Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T10:57:46.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Participation in Written Government Consultations in Denmark and the UK: System and Actor-level Effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Anne Rasmussen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the proliferation of instruments of public consultation in liberal democracies, little is known of how the design and use of these instruments affect stakeholder participation in practice. The article examines participation in written government consultations in an analysis of approximately 5,000 responses to consultations in Denmark and the UK in the first half of 2008. It shows that participation is highly conditional upon system- and actor-level characteristics in practice. Our findings indicate that, even if liberal democracies have adopted similar procedures for actor consultation in the last decades, the design and application of crucial rules vary considerably between systems. They emphasize how the conduct of consultation is heavily conditioned by the design of these processes, which is in turn constrained by the historical legacy of state–society structures of the system in question.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 271 - 299
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Anne Rasmussen is Professor in the Department of Political Science at Copenhagen University and affiliated to the Department of Public Administration at Leiden University. Contact email: ar@ifs.ku.dk.

References

Alexandrova, P., Lindeboom, G.-J. and Rasmussen, A. (2011), ‘Involvement of Asian Actors in EU Policy-Making in Comparative Perspective’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of European Studies, 3: 33–49.Google Scholar
Ballamingie, P. (2009), ‘Democratizing Public Consultation Processes: Some Critical Insights’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 5: Article 11.Google Scholar
Baroni, L., Carroll, B., Chalmers, A., Marquez, L.M.M. and Rasmussen, A. (2013), ‘Defining and Classifying Interest Groups’, Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3(2) 141–159.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R. and Leech, B.L. (2001), ‘Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics’, Journal of Politics, 63: 1191–1213.Google Scholar
Better Regulation Executive (2008), ‘Consultation Guidance’, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://bis.gov.uk/policies/bre/consultation-guidance/reaching-beyond.Google Scholar
Binderkrantz, A.S. (2005), ‘Interest Group Strategies: Navigating Between Privileged Access and Strategies of Pressure’, Political Studies, 53: 694–715.Google Scholar
Binderkrantz, A.S. (2008), ‘Different Groups, Different Strategies: How Interest Groups Pursue their Political Ambitions’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 31: 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, P. and Davis, G. (2002), ‘Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61: 14–29.Google Scholar
Blom-Hansen, J. (2001), ‘Organized Interests and the State: A Disintegrating Relationship? Evidence from Denmark’, European Journal of Political Research, 39: 391–416.Google Scholar
Bozzini, E. (2007), ‘The Role of Civil Society Organisations in Written Consultation Processes: From the European Monitoring Centre to the European Fundamental Rights Agency’, in C. Ruzza and V.D. Sala (eds), Governance and Civil Society in the European Union, Vol 2: Exploring Policy Issues (Manchester: Manchester University Press): 93–109.Google Scholar
Chabanet, D. and Trechsel, A.H. (2011), EU Member States’ Consultation with Civil Society on European Policy Matters, EUDO Report 2011/04 (Florence: European University Institute).Google Scholar
Christiansen, P.M. (2012), ‘The Usual Suspects: Interest Group Dynamics and Representation in Denmark’, in D. Halpin and G. Jordan (eds), The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics (London: Palgrave): 161–179.Google Scholar
Crepaz, M.M.L. (1994), ‘From Semisovereignty to Sovereignty: The Decline of Corporatism and Rise of Parliament in Austria’, Comparative Politics, 27: 45–65.Google Scholar
Damgaard, E. and Eliassen, K.A. (1978), ‘Corporate Pluralism in Danish Law-making’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 1: 285–313.Google Scholar
