Suchergebnisse

Terrorism only poses a small risk to people but tends to be a major source of public fear. Through fear, terrorism has far-reaching implications for public governance. In this paper we look at trust in government as a potential mitigating factor of fear of terrorism. We discern between calculative trust, based on analytical assessment of previous and expected future actions, and relational trust, based on emotions and perceived value similarity with government. We find that relational trust decreases fear of terrorism. A similar but less robust negative relationship exists between calculative trust and fear. However, our regression analyses suggest that relational trust, in fact, may mediate the relationship between calculative trust and fear of terrorism. In other words, the more citizens think government is able to prevent terrorist attacks and feel that authorities are doing enough, the more they, in turn, feel that their government shares their values, and the less fearful they are of future terrorist attacks.

Terrorism only poses a small risk to people but tends to be a major source of public fear. Through fear, terrorism has far-reaching implications for public governance. In this paper we look at trust in government as a potential mitigating factor of fear of terrorism. We discern between calculative trust, based on analytical assessment of previous and expected future actions, and relational trust, based on emotions and perceived value similarity with government. We find that relational trust decreases fear of terrorism. A similar but less robust negative relationship exists between calculative trust and fear. However, our regression analyses suggest that relational trust, in fact, may mediate the relationship between calculative trust and fear of terrorism. In other words, the more citizens think government is able to prevent terrorist attacks and feel that authorities are doing enough, the more they, in turn, feel that their government shares their values, and the less fearful they are of future terrorist attacks.

The early 1980s marked the start of deliberative democracy both in theory and in practice. Not only did political theorists shift their attention towards models of deliberative democracy, deliberative democratic innovations such as citizens' juries, deliberative polls and citizens' assemblies were implemented. In the following decades, these innovations commonly referred to as minipublics would become a celebrated type of institution to involve citizens in the democratic process and to cure the malaise of representative government. The organization of such small-scale gatherings in which citizens discuss public issues by now has become widespread and for some is even a lucrative undertaking. But what do they actually achieve? What are their actual effects on the functioning of political systems? Are minipublics viable democratic innovations? In this article, we seek to contribute to this agenda by systematically reviewing the literature on the consequences of deliberative minipublics.

The early 1980s marked the start of deliberative democracy both in theory and in practice. Not only did political theorists shift their attention towards models of deliberative democracy, deliberative democratic innovations such as citizens' juries, deliberative polls and citizens' assemblies were implemented. In the following decades, these innovations commonly referred to as minipublics would become a celebrated type of institution to involve citizens in the democratic process and to cure the malaise of representative government. The organization of such small-scale gatherings in which citizens discuss public issues by now has become widespread and for some is even a lucrative undertaking. But what do they actually achieve? What are their actual effects on the functioning of political systems? Are minipublics viable democratic innovations? In this article, we seek to contribute to this agenda by systematically reviewing the literature on the consequences of deliberative minipublics.