Effects of (Local) Participatory Options on Representative Democracy – Preliminary Findings First Draft! Please do not quote without permission of the author

Prof. Dr. Brigitte Geissel Chair of Research Unit Democratic Innovations Goethe University Frankfurt [email protected]

Abstract: Although participatory options and procedures are en vogue since the 1990s, research on their effects on representative democracy just started. How do (local) participatory options and procedures influence the performance of a political system and which effects do they have on citizens’ political attitudes? Due to the availability of data we focus in this paper mainly on direct democratic options. We test first, whether especially local direct democratic options have positive effects – compared to direct democratic options at the national level – and second, whether local bottom-up or top-down options generate different effects. Empirical data from a variety of different sources is applied. In the conclusion we discuss the limitations of our research as well as future research challenges.

Paper prepared for presentation at the ECPR General Conference, Glasgow, UK, 3 – 6 September, 2014. Section: Contemporary Local Self-Governance and Democracy – Challenges and Responses Panel: Effects of Non-Electoral Participation in Local Politics (P078) Time: 04/09/2014 09:00 Location: Building: Boyd Orr Floor: 5 Room: C LT

1

Since its invention democracy has experienced several changes. The development from direct decision making of a few citizens in the city of Athens towards representative democracy in large states is probably the most well-known change. Democracy was always a resilient concept – able to adapt to new societal challenges and needs. This is also the case today. As it turned out representative democracies do not necessarily satisfy their citizenries. In fact, worrying tendencies in contemporary democratic systems give rise to concern. Citizens have become more critical of democratic institutions and political actors, such as political parties, politicians and parliaments (Dalton et al. 2004). The most common way of participating – voting at elections – has declined in most democracies since the 1970s and the share of citizens belonging to political parties has waned dramatically. It is now most widely acknowledged, that, as Diamond and Morlino (2005) formulated, also “long-established democracies must reform … to attend to their own gathering problems of public dissatisfaction and … disillusionment”. However, what are the effects of these adaptions? Several participatory options and procedures have been put forward and tried out with the aim of involving citizens in political will-formation and decision-making (Geißel/Joas 2013; Geissel/Newton 2012; Saward 2000; Smith 2009). For example, a variety of direct democratic options found their way into the constitutions of many new democracies, dialog-oriented procedures such as participatory budgeting are proliferating worldwide and even the European Commission has promoted citizens’ participation in its decision making process. However, most innovations take part at the local level. Therefore the local level is especially interesting for scrutinizing the effects of participatory options and procedures. In its attempt to gather information about effects of participatory options and procedures at the local level, this paper refers to the framework spelled out by Angelika Vetter and Joan Font in the abstract of this panel. However, since not all dimensions in the Vetter/Font– framework are well-examined or at least well-documented, we choose the dimensions most data is available up to now: (1) Performance of the political system and (2) citizens’ political attitudes. We take into account dialog-oriented citizens involvement and direct democratic instruments; due to data availability however, in this paper we focus on direct democracy.

The paper starts with a brief description of direct democratic options and dialog-oriented procedures. Then we introduce the hypotheses about the effects of direct democratic options on system performance and on citizens’ political attitudes we intend to test. In the chapter on 2

empirical findings the paper combines an overview of state of the art with our own research. In the conclusion we summarize the findings and discuss challenges of future research.

1. Direct democratic options and dialog-oriented procedures 1.1 Direct democratic options Direct democracy is currently popular in many representative democracies as an additional and complementary form of decision-making. 1 Direct democratic options can be consultative or binding, obligatory, i.e. constitutionally required, as well as initiated top-down by political representatives (e.g. parliament, city council, president, mayor) or bottom-up by citizens (‘initiative’). 2 Some procedures are decision-controlling, referring to a law(-proposal), or decision-promoting, putting issues on the political agenda (Kriesi 2012).3 For the purpose of this paper we propose a typology with cross-national applicability. Based on earlier typologies for direct democracy (e.g., IDEA 2008; IRI 2010), we differentiate between obligatory referendum, top-down referendum, citizens’ initiative and bottom-up referendum (Table 1; see for further differentiations e.g. Appendix, Fig. 4). Table 1: Direct democratic options: Preliminary typology

Obligatory Top-down Referendum Initiative Bottom-up Referendum

Many governments have established direct democratic options since the 1990s at the national as well as at the local level. Some countries allow one direct democratic option, e.g. obligatory referenda, others allow a variety of different options (e.g. Gherghina 2014; Geißel/Joas 2013; Geissel/Newton 2012). Some countries provide direct democratic options only at the national level, some only at the local level and some at both levels.

1

2

3

Over 20 institutional changes offering improved options for direct democracy have been introduced in OECD countries within the last decades and the trend is continuing (Scarrow 2001). The terminology used in the literature is rather blurred and intricate. Some authors use, for example, the term ‘referendum’ for all forms of direct democratic procedures including popular initiatives (e.g. Setälä 2006); other authors differentiate between popular initiatives initiated by the citizens and referenda initiated by representatives. Direct democratic procedures also differ vastly in terms of the number of signatures required to launch a citizens’ petition or the minimum quota of participants casting their votes for a popular vote to be accepted as valid. (see Mittendorf 2008)

3

Exemplarily, the following figure gives an overview of the distribution of direct democratic options for the local and subnational level in European democracies, established in constitutions or laws (Gherghina 2014). Regulations for both regional and local level are included. The majority of European democracies provides one, two or three subnational direct democratic options (Figure 1). Two countries offer a wide range of options with nine provisions regarding direct democracy at subnational and local level, i.e. Germany and Switzerland. At the other extreme, Greece is the only country with no direct democracy at the subnational/local level.4 Figure 1: Direct democratic instruments for the local/subnational level in European countries

Source: Gherghina 2014

1.2 Dialog-oriented procedures The concept of dialog-oriented procedures emphasizes discursive will-formation – in contrast to the aggregative modus of voting. Dialog-oriented procedures can have many different faces – ranging on a ‘continuum of dialog-oriented procedures’ from minimum to extensive deliberation. The most widespread forms are information-exchanging events with a minimum of discussion, e.g. public meetings. These public meetings can be located on the ‘continuum of dialog-oriented procedures’ at the minimum deliberative, information-exchanging side. On the side with extensive deliberation, high-quality deliberative procedures can be found with well-organized deliberative processes, well-recruited participants, well-prepared background

4

There is no correlation between the provisions of direct democracy at national and subnational level.

4

materials, including invited experts, facilitators, and mediators, for example Deliberative Polls (Fishkin/Luskin 2004).

