[ecrea] CfP Participatory Institutions: Circulations, Scales and National Frameworks

The *International Conference on Policy Diffusion and Development 
Cooperation* aims to bring together local and international 
participants. Since this is an international event, those wishing to 
participate in the plenary discussions will require a minimum level of 
fluency in English and only submissions in English will be accepted.

Only proposals presenting research findings will be eligible.

Abstracts of proposed papers and posters are due by*15 November 2017*. 
All applicants will be notified by *15 December 2017*. Complete papers 
are due by *1st April 2018.*

**

Submissions can be done here. <https://www.even3.com.br/pddc>

*PARTICIPATORY INSTITUTIONS*

Circulations, Scales and National Frameworks

*Conveners*

Brian Wampler (Boise University)

Gilles Pradeau (Centre for the Study of Democracy - University of 
Westminster)

Joseph-Désiré Som-1 (Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient, Université 
Sorbonne Paris Cité)

*Description*

Effective decision-making processes are increasingly linked to 
participatory governance as a new democratic imperative (Baiocchi & 
Ganuza, 2016). However, when some local governments adopt participatory 
institutions, the actual implementation of these innovative processes 
reveal different, and often contradictory, goals. Participatory 
governance embraces a variety of tools that seems to compete among each 
other in order to solve public problems (Petric, 2012; Wampler, 2014; 
Fung, 2015; Cabannes & Lipietz, 2015). Within participatory governance, 
there are differing emphasis on deepening democracy, improving 
deliberation, using new technologies to improve citizens’ access and, 
importantly, as a “good governance” techniques.  This section seeks to 
better understand the spread and adaptation of participatory institutions.

A large part of the literature suggests that participatory tools travel 
thanks to international organizations (Porto de Oliveira, 2017) and 
public participation professionals (Mazeaud & al., 2016; Bherer, & al., 
2017; Wampler & Hartz-Karp, 2012), and foster venues where 
“international civil servants”, “internationalised public sector 
official” and “transnational policy professionals” could meet and learn 
from each other (Stone 2017). The literature also shows that 
decentralization is a framework for the very definition of local 
policies, which are related to diffusion mechanisms:  learning, 
emulation, and competition. New research strategies could help to 
understand why some tools contributing to successful policies could fail 
to travel as standardized solutions (Dunlop & Claudio, 2013; Gilardi, 2016).

This session calls for papers that focus on the circulation of public 
participation professionals and participatory logics, as they dialogue 
with different scales of public administrations officials as well as 
different moments of state-building (Som-1 & De Facci, 2017).

We look forward to receiving papers that focus on the following issues:

 1. How participatory ideals are traveling?

  * Do participatory institutions create new types of legitimacy for
    public and private bureaucracies?
  * The issue of scale: How effective are participatory institutions
    when they are established via national legislation, constitutional
    norms, and other top-down incentives?
  * To what extent are participatory institutions contributing to
    democratize bureaucracy?
  * What is the tension between PIs as radical democratic institutions
    and governance tools?  To what extent are the radical democratic
    elements present
  * When and where do we see the standardization and (non-)reception of
    similar terms and strategies (empowerment, participatory planning,
    third-sector economy,…)? When and where are governments reinventing
    existing participatory institutions and when are they creating new
    institutions?

 1. Circulation of professionals and activists

  * What explains the development of different an epistemic community
    around participatory institutions? What are the functions of a
    national network of cities?
  * Policy learning and failure to learn: what do public participation
    professional learn from policy failure? How organizations are
    evaluating processes and promoting standards through lobbying or
    certification?
  * Are profit and non-for-profit organizations shaping participation
    with different goals?

 1. What tools are traveling?

  * Diversity of reception of digital tools and their adaptation (i.e.,
    Loomio, Consul, Change.org)
  * The deliberative turn of constitution-making
  * South-south cooperation and adaptation of different program rules

*References*

Baiocchi, G. & Ganuza, E. (2017). Popular democracy: the paradox of 
participation. Standford (Estados Unidos: Standford University Press.

Bherer, L., Gauthier M., & Simard L. (2017). The Professionalization of 
Public Participation. London: Taylor and Francis, 2017.

Cabannes, Y. & Lipietz, B. (2015). The Democratic Contribution of 
Participatory Budgeting, Working Paper Series 2015, No.15-168, London 
School of Economics and Political Science.

Dunlop, C. & Radaelli M. (2013). « Systematising Policy Learning: From 
Monolith to Dimensions ». Political Studies 61, n^o  3 (2013): 599‑619. 
DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00982.x.

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the Public Back into Governance: The Challenges 
of Citizen Participation and Its Future. Public Administration Review. 
DOI:10.1111/puar.12361

Gilardi, F. (2016). Four ways we can improve policy diffusion research. 
State Politics & Policy Quarterly 16(1): 8–21. DOI:10.1177/1532440015608761

Marsh, D. & Sharman, J. (2009) « Policy Diffusion and Policy Transfer », 
Policy Studies, 30 (3),  p. 269-288. DOI:10.1080/01442870902863851

Mazeaud, A.,  Nonjon  M. &, Parizet,  R. (2016), « Les circulations 
transnationales de l’ingénierie participative », Participations, 1/2016 
(N° 14), p. 5-35.

Petric, B-M. (2012). Democracy at Large: NGOs, Political Foundations, 
Think Tanks and International Organizations. New York, NY: Palgrave 
Macmillan, 2012. 
http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1058250.

Pogrebinschi, T. (2013). « The Squared Circle of Participatory 
Democracy: Scaling up Deliberation to the National Level ». Critical 
Policy Studies 7, n^o  3 (2013): 219‑41. doi:10.1080/19460171.2013.805156.

Porto de Oliveira, O. (2017), International Policy Diffusion and 
Participatory Budgeting, Palgrave, 2017.

Som-1, J-D.et De Facci, D. (2017). La démocratie au concret : les enjeux 
politiques et territoriaux de la mise en place du Budget Participatif 
dans la Tunisie post-Ben Ali (2011-2016), L’Année du Maghreb, 16/2017.

Stone, D. (2017). Partners to Diplomacy: Transnational Experts and 
Knowledge Transfer Among Global Policy Programs. In The politics of 
expertise in international organizations: how international 
bureaucracies produce and mobilize knowledge. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, 
NY: Routledge.

Wampler, B., & Hartz-Karp J.(2012) « Participatory Budgeting: Diffusion 
and Outcomes across the World ». Journal of Public Deliberation ( n^o  2 
). Available at: http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss2/art13.

Wampler, B.(2014) « Contentious Politics and Participatory Democracy in 
Brazil ». Política & Sociedade 13, n^o  28 (2014): 199‑224. DOI: 
10.5007/2175-7984.2014v13n28p199


---------------
The COMMLIST
---------------
This mailing list is a free service offered by Nico Carpentier. Please
use it responsibly and wisely.
--
To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit http://commlist.org/
--
Before sending a posting request, please always read the guidelines at
http://commlist.org/
--
To contact the mailing list manager:
Email: (nico.carpentier /at/ vub.ac.be)
URL: http://nicocarpentier.net
---------------