Opening the black box of hybrid democratic innovations: Discussion of PhD findings on political-administrative practices and impact on policy decisions

In the context of democratic backsliding and growing challenges to representative democracy, democratic innovations are promoted to enhance citizen trust, develop policy solutions to complex societal problems, and strengthen democratic resilience. However, despite their growing prevalence, democratic innovations frequently have limited impact on policy, undermining their ability to contribute to democratic renewal. Hybrid democratic innovations which combine small-group deliberation with voting by the maxi-public are hypothesized to lead to policy impact by combining the deliberative quality of mini-publics with the legitimacy and reach of broader public involvement. Yet, hybrid design results in policy impact in some cases but not others. My doctoral research addresses this puzzle, investigating when and how hybrid democratic innovations impact policy decisions. I do this by opening up the black box of hybrid democratic innovation processes, between their design and impact, through an investigation of the political and administrative practices that shape them. The research utilizes a set-theoretic multi-method research design (SMMR). Cross-case analysis using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) identifies patterns of conditions across cases of hybrid democratic innovations in Western democracies at national, regional, and local levels, followed by within-case analysis, using both single and comparative qualitative case studies at the Dutch municipal level. The empirical case studies draw on theoretical perspectives from public administration, policy studies, and democratic reform. The discussion chapter of my dissertation synthesizes the findings of the four empirical chapters to show that ‘doing’ hybrid democratic innovations is a dynamic and evolving process. Administrative and political actors navigate tensions between following citizens’ preferences and weighing traditional administrative and political considerations. Viewing these tensions and navigations through the lenses of implementation and democratic reform helps explain why hybrid democratic innovations can fail to achieve policy impact: actors navigate conflicting values and incrementally adapt the process, while politicians act on strategic interests. This doctoral research also demonstrates patterns of when and how the political-administrative practices shaping HDIs do contribute to having impact on policy decisions: when civil servants steer politicians towards prioritizing citizens’ input, and when the sequence of participation builds politicians’ perception that citizens’ preferences are united. These findings point to the importance of learning and adaptation in the participation process, and of integrating lessons from hybrid democratic innovations into political-administrative practices.