Generally dialog-oriented procedures are consultative. They produce and provide elaborate advice which is normally submitted to decision-making bodies. The decision-making bodies decide whether they accept or reject the advice. Dialog-oriented procedures are often adopted in small-scale units and are initiated for different reasons, for instance to negotiate compromises in contentious situations, to identify collective goals, or to generate new ideas. The recruitment of the participants reflects the multitude of forms. Some procedures comprise of self-selected participants, in other procedures participants are selected carefully to mirror the social composition of the constituency. Most research on dialog-oriented procedures is up to now conducted as case studies. Quantitative data sets are still missing. 2. Hypotheses Until recently literature provided rather unspecific expectations about the impacts of participatory options which could hardly by tested empirically, e.g. the hypothesis that “the cure for democracies’ ills is more democracy” (Dalton et al. 2006: 251). However, research proceeded and today a variety of rather specific expectations can be found, which are structured in this paper referring to the concept provided by Vetter and Font, focusing on impacts on citizens’ attitudes and on system performance. The improvement of citizens’ attitudes and skills (or even citizens’ enlightenment) is often regarded as a major advantage of participatory options and procedures. Democratic attitudes and skills are expected to be enhanced via participatory options. Some authors even anticipate that “participating in democratic decisions makes participants better citizens”, increases tolerance, public spiritedness, or the ability to listen and to compromise (Fung/Wright 2001; Mansbridge 1999; Gundersen 1995: 6, 112; Pateman 1970). Within the literature on participatory innovations a vast amount of direct-democracy-studies has been dealing with effects on citizens’ political attitudes and civic skills (e.g. Geißel/Joas 2013; Geissel/Newton 2012; Beetham 2012). This literature covers a variety of aspects expecting mainly positive impacts on the citizenry (e.g. Beetham 2012; Batt 2007; Hirsch 2002; Smith 2002).

5

The improvement of political performance is the second dimension to be examined. Participatory procedures are often expected to generate better and more effective policies.5 As the European Commission stated: “The effectiveness of policies depends on ensuring wide participation” (EU White Paper, 2001). During the formulation of policies, the incorporation of citizens with their local knowledge would lead to innovative and locally appropriate problem solving. In the decision-making phase, participatory governance would go along with better policies, because, as proponents argue, citizens would be interested in long-term development, hinder corruption and will finally lead to better system performance (Corburn, 2003). In this paper these expectations are differentiated further in order to develop suitable hypotheses for the Vetter/Font-panel. As research by Vetter (2007) or Mayne (2011) has already demonstrated, the local level is of special importance for the development of citizens’ political attitudes and opinions. When this is the case in general, it might also be true for participatory options. Thus we will exam whether local participatory options do have other and more positive impacts on citizens’ attitudes than options at the national level. H 1: Local participatory options have more positive impacts on citizens’ political attitudes than direct democratic options at the national level. In this context it might be worth examining whether local direct democratic options also have an impact on the performance of a political system. This is not yet a well-developed hypothesis, but a kind of hunch we are aiming to test. H 2 Local participatory options have more positive impacts on system performance than democratic options at the national level. Recent research has already shown that different direct democratic options generate different outcomes (Vatter 2007). It might be worth examining whether different direct democratic options also have different impacts on citizens’ political attitudes and political performance. H 3: Especially local bottom-up initiatives have positive impacts on system performance as well as on citizens’ attitudes.

5 Output means policies and public spending, outcome refers to the actual resolution of the problem. For example, studies on output ask about policies and public spending concerning the health care or education systems, whereas studies on outcome look at the actual achievement, e.g. low infant mortality or high educational level of the population. From this perspective, (output) legitimacy is achieved when a political system provides these goods.

6

3. Empirical findings: State of the Art and own research Many studies on direct democratic options focus explicitly or implicitly on the question of impacts. Studies on dialog-oriented procedures mostly focus on citizens’, i.e. participants’ attitudes, skills or even enlightenment (exception: Goodin/Dryzek 2006). Studies on direct democracy also examine the effects on system performance. 6 Because of data availability we focus on direct democratic options in this paper (see for an overview of the literature evaluating participatory procedures in general Appendix, Tab. 4 and Tab. 5).

For the purpose of our paper we are not only interested in data or studies about impacts of direct democratic options on citizens and system performance. We are especially interested in studies and data differentiating between direct democratic options at the local and the national level or focusing explicitly on the local/subnational level (H 1 and H 2). Furthermore we searched for studies and for data allowing for the comparison of effects of different direct democratic options (H 3; see typology Tab. 1).

This chapter starts with a summary of a study of how citizens evaluate the impacts of (local) participatory options in Germany (ch. 3.1). It then proceeds to findings on impacts of (local/subnational) direct democratic options in Switzerland and US-States (ch. 3.2). In the following sub-chapter cross-national analysis is conducted, comparing citizens’ attitudes and system performance in democracies providing different degrees of (local/subnational) direct democratic options (ch 3.3). Finally the different results are summarized in a comparing synopsis (ch. 3.4).

3.1 Germany: Opinions of citizens about the effects of direct democratic options In 2013 the Bertelsmann Foundation conducted a comprehensive survey on opinions of citizens and political representatives about participatory options in 27 municipalities (2700 citizens and 580 politicians). The data is not yet released for public use and here we can only cite some of the most interesting results.

6

Research on direct democracy is covering a variety of different topics. Some studies ask, for example, which direct democratic options have been implemented in which country and how often they had been used, or which factors lead to the implementation or the usage of direct democratic options. These questions are without doubt important. However, in the wake of our research question we will analyze literature concerned about the impacts of direct democratic options on citizens’ attitudes and system performance.

7

Almost 80% of citizens say that dialog with citizens before making a political decision is most important. 69% regard direct democratic decision making as most important, only 63% consider voting as most important. Almost 70% of the interviewees would take part in direct democratic decision making, more than 50% would take part in dialog-oriented procedures, and only 30% are interested in taking part in political parties’ or city councils’ activities. Citizens generally prefer participatory involvement beyond voting. Citizens active in direct democratic or dialog-oriented procedures most likely also engage in traditional forms of political participation. New, participatory forms of participation obviously do not replace or substitute activities in the context of representative democracy. All these forms are complementary. Citizens are overwhelmingly more often inclined to accept a political decision when they were involved via dialog-oriented procedures or direct-democratic decision making. In contrast they stated that they are less willing to accept a political decision just made by the local city council.7 Citizens emphasize that it makes a big difference, whether they were included in political decision making of not. Acceptance of political decisions strongly depends on their involvement.

