用协商民主改进全民投票:系统文献综述

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Irene Witting, C. Wagenaar, Frank Hendriks
{"title":"用协商民主改进全民投票:系统文献综述","authors":"Irene Witting, C. Wagenaar, Frank Hendriks","doi":"10.1177/01925121231210048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article systematically reviews the literature on combining referendums and deliberative processes. With referendums being criticized for various reasons, including their deliberative deficit, and amid the deliberative turn in democracy, various hybrid combinations of referendums and deliberative processes have been practised or suggested. We bring together the hitherto scattered literature that focuses on assumed and observed strengthening effects of deliberation in light of ascribed referendum deficits. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method, we reviewed and thematically analysed 55 publications. We show that, despite their different focal points, a clear overlap exists between perceived shortcomings of referendums and the added value of deliberation. Expectations of hybridization run high, with empirical evidence emerging that shows promising positive effects. Nevertheless, non-positive effects are both anticipated and observed, and these underscore the importance of ensuring appropriate connections between aggregative and deliberative processes and of systemic embedding.","PeriodicalId":47785,"journal":{"name":"International Political Science Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving referendums with deliberative democracy: A systematic literature review\",\"authors\":\"Irene Witting, C. Wagenaar, Frank Hendriks\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01925121231210048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article systematically reviews the literature on combining referendums and deliberative processes. With referendums being criticized for various reasons, including their deliberative deficit, and amid the deliberative turn in democracy, various hybrid combinations of referendums and deliberative processes have been practised or suggested. We bring together the hitherto scattered literature that focuses on assumed and observed strengthening effects of deliberation in light of ascribed referendum deficits. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method, we reviewed and thematically analysed 55 publications. We show that, despite their different focal points, a clear overlap exists between perceived shortcomings of referendums and the added value of deliberation. Expectations of hybridization run high, with empirical evidence emerging that shows promising positive effects. Nevertheless, non-positive effects are both anticipated and observed, and these underscore the importance of ensuring appropriate connections between aggregative and deliberative processes and of systemic embedding.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47785,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Political Science Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Political Science Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121231210048\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01925121231210048","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文系统地回顾了有关全民投票与审议程序相结合的文献。随着全民投票因其审议缺陷等各种原因受到批评,以及民主中的审议转向,各种全民投票与审议程序的混合组合已经得到实践或建议。我们汇集了迄今为止零散的文献,这些文献的重点是根据全民公决的缺陷来假设和观察商议的强化效果。按照《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》的方法,我们对 55 篇出版物进行了综述和专题分析。我们发现,尽管两者的关注点不同,但全民公决的缺陷与审议的附加值之间存在明显的重叠。人们对混合的期望很高,出现的经验证据显示了积极的效果。然而,非积极的效果既有预期的,也有观察到的,这些都强调了确保综合进程与审议进程之间的适当联系以及系统嵌入的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving referendums with deliberative democracy: A systematic literature review
This article systematically reviews the literature on combining referendums and deliberative processes. With referendums being criticized for various reasons, including their deliberative deficit, and amid the deliberative turn in democracy, various hybrid combinations of referendums and deliberative processes have been practised or suggested. We bring together the hitherto scattered literature that focuses on assumed and observed strengthening effects of deliberation in light of ascribed referendum deficits. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses method, we reviewed and thematically analysed 55 publications. We show that, despite their different focal points, a clear overlap exists between perceived shortcomings of referendums and the added value of deliberation. Expectations of hybridization run high, with empirical evidence emerging that shows promising positive effects. Nevertheless, non-positive effects are both anticipated and observed, and these underscore the importance of ensuring appropriate connections between aggregative and deliberative processes and of systemic embedding.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: IPSR is committed to publishing material that makes a significant contribution to international political science. It seeks to meet the needs of political scientists throughout the world who are interested in studying political phenomena in the contemporary context of increasing international interdependence and global change. IPSR reflects the aims and intellectual tradition of its parent body, the International Political Science Association: to foster the creation and dissemination of rigorous political inquiry free of subdisciplinary or other orthodoxy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信