How does deprivation affect deliberation? Neighbourhood effects and the dangers of abstraction

People living in deprived areas are not supposed to be interested in democracy. A glance at the literature dealing with the dynamics of participation in democratic life suggests that, in general terms, people on low incomes display very low levels of interest, engagement, trust and confidence in the structures and processes of democratic life. Most of the existing work suggests that there is little likelihood that politics will be a regular topic of discussion in these areas, whether in the home or the workplace, and few writers expect to see high levels of engagement in the processes of deliberative democracy. For deliberative democrats who believe that participation in deliberative processes should be open and widespread, this is problematic. The literature on deliberative democracy struggles to account for the absence of so many voices from the democratic process. While useful work has been carried out on the capabilities of individuals concerned, the institutional barriers to participation, and on barriers at the systemic level, there is little to be found on the mechanisms through which these processes occur. The problem, of course, is that the issue is one of participation, rather than deliberation. The recent dominance of the deliberative version of democracy means that the analysis of issues like these tends to be hindered through a focus on one element of the democratic process. This paper addresses these issues by providing an account of the importance of neighbourhood effects – the results of the particular structural characteristics of an area – in determining the dynamics of democratic participation. The argument throughout is that these can be important in understanding the persistent difficulties in developing deliberative democracy in deprived areas, which tend to display a unique set of structural characteristics. The paper draws on data from an in-depth case study of the Blackbird Leys area of Oxford, questioning some of the theoretical assumptions in the existing literature. In particular, it suggests that the importance of neighbourhood effects can be best understood with reference to the specific local conditions, and history, of a particular area. From this basis, the paper draws some broader conclusions about the implications of these findings for democratic theory, suggesting that the kinds of abstract conclusion found in the bulk of the existing work do not help advance thinking on deliberative democracy.