Citizens do not only want to be involved for the sake of involvement. They are also sure that their involvement would improve political decisions. 70% of the interviewees are convinced that decisions are better if citizens are included in the process of will-formation (dialogoriented procedures), more than 60% are convinced that decisions are better when made via direct democratic procedures, only 39% think that decisions are better when they are made by the city council alone. The majority of citizens is also positive about further benefits of participatory options. City council and administration would get more information about the needs and interests of the citizens when citizens are involved. Citizens would provide new and innovative ideas and bad city planning would be avoided.

7

„Wenn die Bürger selbst direkt über eine politische Frage entscheiden können, sind sie eher dazu bereit, ein Ergebnis zu akzeptieren, mit dem sie inhaltlich nicht einverstanden sind.“ „Wenn die Bürger bei politischen Entscheidungen gehört werden und mitdiskutieren können, sind sie eher dazu bereit, ein Ergebnis zu akzeptieren, mit dem sie inhaltlich nicht einverstanden sind, selbst wenn die endgültige Entscheidung bei den gewählten Vertretern liegt.“ „Für die Akzeptanz politischer Entscheidungen durch die Bürger spielt Bürgerbeteiligung keine große Rolle. Wichtig ist, dass der Gemeinderat seine Arbeit offen, fair und sachgerecht erledigt.“

8

3.2 Switzerland and the USA: Comparing member states with different degrees of direct democracy Two cases, Switzerland and US states, are generally referred to in studies measuring the effect of direct democratic options and procedures (e.g. Kriesi 2012; Vatter 2007; Freitag/Wagschaal 2007; Matsusaka 2004; Frey 1994). These studies compare member states within Switzerland (Kantone) respectively the USA (American states) with different degrees of direct democracy and examine whether citizens’ attitudes and system performance are related to direct democratic options.

Among the most crucial findings are that direct democracy increases the level of political knowledge and interest among a citizenry (e.g. Benz/Stutzer 2004; Tolbert/McNeal/Smith 2003), helps citizens to understand the link between the public and the private, improves external and internal political efficacy (Gilens et al. 2001; Bowler/Todd 2002), cures political disenchantment (Eder 2011), improves external and internal political efficacy (Gilens et al. 2001; Bowler/Todd 2002; Tolbert/Smith 2005), increases political trust, enhances satisfaction with democracy (Kriesi 2012; Hug 2005), leads to more considerate citizens’ attitudes, fosters civil engagement as well as tolerance (Mendelsohn/Cutler 2000) and can also increase deliberative abilities (LeDuc 2007). Taking these studies serious we can state that subnational direct democratic options have a positive of effect on citizens’ political skills, attitudes and opinions. Considering the dimension of system performance less studies are available. This branch of research is concerned about impacts of direct democratic options on for example the tax systems or state debts. Member states with comprehensive direct democratic options seem to provide public services more efficiently – at least in Switzerland. Their budget seems to be also more balanced and they keep a stronger financial discipline. However, the situation looks somewhat different in the USA, where findings are more inconsistent (e.g. Budge 2012; Kriesi 2012; Feld 2006; Lutz/Hug 2006; Hug 2005; Bowler/Donovan 2004). Very few studies compared explicitly the impacts of different direct democratic options at the subnational level. They detected that different options in fact have different effects. The most citied finding considers differences between bottom-up and top-down initiatives on policy decisions. According to a study on Switzerland bottom-up initiatives support more often

9

innovations whereas top-down initiatives more often support the status-quo (Freitag/Vatter/Müller 2003). All these studies, however, are limited to one or two cases – Switzerland and USA-states. Based on these two cases, generalization of findings is hardly possible.

3. 3 Cross-national analyses Recently, a couple of scholars started to examine the impacts of direct democratic instruments in cross-national perspective. Gherghina (2014), for example, studied the correlation between (subnational) direct democratic options and perceived legitimacy in established democracies in Western Europe. Legitimacy was measured as an index of acceptance of basic rules of democracy, evaluation of regime performance and support for institutions (data: European Values Study 2008). The main results indicate that provisions for direct democracy at the subnational level are positively associated with legitimacy, but not the provision of direct democracy at the national level. The following figure gives an example of the relation between local/subnational direct democratic options and legitimacy within selected countries (Figure 2). Figure 2: Local/subnational direct democratic options and perceived legitimacy in Western European states

Grey dot:

number of direct democratic options

Black dot:

Perceived legitimacy

Source; Ghergina 2014

The Research Unit on Democratic Innovations, Goethe University Frankfurt, recently started a more comprehensive analyses of correlations between direct democratic options on the one 10

hand and citizens’ political attitudes as well as system performance on the other hand. This study is just in the beginning and up to now we can provide only first, preliminary results. We calculated correlations between direct democratic options at the national and the subnational/local level (data source: c2d, IDEA, direct-democracy-navigator.org) with legitimacy (measured as citizens’ perception of the functioning of democracy in their country, WVS) and several performance indicators (World Bank Governance Indicators)8 for well-off democracies (GDP/ppp ≥ 20.000$ p.a.). We excluded poor democracies, because obviously comparisons between poverty-stricken and fairly wealthy democracies will most like generate no reasonable results. Furthermore we only included those countries, for which data on direct democratic options at the local/subnational level as well as on system performance was available.

We found no effects of any direct democratic options at the national level (top-down or bottom-up) and no effects of top-down options at the local level. However, we found positive effects of bottom-up initiatives at the local/subnational level. The following figure summarizes the preliminary findings (Figure 3).

8

Voice & Accountability Index; Government Effectiveness Index; Rule of Law Index; Control of Corruption Index

11

Figure 3: Preliminary findings: Correlations of national and subnational/local direct democratic options and system performance and legitimacy (countries with GDP/ppp ≥ 20.000$ p.a.)

Calculated and designed with Jonathan R. Rinne

In democracies allowing for bottom-up initiatives at the local level ‘voice and accountability’, government effectiveness, rule of law as well as control of corruption work better and citizens are more convinced about the functioning of democracy in their country (see Table 2). Table 2: Correlations of bottom-up local initiatives and citizens‘ attitudes as well as system performance (countries with GDP/ppp ≥ 20.000$ p.a.)

