IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v63y2015ip153-172.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes

Author

Listed:
  • Joan Font
  • Magdalena Wojcieszak
  • Clemente J. Navarro

Abstract

type="main"> In this article, it is shown that citizen process preferences are complex and include several dimensions. The argument relies on data from a representative sample of Spanish citizens (N = 2,450) to assess these dimensions. Using confirmatory factor analysis as well as Mokken analysis, it is shown that citizen process preferences capture support for three different models: participatory, representative and expert-based. The relationships between these dimensions (where the opposition between representation and participation stands as the clearest result) and the substantive and methodological implications of these findings are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Joan Font & Magdalena Wojcieszak & Clemente J. Navarro, 2015. "Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 63, pages 153-172, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:63:y:2015:i::p:153-172
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/1467-9248.12191
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr & Maximilian Lutz & Markus Tepe, 2020. "Deciding how to decide on public goods provision: The role of instrumental vs. intrinsic motives," Working Papers 2018, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    2. Mihaela Constantinescu & Andreea Orîndaru & Ștefan-Claudiu Căescu & Andreea Pachițanu, 2019. "Sustainable Development of Urban Green Areas for Quality of Life Improvement—Argument for Increased Citizen Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Yunyi Qin, 2023. "Grassroots governance and social development: theoretical and comparative legal aspects," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    4. Aguilera, Bernardo & Donya, Razavi s. & Vélez, Claudia-Marcela & Kapiriri, Lydia & Abelson, Julia & Nouvet, Elysee & Danis, Marion & Goold, Susan & Williams, Ieystn & Noorulhuda, Mariam, 2024. "Stakeholder participation in the COVID-19 pandemic preparedness and response plans: A synthesis of findings from 70 countries," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    5. John Mary Kanyamurwa & Joseph Okeyo Obosi, 2020. "The Influence of Citizen Competence on District Level Political Accountability in Uganda," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 10(3), pages 443462-4434, December.
    6. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    7. Soliño, Mario & Raposo, Rosa, 2022. "Contributing to healthy forests: Social preferences for pest and disease mitigation programs in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    8. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    9. Ernesto Ganuza & Joan Font, 2020. "Experts in Government: What for? Ambiguities in Public Opinion Towards Technocracy," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 520-532.
    10. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2019. "How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis," SocArXiv 5t72a, Center for Open Science.
    11. Philipp Harms & Claudia Landwehr, 2017. "Preferences for direct democracy: intrinsic or instrumental? Evidence from a survey experiment," Working Papers 1719, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    12. Reinhard Heinisch & Carsten Wegscheider, 2020. "Disentangling How Populism and Radical Host Ideologies Shape Citizens’ Conceptions of Democratic Decision-Making," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 32-44.
    13. Grieco, Daniela & Bripi, Francesco, 2022. "Participation of charity beneficiaries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1-17.
    14. Claudia Landwehr & Thorsten Faas, 2017. "Who Wants Democratic Innovations, and Why?," Working Papers 1705, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    15. Antonio Arcos & Maria del Mar Rueda & Sara Pasadas-del-Amo, 2020. "Treating Nonresponse in Probability-Based Online Panels through Calibration: Empirical Evidence from a Survey of Political Decision-Making Procedures," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-16, March.
    16. Soliño, M. & Alía, R. & Agúndez, D., 2020. "Citizens' preferences for research programs on forest genetic resources: A case applied to Pinus pinaster Ait. in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    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:63:y:2015:i::p:153-172. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.