Search results

"Angesichts der zunehmenden Bedeutung, welche der öffentlichen Meinung und der Bevölkerungsmeinung für die politischen Entscheidungsträger in liberalen Demokratien zukommt, überrascht es, dass die Frage, wie die öffentliche Meinung/ Bevölkerungsmeinung die politischen Entscheidungsprozesse beeinflussen und wie sie ihrerseits durch politische Kommunikation und Mobilisierung beeinflusst werden, bisher nicht systematischer untersucht worden ist. In diesem Papier wird ein konzeptueller Rahmen für ein international vergleichendes Forschungsprojekt entwickelt, der die Strategien von etablierten politischen Akteuren, Medien und Außenseitern zur Mobilisierung der öffentlichen Meinung bzw. der Bevölkerungsmeinung ins Zentrum der Analyse stellt. Aus der hier skizzierten Perspektive stellt die Mobilisierung der öffentlichen Meinung/ der Bevölkerungsmeinung das zentrale Scharnier zwischen den Bürgerinnen und Bürger einerseits und ihren Repräsentanten im politischen Entscheidungsprozess andererseits dar. Das Papier präsentiert die Grundbausteine eines akteurzentrierten Ansatzes zur Analyse dieser Zusammenhänge und benennt die themenspezifischen und nationalen Kontextbedingungen, welche die Strategien der beteiligten Akteure und ihre Wirkungen maßgeblich beeinflussen. Ohne auf Details einzugehen, werden abschließend einige Elemente eines möglichen Forschungsdesigns zur Analyse dieser Zusammenhänge skizziert." (Autorenreferat)

In the wake of the increasing use of deliberative citizen assemblies in the public sphere, this article studies how traditional policy actors receive a mini-public as 'newcomer' in political decision-making, despite its reliance on a fundamentally different vision of policy-making and that it substantially alters existing power distributions. Survey data collected before and after a typical mini-public case, the Citizen Climate Parliament, shows that most politicians and stakeholders welcome this 'newcomer' as long as it remains consultative. A typological discourse analysis of 28 semi-structured interviews with these politicians and stakeholders suggests that this attitude comes with four different views of mini-publics' place in political decision-making: an elitist-, expert-, (re)connection- and reinvention view. Given that an important correlate of these views was the extent to which actors agreed with the recommendations of the mini-public, it shows that their views were driven both by actors' interests in the outcome on a micro-level and by their general ideas about political decision-making on a macro-level. The findings illustrate that mini-publics may encounter opposition from both political actors and stakeholders once they aim to take a place in political decision-making that goes beyond occasional and consultative uses. At the same time, these results show that the use of mini-publics does not leave traditional representative institutions unaffected as it prompts them to think about the place that citizen deliberation should take in the political system.

In the wake of the increasing use of deliberative citizen assemblies in the public sphere, this article studies how traditional policy actors receive a mini-public as 'newcomer' in political decision-making, despite its reliance on a fundamentally different vision of policy-making and that it substantially alters existing power distributions. Survey data collected before and after a typical mini-public case, the Citizen Climate Parliament, shows that most politicians and stakeholders welcome this 'newcomer' as long as it remains consultative. A typological discourse analysis of 28 semi-structured interviews with these politicians and stakeholders suggests that this attitude comes with four different views of mini-publics' place in political decision-making: an elitist-, expert-, (re)connection- and reinvention view. Given that an important correlate of these views was the extent to which actors agreed with the recommendations of the mini-public, it shows that their views were driven both by actors' interests in the outcome on a micro-level and by their general ideas about political decision-making on a macro-level. The findings illustrate that mini-publics may encounter opposition from both political actors and stakeholders once they aim to take a place in political decision-making that goes beyond occasional and consultative uses. At the same time, these results show that the use of mini-publics does not leave traditional representative institutions unaffected as it prompts them to think about the place that citizen deliberation should take in the political system.

It is broadly assumed that political elites (e.g. party leaders) regularly rely on heuristics in their judgments or decision-making. In this article, I aim to bring together and discuss the scattered literature on this topic. To address the current conceptual unclarity, I discuss two traditions on heuristics: (1) the heuristics and biases (H&B) tradition pioneered by Kahneman and Tversky and (2) the fast and frugal heuristics (F&F) tradition pioneered by Gigerenzer et al. I propose to concentrate on two well-defined heuristics from the H&B tradition—availability and representativeness—to empirically assess when political elites rely on heuristics and thereby understand better their judgments and decisions. My review of existing studies supports the notion that political elites use the availability heuristic and possibly the representativeness one for making complex decisions under uncertainty. It also reveals that besides this, we still know relatively little about when political elites use which heuristic and with what effect(s). Therefore, I end by proposing an agenda for future research.