Voice & Government Rule of Accountability Effectiveness Law Initiatives (subnational level)

Pearson ,365 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) ,052 N 29

Control of Democraticness of Corruption own country (WVS)

,552**

,528**

,480**

,473

,002

,003

,008

,065

29

29

29

16

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

3.4 Comparison of findings The following table combines the findings in a preliminary way. We took only those dimensions into account, for which data was available considering Swiss/US member states as well as considering the cross-national analysis. 12

Table 3: Comparision of findings

Swiss Kantone/ Cross-national analysis, US-member-states (countries with GDP/ppp ≥ 20Tsd. $) Legitimacy

+

Only if option subnational bottom-up initiatives

Efficient provision of public services / government effectiveness

+

Only if option subnational bottom-up initiatives

Voice and Accountability

+

Only if option subnational bottom-up initiatives

Less corruption

+

Only if option subnational bottom-up initiatives

4. Conclusion This paper aims at examining the effects of participatory options on citizens‘ political attitudes and system performance. Due to data availability we limited our research to direct democratic options. Three hypotheses regarding differences between national and subnational/local as well as differences between diverse direct democratic options guided the examinations. The findings are preliminary and need certainly more detailed analyses.

However, all three hypotheses can be confirmed. Comparisons of member states within Switzerland and the USA respectively show that direct democratic options at the local/subnational have positive impacts on citizens’ political attitudes and often also on system performance. According to our cross-national analysis, local participatory options have more positive impacts on citizens’ political attitudes than participatory options at the national level (H 1). Local participatory options also have more positive impacts on system performance than participatory options at the national level (H 2). Especially local bottom-up initiatives seem to influence system performance and citizens‘ attitudes in a positive way (H3).

We are well aware that our preliminary findings have several limitations. First, the correlations between subnational bottom-up initiatives on the one side and democratic performance as well as citizens’ political attitudes on the other side have to be examined more thoroughly to avoid statistical artifacts. If the empirical findings hold true a thorough theoretical explanation is needed. Up to now the correlation is not explained theoretically, but 13

the hypotheses were developed based on intuitive ‘hunches’. For the development of a theoretical explanation more empirical as well as theoretical research is necessary. Finally, this paper left out the evaluation of (local) dialog-oriented procedures. Future research, however, will have to examine also the effects of dialog-oriented procedures not only on citizens’ political attitudes, but also on system performance.

References Abelson, Julia/Francois-Pierre Gauvin 2006. Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation. Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications. Ottawa, Canada. Canadian Policy Research Networks CPRN. Abromeit, Heidrun 2003. Nutzen und Risiken direktdemokratischer Instrumente. In. Claus Offe (Hrsg.. Demokratisierung der Demokratie. Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge. Frankfurt a. M.. Campus, S. 95-110. Almond, Gabriel A. & Sidney Verba, 1963. The Civic Culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Newbury Park, CA.. Sage Publications. Altmann 2010. Direct Democracy worldwide, Cambridge University Press Batt, Helge 2007. Der partizipative Staatsbürger. Über den Zusammenhang zwischen partizipatorischer Demokratie, Demokratiebewusstsein und Politischer Bildung, in. Dirk Lange and Gerhard Himmelmann. Demokratiebewusstsein, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Beck, Ralf-Uwe 2013. Direkte Demokratie und soziale Exklusion, Berlin, Ms., Mehr Demokratie e.V Beetham, David 2012. Evaluating new vs old forms of citizen engagement and participation, in. Geissel, Brigitte/Newton, Ken. Evaluating Democratic Innovations, Routledge. Benz, Matthias, and Alois Stutzer 2004. Are Voters Better Informed When They Have a Larger Say in Politics? Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland, Public Choice 119(1-2), 2004, pp. 31-59. Boehmke, Frederick J./ Bowena, Daniel C. 2010. Direct Democracy and Individual Interest Group Membership, in. The Journal of Politics, vol. 72 , issue 3, 659-671. Boehmke, Frederick J. 2005. The Indirect Effect of Direct Legislation. How Institutions Shape Interest Group Systems, Ohio State University Press. Bolliger, Christian. 2007. Minderheiten in der direkten Demokratie. Die Medaille hat auch eine Vorderseite. In. Markus Freitag und Uwe Wagschal (Hrsg.), Direkte Demokratie. Münster. LIT, 419-446. Bovens, Mark. 2010. Two Concepts of Accountability. Accountability as a Virtue and as a Mechanism. West European Politics 33 (5. 946-967. Bowler, Shaun und Todd Donovan. 2004. Measuring the Effect of Direct Democracy on State Policy. Not all Initiatives are created equal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 4. 345-363. Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan. 2002. Democracy, Institutions and Attitudes about Citizen Influence on Government, in. British Journal of Political Science, 32. 371-90, Bowler, Shaun; Todd Donovan 2001. Popular Control of Referendum Agendas. Implications for Democratic outcomes and Minority Rights. In. Matthew Mendelsohn und Andrew Parkin (Hrsg.. Referendum Democracy. Citizens, Elites and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns. New York. Palgrave Macmillan, S 125-146 Budge, Ian 2012. Implementing popul ar Preferences, in. Geissel, Brigitte/Newton, Ken. Evaluating Democratic Innovations, Routledge. Budge, Ian 1996. The New Challenge of Direct Democracy, Cambridge/Oxford. Bühlmann, Marc, Wolfgang Merkel, Lisa Müller, Heiko Giebler, Bernhard Wessels, Daniel Bochsler, Miriam Hänni und Karima Bousbah 2013. Democracy Barometer. Codebook for Blueprint Dataset Version 3. Aarau. Zentrum für Demokratie. Bühlmann Marc/Wolfgang Merkel,/Bernhard Wessels 2008. The Quality of Democracy. Democracy Barometer for Established Democracies, working paper 10a of the the nccr democracy 21. Bühlmann, Marc 2007. “Direkte Demokratie und Politische Unterstützung”. In. Direkte Demokratie. Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich. Ed. by Markus Freitag and Uwe Wagschal. Berlin. Lit., pp. 217–250 Burgess, Jacquelin & Chilvers, Jason 2006. Participatory assessment, in. Science and Public Policy, vol. 33, nr. 10, 713-728. Carnes, S.A./M. Schweitzer/E.B. Peelle/A.K. Wolfe/J.F. Munro, 1998. Measuring the success of public participation on environmental restoration and waste management activities in the U.S. Department of Energy. In. Technology in Society 20, 385-406. Chess, Caron and Kristen Purcell. 1999. Public Participation and the Environment. Do we Know What Works? In. Environmental Science & Technology 33.2685-2692. Christmann, Anna 2009. In welche politische Richtung wirkt die direkte Demokratie? Rechte Ängste und linke Hoffnungen in Deutschland im Vergleich zur direktdemokratischen Praxis in der Schweiz. Studien zur Sachunmittelbaren Demokratie, Bd. 6. Baden-Baden. Nomos. Corburn, J., 2003. Bringing local knowledge into environmental decision-making: Improving urban planning for communities at risk. Journal of Planning and Education, 22, 420-433.

