IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i14p7735-d592359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effects and Antecedents of Perceived Fairness in the Deliberative Process for Sustainable Citizens’ Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Jungin Kim

    (Department of Public Administration, The University of Suwon, 17, Wauan-gil, Bongdam-eup, Hwaseong 445743, Korea)

Abstract

Based on the data from Korean citizen’s deliberation experiments, we examined the effects and antecedents of perceived fairness of the deliberative process. Our empirical study tested whether the perceived fairness of the deliberative process was associated with the outcomes of deliberation (changes in civic participants’ opinions) and explored antecedents that facilitated the perceived fairness of the deliberative process. We found that perceived fairness of the deliberative process positively increased civic participants’ opinion change, information reliability, and culture of acceptance in the deliberative process cultivated the perceived fairness of deliberative process when we controlled personal orientation and characteristics (e.g., political orientation, gender, age and etc.). These results identified conditions for effectively facilitating deliberative civic engagement in the policy decision-making process.

Suggested Citation

  • Jungin Kim, 2021. "The Effects and Antecedents of Perceived Fairness in the Deliberative Process for Sustainable Citizens’ Participation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7735-:d:592359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7735/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7735/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Carman, 2010. "The Process is the Reality: Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Participatory Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 731-751, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Barabas, Jason, 2004. "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 687-701, November.
    4. Christopher Carman, 2010. "The Process is the Reality: Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Participatory Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58, pages 731-751, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Luís Aguiar-Conraria & Pedro C. Magalhães, 2018. "Procedural Fairness, the Economy, and Support for Political Authorities (Forthcoming at Political Psychology (submitted pre-print version))," NIPE Working Papers 05/2018, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    2. Pedro C. Magalhães & Luís Aguiar-Conraria, 2017. "Procedural Fairness and Economic Voting," NIPE Working Papers 07/2017, NIPE - Universidade do Minho.
    3. Martina Bavastrelli, 2015. "(English) Democracy and deliberation. Can discussion changes opinions? (Italiano) Democrazia e deliberazione. Discutere fa cambiare opinione?," IRPPS Working Papers 76:2015, National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies.
    4. Andrew G.H. Thompson & Oliver Escobar & Jennifer J. Roberts & Stephen Elstub & Niccole M. Pamphilis, 2021. "The Importance of Context and the Effect of Information and Deliberation on Opinion Change Regarding Environmental Issues in Citizens’ Juries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Baccaro, Lucio & Simoni, Marco, 2010. "Organizational determinants of wage moderation," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 33510, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Marlène Gerber & André Bächtiger & Irena Fiket & Marco Steenbergen & Jürg Steiner, 2014. "Deliberative and non-deliberative persuasion: Mechanisms of opinion formation in EuroPolis," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 410-429, September.
    7. Daniele Archibugi & Martina Bavastrelli & Marco Cellini, 2018. "Does discussion lead to opinion change? An experiment in deliberative democracy," Management Working Papers 14, Birkbeck Department of Management, revised Feb 2021.
    8. Salil Benegal & Mikhael Shor, 2016. "Procedural Justice and Political Risk," Working papers 2016-30, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    9. Zhu, Zhongkun & Ma, Wanglin & Sousa-Poza, Alfonso & Leng, Chenxin, 2020. "The effect of internet usage on perceptions of social fairness: Evidence from rural China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    10. Henrik Serup Christensen, 2019. "Boosting Political Trust with Direct Democracy? The Case of the Finnish Citizens’ Initiative," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 173-186.
    11. Patrick Bernhagen & Hermann Schmitt, 2014. "Deliberation, political knowledge and vote choice: Results from an experiment with second-order elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 352-371, September.
    12. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    13. Meirowitz, Adam, 2005. "Deliberative Democracy or Market Democracy: Designing Institutions to Aggregate Preferences and Information," Papers 03-28-2005, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    14. George Butler & Gabriella Pigozzi & Juliette Rouchier, 2019. "Mixing Dyadic and Deliberative Opinion Dynamics in an Agent-Based Model of Group Decision-Making," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-31, August.
    15. 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.
    16. Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I., 2015. "Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 110-117.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Benjamin A. Lyons, 2019. "Discussion Network Activation: An Expanded Approach to Selective Exposure," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(3), pages 32-41.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7735-:d:592359. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.