Eising, R. (2007), ‘Institutional Context, Organizational Resources and Strategic Choices’, European Union Politics, 8: 329–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2002), ‘Towards a Reinforced Culture of Consultation and Dialogue – General Principles and Minimum Standards for Consultation of Interested Parties by the Commission’, COM(2002)704 final, Brussels, 11 December 2002.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J., Luskin, R. and Jowell, R. (2000), ‘Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation’, Parliamentary Affairs, 53: 657–666.Google Scholar
Gais, T. (1996), Improper Influence: Campaign Finance Law, Political Interest Groups, and the Problem of Equality (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gais, T. and Walker, J.L. Jr (1991), ‘Pathways to Influence in American Politics’, in J.L. Walker, Jr (ed.), Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions and Social Movements (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press): 103–121.Google Scholar
Grant, W. (2001), ‘Pressure Politics: From “Insider” Politics to Direct Action?’, Parliamentary Affairs, 54: 337–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, W. (2004), ‘Pressure Politics: The Changing World of Pressure Groups’, Parliamentary Affairs, 57: 408–419.Google Scholar
Hagendijk, R. and Irwin, A. (2006), ‘Public Deliberation and Governance: Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe’, Minerva, 44: 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, I. (2002), ‘Consultation, Constraints and Norms: The Case of Nuclear Waste’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61: 76–86.Google Scholar
Irvin, R.A. and Stansbury, J. (2004), ‘Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is it Worth the Effort?’, Public Administration Review, 64: 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, G. and Greenan, J. (2012), ‘The Changing Contours of British Representation: Pluralism in Practice’, in D. Halpin and G. Jordan (eds), The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics (London: Palgrave): 67–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, G. and Halpin, D. (2012), ‘Politics is Not Basketball: Numbers are not Results’, in D. Halpin and G. Jordan (eds), The Scale of Interest Organization in Democratic Politics (London: Palgrave): 245–262.Google Scholar
Kane, J. and Bishop, P. (2002), ‘Consultation or Contest: The Danger of Mixing Modes’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61: 87–94.Google Scholar
Kenworthy, L. (2003), ‘Quantitative Indicators of Corporatism’, International Journal of Sociology, 33: 10–44.Google Scholar
Kerley, B. and Starr, G. (2000), ‘Public Consultation: Adding Value or Impeding Policy?’, Agenda, 7: 185–192.Google Scholar
Kollman, K. (1998), Outside Lobbying. Public Opinion and Interest Group Strategies (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. and Crepaz, M.M.L. (1991), ‘Corporatism and Consensus Democracy in Eighteen Countries: Conceptual and Empirical Linkages’, British Journal of Political Science, 21(2): 235–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindvall, J. and Sebring, J. (2005), ‘Policy Reform and the Decline of Corporatism in Sweden’, West European Politics, 28: 1057–1074.Google Scholar
McFarland, A.S. (2007), ‘Neopluralism’, Annual Review of Political Science, 10: 45–66.Google Scholar
Marks, G. (1985), ‘Neocorporatism and Incomes Policy in Western Europe and North America’, Comparative Politics, 18: 253–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, G.P. (2008), ‘“Ordinary People Only”: Knowledge, Representativeness and the Publics of Public Participation in Healthcare’, Sociology of Health and Illness, 30: 35–54.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2005), Vejledning om Lovkvalitet (Copenhagen: Ministry of Justice).Google Scholar
Öberg, P., Svensson, T., Christiansen, P.M., Norgaard, A.S., Rommetvedt, H. and Thesen, G. (2011), ‘Disrupted Exchange and Declining Corporatism: Government Authority and Interest Group Capacity in Scandinavia’, Government and Opposition, 46(3): 365–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (1995), ‘Public Consultation and Government Regulation’, Public Management Forum, 1.Google Scholar
OECD (2000), Regulatory Reform in Denmark (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
OECD (2010a), Better Regulation in Europe: Denmark (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
OECD (2010b), Better Regulation in Europe: United Kingdom (Paris: OECD).Google Scholar