14

Dalton, Russell J., Bruce E. Cain, & Susan E. Scarrow. 2006. Democratic Publics and Democratic Institutions, in. Democracy Transformed?, edited by B. E. Cain, R. J. Dalton, and S. E. Scarrow. Oxford. Oxford University Press, 250-275. Dalton, R. J. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices. The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Dalton, Russell J./Scarrow, Susan E./Cain, Bruce E. 2004. Advanced Democracies and the New Politics." Journal of Democracy 15.1 2004. 124-138. Datensatz „Wahlen, Parteien, Regierungen“ der Abteilung „Demokratie und Demokratisierung“ am Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, 07.08.2013. De Vreese, Claes H. (Hg.) 2007a. The Dynamics of Referendum Campaigns. An International Perspective. New York. Palgrave Macmillan. De Vreese, Claes H. 2007b. Context, Elites, Media and Public Opinion in Referendums. When campaigns really matter. In. Claes H. de Vreese. The Dynamics of Referendum Campaigns. An International Perspective. New York. Palgrave Macmillan, S. 1-20. de Vreese, Claes H. 2006. Political Parties in Dire Straits? Consequences of National Referendums for Political Parties. Party Politics 12. 581-598 Decker, Frank 2012. Welche Art der direkten Demokratie brauchen wir?. In. Tobias Mörschel / Christian Krell (Hrsg.), Demokratie in Deutschland. Zustand - Herausforderungen - Perspektiven. Wiesbaden. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S. 175-198 Decker, Frank 2011. Direkte Demokratie versus parlamentarisches Repräsentativsystem. Was sagen uns die Erfahrungen aus den Ländern?, In. Krise und Reform politischer Repräsentation. Ed. by Markus Linden and Winfried Thaa. Baden-Baden. Nomos, pp. 217–237. Delli Carpini, Michael X., Fay Lomax Cook & Lawrence R. Jacobs, 2004. Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement. A review of the empirical literature. In. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-44. Diamond, Larry / Leonardo Morlino, 2005. Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Donovan, Todd and Jeffrey Karp 2006. Popular Support for Direct Democracy. In. Party Politics 12.5, pp. 671– 688 Donovan, Todd, and Daniel A. Smith. 2004. Turning On and Turning Out. Assessing the Indirect Effects of Ballot Measures on Voter Participation, paper presented at the Fourth Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, Kent State University, Kent, OH, April – May. Dryzek, John S., 2002. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond, Oxford Scholarship Online Monographs. Dyck, Joshua J./ Seabrook, Nicholas R., 2010. Mobilized by Direct Democracy. Short-Term Versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections, in. Social Science Quarterly, volume 91, issue 1, 188–208. Economist Intelligence Unit 2008). Democracy Index. London. The Economist. [http.//www.economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908438] Eder, Christina 2011. Direkte Demokratie als Allheilmittel? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Volksgesetzgebung, in. Politische Psychologie, Volume 1 2011 1), 83-97 Eisel, Stephan 2013. Bürgerentscheide ohne Bürgerresonanz, Bonn, Ms. EU White Paper 2001: Communication from the Commission of 25 July 2001 "European governance - A white paper". Feld, Lars/Fischer, Justina A.V./Kirchgaessner, Gebhard 2010. The Effect of Direct Democracy on Income Redistribution. Evidence for Switzerland, http.//eprints.lse.ac.uk/19287/1, access Nov. 2011. Feld, Lars P. 2006. Ökonomische Auswirkungen direkter Demokratie. In. Gerhard H. R. Hirscher (Hrsg.), Aktive Bürgergesellschaft durch bundesweite Volksentscheide? Direkte Demokratie in der Diskussion. München. Hanns-Seidel-Stiftung, 89-106. Feld, Lars P. und Gebhard Kirchgässner 2000. Direct democracy, political culture, and the outcome of economic policy. A report on the Swiss experience. European Journal of Political Economy 16. 287–306. Fishkin, James & Robert C. Luskin, 2004 . Experimenting with Democratic Ideal. Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Paper presented at the Swiss Chair's Conference on Deliberation, European University Institute, Florence, Italy, May 21-22. Fishkin, James S., 1995. The Voice of the People. Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT, CT, London, U.K.. Yale University, New Haven, CT, CT Press. Freitag, Markus & Uwe Wagschal (ed.), 2007. Direkte Demokratie - Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich. Berlin. LIT Verlag. Freitag, Markus/Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen. 2007. Wahl- oder Abstimmungsdemokratie? Der Einfluss der direkten Demokratie auf die Wahlteilnahme. In. Markus Freitag und Uwe Wagschal (Hrsg.), Direkte Demokratie. Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich. Berlin. Lit, 189-216. Freitag, Markus 2006. “Bowling the state back in. Political institutions and the creation of social capital”. In. European Journal of Political Research 45.1, pp. 123–152. Freitag, Markus/Adrian Vatter. 2004,.Political Institutions and the Wealth of Regions, in. European Urban and Regional Studies 11(4. 291–301 Freitag, Markus/Adrian Vatter. 2006. Initiatives, referendums, and the tax state, in. Journal of European Public Policy 13 1. 89–112. Frey, Bruno 2003. Direct Democracy for Transition Countries, Working Paper No. 165. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich. Frey, Bruno 1994. Direct Democracy. Politico-economic Lessons from Swiss Experience. American Economic Review 84(2). 338-348.

15

Fung, Archon 2008. Pragmatic Conception of Democracy, paper presented at the Conference “Democratic Innovations“, Feb. 2008, Berlin. Fung, Archon 2006. Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance, in. Public Administration Review, Special Issue, Dec. 2006, 66-75. Fung, Archon. 2003. Survey Article. Recipes for Public Spheres. Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences. In. The Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 11, no. 3, 338-367. Fung, Archon & Erik Olin Wright 2001. Deepening Democracy. Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. In. Politics and Society 29, 1, 5-41. Gamble, Barbara. 1997. Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote. American Journal of Political Science 41. 245-269 Gaynor, Niamh 2011. Associations, Deliberation, and Democracy. The Case of Ireland’s Social Partnership, in. Politics & Society, 39.497-519. Geißel, Brigitte & Marko Joas, 2013: Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe: Improving the Quality of Democracy?, Budrich Verlag.

