne

Abstract

This article analyses the impact of decision‐making methods on democratic deliberation. An experiment was designed to study the effects of two distinct decision‐making methods. This citizen deliberation experiment took place in November 2006. The topic was: ‘Should a sixth nuclear power plant be built in Finland?’ A random sample of 2,500 people was first polled and invited to take part in the deliberation experiment. Eventually, 135 people took part in the event where they read written information, heard an expert panel and deliberated in small groups. The participants were randomly divided into two treatments. In the first treatment, the small group decisions were made through a secret ballot. In the second treatment, each group was asked to formulate a common statement reflecting the group's opinion. The present article analyses changes in the participants' opinions and knowledge, as well as indicators of social pressures. There were no systematic differences between the treatments in terms of opinion changes but the participants' knowledge increased more in the common statement groups. When it comes to social pressures, the results show no systematic differences between the treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Maija Setälä & Kimmo Grönlund & Kaisa Herne, 2010. "Citizen Deliberation on Nuclear Power: A Comparison of Two Decision‐Making Methods," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 688-714, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:58:y:2010:i:4:p:688-714
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00822.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00822.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00822.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luskin, Robert C. & Fishkin, James S. & Jowell, Roger, 2002. "Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 455-487, July.
    2. John S. Dryzek & Simon Niemeyer, 2006. "Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 634-649, July.
    3. James S. Fishkin, 2003. "Consulting the public through deliberative polling," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(1), pages 128-133.
    4. Frohlich, Norman & Oppenheimer, Joe A., 1990. "Choosing Justice in Experimental Democracies with Production," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 84(2), pages 461-477, June.
    5. Maeve Cooke, 2000. "Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 48(5), pages 947-969, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pankaj Koirala & Raja Rajendra Timilsina & Koji Kotani, 2021. "Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-18, July.
    2. John C. Besley & Sang‐Hwa Oh, 2014. "The Impact of Accident Attention, Ideology, and Environmentalism on American Attitudes Toward Nuclear Energy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 949-964, May.
    3. Mikko Leino & Katariina Kulha & Maija Setälä & Juha Ylisalo, 2022. "Expert hearings in mini-publics: How does the field of expertise influence deliberation and its outcomes?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 429-450, September.
    4. Dawn Nafus & Eve M. Schooler & Karly Ann Burch, 2021. "Carbon-Responsive Computing: Changing the Nexus between Energy and Computing," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-26, October.
    5. Katariina Kulha & Mikko Leino & Maija Setälä & Maija Jäske & Staffan Himmelroos, 2021. "For the Sake of the Future: Can Democratic Deliberation Help Thinking and Caring about Future Generations?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, May.
    6. Kaat Smets & Pierangelo Isernia, 2014. "The role of deliberation in attitude change: An empirical assessment of three theoretical mechanisms," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 389-409, September.
    7. Maczka, Krzysztof & Matczak, Piotr & Mielewczyk, Marcin & Przewoźna, Patrycja & Inglot, Adam & Wężyk, Piotr & Zięba-Kulawik, Karolina & Hawryło, Paweł, 2023. "Narratives on cutting down trees on private land. A comparison of urban and rural municipalities in Poland using the Q-deliberation method," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Álvarez-Farizo, Begoña & Gil, José M. & Howard, B.J., 2009. "Impacts from restoration strategies: Assessment through valuation workshops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 787-797, January.
    2. Nicole Curato & Marit Böker, 2016. "Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: a research agenda," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(2), pages 173-190, June.
    3. Ank Michels & Harmen Binnema, 2018. "Deepening and Connecting Democratic Processes. The Opportunities and Pitfalls of Mini-Publics in Renewing Democracy," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-13, November.
    4. Anke Gerber & Andreas Nicklisch & Stefan Voigt, 2013. "Strategic Choices for Redistribution and the Veil of Ignorance: Theory and Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 4423, CESifo.
    5. Tim Krieger & Christine Meemann & Stefan Traub, 2022. "Inequality, Life Expectancy, and the Intragenerational Redistribution Puzzle - Some Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9677, CESifo.
    6. David Bjerk, 2016. "In front of and behind the veil of ignorance: an analysis of motivations for redistribution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(4), pages 791-824, December.
    7. Daniel Müller & Sander Renes, 2021. "Fairness views and political preferences: evidence from a large and heterogeneous sample," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 56(4), pages 679-711, May.
    8. Walmsley, Heather L., 2011. "Stock options, tax credits or employment contracts please! The value of deliberative public disagreement about human tissue donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-216, July.
    9. Emanuela Ceva, 2012. "Just interactions in value conflicts: The Adversary Argumentation Principle," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(2), pages 149-170, May.
    10. Leonardo Becchetti & Giacomo Degli Antoni & Stefania Ottone & Nazaria Solferino, 2011. "Spectators versus stakeholders with or without veil of ignorance: The difference it makes for justice and chosen distribution criteria," Working Papers 204, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    11. Jimmy Donaghey, 2008. "Deliberation, Employment Relations and Social Partnership in the Republic of Ireland," Economic and Industrial Democracy, Department of Economic History, Uppsala University, Sweden, vol. 29(1), pages 35-63, February.
    12. Delshad, Ashlie B. & Raymond, Leigh & Sawicki, Vanessa & Wegener, Duane T., 2010. "Public attitudes toward political and technological options for biofuels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3414-3425, July.
    13. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    14. Tausch, Franziska & Potters, Jan & Riedl, Arno, 2013. "Preferences for redistribution and pensions. What can we learn from experiments?," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 298-325, July.
    15. Sausgruber, Rupert & Sonntag, Axel & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2021. "Disincentives from redistribution: evidence on a dividend of democracy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    16. Hugh Ward & Aletta Norval & Todd Landman & Jules Pretty, 2003. "Open Citizens’ Juries and the Politics of Sustainability," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(2), pages 282-299, June.
    17. Robert E. Goodin & Simon J. Niemeyer, 2003. "When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(4), pages 627-649, December.
    18. Francesco Farina & Stefania Ottone & Ferruccio Ponzano, 2019. "On the Collective Choice among Models of Social Protection: An Experimental Study," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, October.
    19. Tasos Hovardas, 2021. "Social Sustainability as Social Learning: Insights from Multi-Stakeholder Environmental Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-20, July.
    20. Kurtis Swope & John Cadigan & Pamela Schmitt & Robert Shupp, 2008. "Social Position and Distributive Justice: Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(3), pages 811-818, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:58:y:2010:i:4:p:688-714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.