Pateman, C. (1970), Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, A. and Alexandrova, P. (2012), ‘Foreign Interests Lobbying Brussels: Participation of Non-EU Members in Commission Consultations’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 50: 614–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, A. and Carroll, B. (2014), ‘Determinants of Upper-class Dominance in the Heavenly Chorus: Lessons from European Commission Online Consultations’, British Journal of Political Science, 44: 445–459.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, A. and Toshkov, D. (2013), ‘The Effect of Stakeholder Involvement on Legislative Duration: Consultation of External Actors and Legislative Duration in the European Union’, European Union Politics, 14: 366–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, A., Carroll, B. and Lowery, D. (2014), ‘Representatives of the Public? Public Opinion and Interest Group Activity’, European Journal of Political Research, 53: 250–268.Google Scholar
Rommetvedt, H. (2005), ‘Norway: Resources Count, but Votes Decide? From Neo-Corporatist Representation to Neo-Pluralist Parliamentarism’, West European Politics, 28: 740–763.Google Scholar
Rommetvedt, H., Thesen, G., Christiansen, P.M. and Nørgaard, A.S. (2013), ‘Coping with Corporatism in Decline and the Revival of Parliament: Interest Group Lobbyism in Denmark and Norway, 1980–2005’, Comparative Political Studies, 46: 457–485.Google Scholar
Rozell, M.J. and Wilcox, C. (1999), Interest Groups in American Campaigns: The New Face of Electioneering (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press).Google Scholar
Schlozman, K.L. (1984), ‘What Accent the Heavenly Chorus? Political Equality and the American Pressure System’, Journal of Politics, 46: 1006–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlozman, K.L. (2010), ‘Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus?: The Shape of the Organized Interest System’, in L.S. Maisel and J.M. Berry (eds), The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 425–450.Google Scholar
Schlozman, K.L., Verba, S., Brady, H., Jones, P. and Burch, T. (2008), ‘Who Sings in the Heavenly Chorus? Political Inequality and the Pressure System’, paper presented at the APSA 2008 Annual Meeting, Hynes Convention Center, Boston, MA, 28 August.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P. (1979), ‘Still the Century of Corporatism?’, in P. Schmitter and G. Lehbruch (eds), Trends towards Corporatist Intermediation (New York: Sage): 7–52.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P. and Streeck, W. (1999), The Organization of Business Interests: Studying the Associative Action of Business in Advanced Industrial Societies, MPIfG Discussion Paper 99/1 (Cologne: Max Planck Institute for the Study of Social Sciences).Google Scholar
Seawright, J. and Gerring, J. (2008), ‘Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options’, Political Research Quarterly, 61(2): 294–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siaroff, A. (1999), ‘Corporatism in 24 Industrial Democracies: Meaning and Measurement’, European Journal of Political Research, 36(2): 175–205.Google Scholar
Streeck, W. and Kenworthy, L. (2005), ‘Theories and Practices of Neo-Corporatism’, in T. Janoski, R.R. Alford, A.M. Hicks and M.A. Schwartz (eds), A Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies and Globalization (New York: Cambridge University Press): 441–460.Google Scholar
Thomas, C.S. (2001), Political Parties and Interest Groups: Shaping Democratic Governance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner).Google Scholar
Thomas, J.C. (1990), ‘Public Involvement in Public Management: Adapting and Testing a Borrowed Theory’, Public Administration Review, 50: 435–445.Google Scholar
Thomas, J.C. (1993), ‘Public Involvement and Governmental Effectiveness’, Administration and Society, 24: 444–469.Google Scholar
Truman, D.B. (1951), The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf).Google Scholar
UK Government (2004), Code of Practice on Consultation (London: Regulatory Impact Unit, Cabinet Office).Google Scholar
UK Government (2008), Code of Practice on Consultation (London: Better Regulation Executive), www.bis.gov.uk/files/file47158.pdfGoogle Scholar
UK Government (2012), ‘Consultation Principles’, London, Cabinet Office, www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/UK-Consultation-Principles-3-4-June-stockholm-2013.pdf.Google Scholar
UK Government (2013), ‘Consultation Principles’, London, Cabinet Office, www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/255180/Consultation-Principles-Oct-2013.pdf.Google Scholar