Geissel, Brigitte & Newton, Kenneth (ed.) 2012. Evaluating Democratic Innovations, London and New York, Routledge. Geissel, Brigitte, 2012. Democratic innovations. theoretical and empirical challenges of evaluation, in. Geissel, Brigitte and Kenneth Newton (ed.. Evaluating Democratic Innovations, London and New York, Routledge, 209-214. Geissel, B. 2009. How to Improve the Quality of Democracy? Experiences with Participative Innovations at the Local Level in German. German Politics and Society 27(93. 51-71. Geißel, Brigitte, 2008. Zur Evaluation demokratischer Innovationen – die lokale Ebene, in. Heinelt, Hubert and Vetter, Angelika (Hg.. Lokale Politikforschung heute, 227-248. Geissel, Brigitte & Kristine Kern, 2000. Soziales Kapital und Lokale Agenda 21. Lokale umweltpolitische Initiativen in den U.S.A. In. Heinelt, Hubert and Mühlich, Eberhard (ed.), Lokale Agenda 21-Prozesse, Erklärungsansätze, Konzepte, Ergebnisse. Opladen. Leske + Budrich, 257-76. Gherghina, Sergiu 2014. Direct democracy and regime legitimacy in Europe, Paper prepared for presentation at the ECPR Joint Session of Workshops 10-15 April 2014, Salamanca. Gilens, Martin, James Glaser, and Tali Mendelberg. 2001. Having a Say. Political Efficacy in the Context of Direct Democracy, paper presented at the American Political Science Association annual meetings, San Francisco, CA, August 30-September 2, 2001 Goodin, Robert E./John S. Dryzek, 2006. Deliberative Impacts. The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics. In. Politics & Society 34. 2, 219-44. Grönholm, Björn 2000. Diffusion of Models. In Joas, Marko. Local Agenda 21 – Models and Effects. An Analysis of LA21 Activities in Finland and the Baltic Sea Region, Åbo Akademi, Åbo, 63-86. Gundersen, Adolf G. 1995. The Environmental Promise of Democratic Deliberation. The University of Wisconsin Press. Habermas, Jürgen, 1992. Faktizität und Geltung, Frankfurt a.M., Suhrkamp. Hager, Lutz. 2005. Wie demokratisch ist direkte Demokratie? Wiesbaden. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Hajnal, Zoltan/Hugh Louch. 2001. Are There Winners and Losers? Race, Ethnicity, and California's Initiative Process Hansen, Janus, 2006. Public Participation, in. Science and Public Policy, vol. 33, nr. 8, 571-584. Hendriks, Frank & Michels, Ank, 2011. Democracy Transformed? Reforms in Britain and The Netherlands 1990– –2010), in. International Journal of Public Administration, 34.5, 307-317. Hendriks, Carolyn M. 2006. When the Forum Meets Interest Politics. Strategic Uses of Public Deliberation, in. Politics & Society, 34. 571-602. Hirsch, Alan. 2002. Direct Democracy and Civic Maturation, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, vol. 29, No.2,185 246 Höglinger, Dominic. 2008. Verschafft die direkte Demokratie den Benachteiligten mehr Gehör? Der Einfluss institutioneller Rahmenbedingungen auf die mediale Präsenz politischer Akteure.Swiss Political Science Review 14. 207-243. Hornig, Eike-Christian 2011. Die Parteiendominanz direkter Demokratie in Westeuropa. Baden Baden. Nomos Verlag. Hug, Simon 2009. Some thought about referendums, representative democracy, and separtaion of power, In. Const Polit Econ 20, S. 251-266 Hug, Simon. 2005. The Political Effects of Referendums. An Analysis of Institutional Innovations in Eastern and Central Europe. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 38. 475-499. Hug, Simon 2004. “Occurrence and Policy Consequences of Referendums. A Theoretical Model and Empirical Evidence”. In. Journal of Theoretical Politics 16.3, pp. 321–356 Hug, Simon. 2001. Policy Consequences of Direct Legislation in the States. Theory, Empirical Models and Evidence IDEA (Lead editors. David Beetham, Edzia Carvalho, Todd Landman, Stuart Weir) 2008. Assessing the Quality of Democracy. A Practical Guide, http.//www.idea.int/publications/aqd/ (01.03.2011). Inglehart, Ronald/Christian Welzel 2005. Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. IRI 2010: see: www.iri-europe.org, access 2010. Jung, Sabine 2001. Die Logik direkter Demokratie. Wiesbaden. Westdeutscher Verlag. Kielmansegg, Peter Graf. 2006. Über direkte Demokratie – sechs Anmerkungen zu einer unbefriedigenden Debatte. Jahrbuch Extremismus und Demokratie 18. 57-80.

16

Kirchgässner, Gebhard. 2000. Wirtschaftliche Auswirkungen der direkten Demokratie. Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik 1. 161-180. Kirchgässner, Gebhard; Lars P. Feld; Marcel R. Savioz 1999. Die direkte Demokratie. Modern, erfolgreich, entwicklungs- und exportfähig. Basel/München. Helbing & Lichtenhahn; Vahlen. Kousser, Thad, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Social Choice, Crypto-Initiatives and Policy Making by Direct Democracy Kriesi, Hanspeter 2012. Direct Democracy – The Swiss Experiment, in. Geissel, Brigitte/Newton, Ken. Evaluating Democratic Innovations, Routledge. Kriesi, Hanspeter 2007. The role of the political elite in Swiss direct-democratic votes. In. Zoltán Tibor Pállinger, Bruno Kaufmann, Wilfried Marxer und Theo Schiller (Hg.. Direct democracy in Europe. Developments and prospects. 1. Aufl. Wiesbaden. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, S 82–93. Kriesi, Hanspeter 2005. Direct Democratic Choice. Plymouth. Lexington Books. Kriesi, Hanspeter 2002. Individual opinion formation in a direct-democratic campaign. British Journal of Political Science 32. 171-191. Ladner, Andreas, and Michael Brändle. 1999.Does Direct Democracy Matter for Political Parties? An Empirical Test in the Swiss Cantons LeDuc, Lawrence. 2007. Opinion Formation and Change in Referendum Campaigns. In. Claes H. de Vreese (Hrsg.), Dynamics of Referendum Campaigns. An International Perspective. Basingstoke u. a.. Palgrave Macmillan, 21-44 LeDuc, Lawrence, 2006. Referendums and Deliberative Democracy, paper prepared for presentation at the International Political Science Association, Fukuoka, 2006. Linder, Wolf 1999. Schweizerische Demokratie. Institutionen - Prozesse - Perspektiven, Bern. Haupt Verlag. Longchamp, Claude 2002. Prädispositionen und Kampagnen bei Schweizer Volksabstimmungen, in. Schiller, Theo/ Mittendorf, Volker (Hrsg.). Direkte Demokratie. Forschung und Perspektiven. Wiesbaden. Westdeutscher Verlag, S. 288-304. Lupia Arthur; Richard Johnston 2001. Are voters to blame? Voter competence and elite maneuvers in public referendums. In. Matthew Mendelsohn und Andrew Parkin (Hrsg.. Referendum Democracy. Citizens, Elites, and Deliberation in Referendum Campaigns. Toronto. MacMillan/St. Martin’s, S. 191-210. Lutz, Karin G. und Simon Hug. 2006. A cross-national comparative study of the policy effects of referendums. CIS Working Paper. Maduz, Linda, 2010. Direct Democracy, Zuerich manuscript. Mansbridge, Jane, 1999. On the Idea That Participation Makes Better Citizens. In. Elkin, Stephen L. and Soltan, Karol Edward (ed.), Citizen, Competence, and Democratic Institutions. University Park, PA. Pennsylvania State University, 291-325. Markus Freitag / Adrian Vatter / Christoph Müller 2003. Bremse oder Gaspedal? Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Wirkung der direkten Demokratie auf den Steuerstaat, in PVS, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 348-369. Marschall, Stefan. 2000. Wer vertritt wen? Volksentscheide und die Funktionslogik parlamentarischer Repräsentation. Kritische Anmerkungen zu einem Beitrag von Winifried Steffani. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 31 1. 182-187. Marxer, Wilfried and Zoltán Pállinger 2006). “Direkte Demokratie in der Schweiz und in Liechtenstein Systemkontexte und Effekte”. In. Beiträge Liechtenstein-Institut 36 Mathur, Nevdeep/Skelcher, Chris 2007. Evaluating Democratic Performance, in. Public Administration Review March/April 2007. 228-237. Matsusaka, John G. 2009. Direct Democracy and Public Employees, in. American Economic Review 2009, 99.5, 2227–2246. Matsusaka, John G. 2006. Institutions and Popular Control of Public Policy Matsusaka, John G.. 2004. For the Many or the Few. The Initiative, Public Policy, and American Democracy. Chicago u. a.. University of Chicago Press Mayne, Quinton, 2011. The Satisfied Citizen: Participation, Influence, and Public Perceptions of Democratic Performance, unpublished dissertation. Mendelsohn, Matthew/Fred Cutler. 2000. The Effect of Referendums on Democratic Citizens. Information, Politicization, Efficacy and Tolerance Michels, Ank, 2011. Innovations in democratic governance, in. International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2. 275-293. Mittendorf, Volker, 2008. Auswirkungen von Quoren und Themenrestriktionen bei kommunalen Bürgerbegehren im Ländervergleich, in. Vetter, Angelika (Hg.. Erfolgsbedingungen lokaler Bürgerbeteiligung, Wiesbaden. VS Verlag, S. 73-103. Möckli, Silvano. Direkte Demokratie, Bern/Stuttgart 1994; Mondak, J.J., M.V. Hibbing, D. Canache, M.A. Seligson & M.R. Anderson 2010), ‘Personality and Civic Engagement. An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior’, in American Political Science Review 104, pp. 85-110. Moser, Julia und Herbert Obinger. 2007. Schlaraffenland auf Erden? Auswirkungen von Volksentscheiden auf die Sozialpolitik. In. Markus Freitag und Uwe Wagschal (Hrsg.), Direkte Demokratie. Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich. Münster. LIT, 331-361. Neidhart, Leonhard 1970. Plebiszit und pluralitäre Demokratie. Eine Analyse der Funktion des schweizerischen Gesetzesreferendums. Bern. Francke (5). Newton, Ken, 2012. Curing the democratic malaise with democratic innovations, in. Geissel, Brigitte and Kenneth Newton (ed.. Evaluating Democratic Innovations, London and New York, Routledge, 3-20. Niemeyer, Simon 2011. The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation. Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics, in. Politics & Society 39. 103-140.

17

Norris, Pippa 2002 Democratic phoenix. political activism worldwide. New York. Cambridge University Press. Obinger, Herbert 1998. Politische Institutionen und Sozialpolitik in der Schweiz. Der Einfluß von Nebenregierungen auf Struktur und Entwicklung des schweizerischen Sozialstaats. Frankfurt a. M.. Campus Offe, Claus (ed.), 2003. Demokratisierung der Demokratie. Diagnosen und Reformvorschläge. Frankfurt a.M., New York. Campus. Pállinger, Zoltán Tibor; Bruno Kaufmann; Wilfried Marxer; Theo Schiller (Hg.) 2007. Direct Democracy in Europe. Developments and Prospects. Wiesbaden. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Papadopoulos, Y. and P. Warin 2007. "Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?" European Journal of Political Research 46. 445-472. Papadopoulos, Yannis 2001. “How does direct democracy matter? The impact of referendum votes on politics and policymaking”. In. West European Politics 24.2, pp. 35–58. Papadopoulos, Yannis, 2004. Governance und Demokratie. In. Benz, Arthur (ed.), Governance - Regieren in komplexen Regelsystemen. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 215-38. Pateman, Carole. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge et al.. Cambridge University Press. Powell, Bingham G., and Guy D. Whitten. 1993. A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting. Taking Account of the Political Context. American Journal of Political Science 37. 391-414. Ringen, Stein. 2007. What Democracy Is For? On Freedom and Moral Government. Princeton. Princeton University Press. Rowe, Gene & Lynn J. Frewer, 2004. Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises. A Research Agenda. In. Science, Technology, and Human Values 29, 4, 512-56. Rowe, Gene/Michael Marsh/Lynn J. Frewer 2004. Evaluation of a deliberative conference using validated criteria. In. Science, Technology, and Human Values 29, 1, 88-121. Sager, K. & J. Gastil 2002), ‘Exploring the Psychological Foundations of Democratic Group Deliberation. Personality Factors, Confirming Interaction, and Democratic Decision Making’, in Communication Research Reports 19 1), pp. 56-65. Saward, M., Ed. 2000). Democratic Innovation. Deliberation, representation and association. London, New York, Routledge. Scarrow, Susan E. 2001. Direct Democracy and Institutional Change . A Comparative Investigation, in. Comparative Political Studies 2001 34. 651 Schäfer, Armin, 2011. Mehr Mitsprache, aber nur für wenige? Direkte Demokratie und politische Gleichheit, in. MPIFG Jahrbuch 2011/12, Köln. 53-59. Schäfer, Armin 2010. Die Folgen sozialer Ungleichheit für die Demokratie in Westeuropa, in. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft (4) 1. 131-156. Schäfer, Armin, 2009. Alles halb so schlimm? Warum eine sinkende Wahlbeteiligung der Demokratie schadet, in. MPIfG Jahrbuch 2009-2010. Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung. Köln, 5-10. Schiller, Theo 2002. Direkte Demokratie. Eine Einführung. Frankfurt a. M./New York. Campus. Schiller, Theo; Volker Mittendorf (Hrsg.) 2002. Direkte Demokratie. Forschung und Perspektiven. Wiesbaden. Westdeutscher Verlag. Schlozman, Daniel/Yohai, Ian, 2008. How Initiatives Don’t Always Make Citizens. Ballot Initiatives in the American States 1978-2008, in. Political Behavious, 30, 469-489. Schmitter, Philippe C. 2004. The Ambiguous Virtues of Accountability. Journal of Democracy 15 (4. 47-60. Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie. Bern. A. Francke. Setälä, Maija und Theo Schiller (Hrsg.) 2012. Citizens‘ Initiatives in Europe. Procedures and Consequences of Agenda-Setting by Citizens. Houndmills/Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan. Setälä, Maija, 2006. On the problems of responsibility and accountability in referendums, in. European Journal of Political Research 45. 699-721. Sewell, Derrick./Susan. Philips 1979. Models for the Evaluation of public participation programmes. In. Natural Resources Journal 19, 337-58. Sintomer, Yves, Carsten Herzberg and Anja Röcke (eds.), 2005. Participatory Budgeting in a European comparative approach- perspectives and chances of the cooperative state at the municila level in Germany and Europe, Final report, Volume II (Documents). Smith, G. 2009. Democratic Innovations. Cambridge, Cambridge Univerity Press. Smith, Mark A. 2001. The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout Smith, Mark A. 2002. Ballot Initiatives and the Democratic Citizen, in. The Journal of Politics, vol. 64, No. 3, pp 892-903. Strom, Kaare, Wolfgang C. Müller, and Torbjörn Bergman, eds. 2003. Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, Comparative Politics. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Stutzer, Alois and Bruno Frey 2000. “Stärkere Volksrechte – Zufriedenere Bürger . eine mikroökonometrische Untersuchung für die Schweiz”. In. Swiss Political Science Review 6.3, pp. 1–30 Svensson, Palle. 2002. Five Danish referendums on the European Community and European Union. A critical assessment of the Franklin thesis Talpin, Julien, 2012. When democratic innovations let the people decide, in. Geissel, Brigitte and Kenneth Newton (ed.. Evaluating Democratic Innovations, London and New York, Routledge, 184-206. Tolbert, Caroline J. 2005. The Ballot Measure/Citizen Interest Link. Information, Engagement and Participation Tolbert, Caroline J., and Daniel A. Smith. 2005. The Educative Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout, in. American Political Research, vol. 33, no. 2, 283-309. Tolbert, Caroline/Ramona McNeal/Daniel Smith 2003. Enhancing Civic Engagement. The Effect of Direct Democracy on Political Participation and Knowledge. In. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3.1, pp. 23–41.

18

Tolbert, Caroline, John Grummel, and Daniel Smith 2001. “The Effects of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. In. American Politics Research 29.6, pp. 625–648. Trechsel, Alexander 2010. Reflexive Accountability and Direct Democracy, in. West European Politics, 33. 5, 1050-1064. Urbinati, Nadia, and Mark E. Warren 2008. The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory. Annual Review of Political Science 11. 387-412. Vatter, Adrian 2007. “Direkte Demokratie in der Schweiz. Entwicklungen, Debatten und Wirkungen”. In. Direkte Demokratie. Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich. Ed. by Markus Freitag and Uwe Wagschal. Berlin. Lit., pp. 71–114. Vetter,Angelika, 2007. 2007: Local Politics: A Resource for Democracy in Western Europe? Local Autonomy, Local Integrative Capacity, and Citizens' Attitudes toward Politics. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.. Wagschal, Uwe 2007. Diskurs der Machtpolitik. Welche Interessen setzen sich in der Direktdemokratie am erfolgreichsten durch? In. Markus Freitag und Uwe Wagschal (Hrsg.. Direkte Demokratie. Bestandsaufnahmen und Wirkungen im internationalen Vergleich. Münster/Berlin. LIT Verlag, S. 303-329. Wagschal, Uwe / Herbert Obinger 2000. Der Einfluss der Direktdemokratie auf die Sozialpolitik, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 41. Jg. 2000), Heft 3, S. 466–497 Warren, Mark E. 2006. A Second Transformation of Democracy, in. Democracy Transformed?, edited by B. E. Cain, R. J. Dalton, and S. E. Scarrow. Oxford. Oxford University Press. 223-249. Zimmermann, Klaus W./Just, Tobias 2000. Interest Groups, Referenda, and the Political Process. On the Efficiency of Direct Democracy, in. Constitutional Political Economy, 11, 147–163.

19

Appendix Figure 4 Different kinds of direct democracy considering their embeddedness in structures of representative democracy

Source: Budge 2011, in Geissel/Newton, 33

Table 4: Frameworks and Criteria Applied in Evaluation Studies on Participatory Procedures

Inclusive participation Meaningful participation Legitimacy Quality of Deliberation Effectiveness Citizens’ Enlightenment Other criteria (examples)

Renn et al. 1995

Chess/ Purcell 1999

Rowe et al. 2004

Abels/ Gauvin 2006

Dalton et al. 2006

(x)

(x)

x

X

x

X

(x) (x)

Fung 2008

Smith 2009

Geissel 2009

Michel s 2011

Geissel 2012

x

x

x

x

(x)

x

x

(x)

(x)

x

x

(x)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

(x)

(x)

x

x

x

X x

(x)

Papad./ Warin 2007

X

Holtk. et al. 2006

x

(x)

Fairness

X

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

X

many

proced ural rules

(x) transparen.

Public attention

transferable

x

transparen.

x = mentioned explicitly, although terms differ (x) = mentioned implicitly; Source: Geißel 2013, in Geißel/Joas, S. 259 Table 5: Findings in narrative metaanalysis on participatory procedures - an overall assessment Principles of Democracy

Intention of Participatory Innovation:

Deliberative Procedures

Direct Democratic Procedures

Inclusive participation

++

++

Meaningful participation

(+)

++

+

++

Participation

Legitimacy

Improved perceived legitimacy

20

Deliberation

Public deliberation with and among non-state actors

++/-

-

Effective-ness

Improvement of effectiveness

(+)

++

Enlightened citizens

Enlightenment of citizens

+

-

Joas 2013, in Geißel/Joas, 2013, 267

21