Professional Documents
Culture Documents
and Democracy B Y D AV I D E . B O O H E R
The Sacramento Water Forum was a contentious and large-scale community meetings.3 Many of them
group of environmentalists, business leaders, farmers, are carried out in parallel with traditional government
and local government officials who spent six years in processes. For example, many of the agreements of
an intensive consensus-building process. As a result of the water forum were subsequently enacted into law
the success of this effort, leaders in Sacramento decid- by local governments. Together these processes point
ed to organize another consensus process on trans- to the emergence of a new approach to governance,
portation and air quality. At one point, when one that is more deliberative and democratic than tra-
environmental groups decided to sue the regional ditional forms of public participation.
transportation agency for not protecting the regions
air quality, some members of the business community
were ready to pull out of this new process. A leading The Sacramento Water Forum is just one example
businessman and elected official, who had been of a variety of new collaborative efforts to tackle
involved in the water forum and influenced by this complex and controversial public policy issues.
way of working, interceded. In an eloquent speech to
the business leaders, he told them they had no choice
but to stay at the table, because there was no accept- The purpose of this essay is to discuss and explain
able alternative. When some of them accused him of some of these emergent practices and their potential
crossing over to the environmentalist side, he told importance for democratic governance. First I sum-
them they were wrong: The Water Forum process marize some of the changes in context for gover-
transformed me, he explained. I now understand nance that scholars have identified as challenges for
that collaboration is the only way to solve problems. politics and policy making in contemporary society.
I do it now in everything I do, including running my I then describe four cases of the governance practices
business and dealing with my suppliers, employees, that are emerging in response to these challenges.
and customers. The business community stayed with Next I discuss some of the challenges for the prac-
the process, and consensus building on transportation tices. Finally, I explore lessons that these experiences
and air quality was launched.1 suggest for democratic governance.
The Sacramento Water Forum is just one example of Challenges for Policy Making in Contemporary Society
a variety of new collaborative efforts to tackle com- Scholars have identified five key challenges to poli-
plex and controversial public policy issues.2 tics and policy making in contemporary society that
Increasingly, public officials, civic leaders, business are factors in the emergence of new processes of col-
leaders, and the public are turning to these practices laboration, dialogue, and deliberation.4
to help them find solutions for many of these chal-
lenging issues. In addition to public policy consensus First, new spaces are being created for gover-
processes such as the Sacramento Water Forum, there nance. In traditional policy making the political
are others: community visioning, consensus rule mak- space is based on government institutions in a hier-
ing, collaborative network structures, roundtables, archy with clear roles and responsibilities. The local
study circles, online forums, participatory budgeting, fits within the regional, regional within state, and
Winter 2004 33
The fourth challenge is increased awareness of inter- their overall success, and trust was germinated from
dependence in policy making. Although diversity them in other collective problem-solving activities.
poses challenges of communication and understand-
ing, interdependence creates the need to overcome
these challenges. When publics and public agencies Policy making is not simply about finding solu-
recognize they cannot solve problems alone, because tions but also creating processes for collective
they share the same physical space or because they action and problem solving that generate trust
share the same social or environmental problem, among the actors.
they recognize that a solution depends on collabora-
tion. If traditional government agencies are unable
to produce accepted solutions, then communities of Newly Emergent Collaborative Governance Practices
the public must create the capacity to interact, share In this context of challenges to traditional govern-
power, and find shared problem definitions with ment practices, we are seeing generation of a variety
paths to solutions. Traditional government institu- of new practices that are based on collaboration,
tions may nurture this capacity, as when local gov- deliberation, and dialogue. Unfortunately, space pre-
ernments in the Sacramento region sponsored vents me from addressing more than four. I hope
formation of the Sacramento Water Forum. In each these examples will permit us to consider some of
practice discussed here, recognition of this interde- the common attributes of the practices as well as
pendence of the participants was central to both ini- their challenges and opportunities. I focus on four of
tiation of the collaborative practice and its success. the most important: public policy consensus build-
ing, community visioning, consensus rule making,
and collaborative network structures. They all
Although diversity poses challenges of communi- reflect key similarities: emphasis on diversity and
cation and understanding, interdependence cre- interdependence, processes that support dialogue
ates the need to overcome these challenges. and deliberation, the building of trust and ongoing
capacity to collaborate in the face of continuing
uncertainty and change, and the search for solutions
Finally, arising out of all this is the issue of how the that embody good outcomes for the public. As
dynamics of trust have changed. Trust has always becomes clear, they also embody similar steps while
been a factor in politics. For traditional government, manifesting different aspects in each of those steps.
trust and confidence on the part of the public origi-
nates in the legitimacy of constitutional institutions. Public Policy Consensus Building
In the new context, thoughin which actors must The Sacramento Water Forum is a good example of
collaborate across institutional boundariestrust public policy consensus building.7 It emerged in the
can no longer be assumed. If problems can no longer context of a history of water conflicts in
be solved by traditional government practices and California, where, as Mark Twain is reputed to
the public feels the need to address them, then new have said, Whiskey is for drinking and water is
practices must be invented. Creating the dynamics of for fighting. In the early 1990s, city and county
trust for these practices becomes a critical challenge. officials recognized that several urgent problems
Policy making is not simply about finding solutions groundwater use and quality, water supply for
but also creating processes for collective action and planned development, providing protection for
problem solving that generate trust among the wildlife and recreationneeded to be addressed. In
actors. In the practices discussed here, success in particular, there was a stalemate over the citys
establishing and nurturing trust was fundamental to need to expand one of its water treatment facilities
Winter 2004 35
stakeholders. Significant effort was made by all the munity visioning to begin their work. A second
stakeholders to find creative approaches that were visioning process, ReVision 2010, followed the first
acceptable to all. Only after dialogue fully explored all (Vision 2000) ten years later. By the end of the
the issues and interests was consensus sought. 1990s, Chattanoogas success was widely acknowl-
edged as leaders from other cities descended on the
Finally the water forum moved into the implemen- city to study the results. Chattanooga continues to
tation phase. This phase included outreach to the benefit from its industrial base. Many of the prob-
general public and generated assurances to the lems created by manufacturing are being addressed.
stakeholders about how actions would be carried Projects generated by the visioning process helped
out and monitored. To monitor implementation, the vitalize the downtown area, brought in tourism, and
stakeholders decided on a successor water forum improved the environment and human services.
process; it still meets regularly.
The phases in the community-visioning process are
similar to those in consensus building. As with the
Community Visioning latter, visioning is appropriate only if conditions exist
Consensus building is a process where stakeholders to support it. An assessment can help to determine
build consensus on actions to address specific public whether these conditions exist. Many groups must be
policy problems; community visioning is a process dissatisfied with the status quo and share a sense
where members of a community build consensus on both that the community must find a new future and
a description of the communitys desired future and that existing government is not able to respond to the
on actions to help make goals for the future a reali- problems facing the community. If citizens doubt that
ty.11 Chattanooga, Tennessee, is a widely recognized public dialogue has the potential to develop good
example of successful application of community ideas, or if pervasive civic disengagement and apathy
visioning. Industrial growth brought many major characterize the community, it is likely to be difficult
industries and jobs to the city, but in the 1960s the to organize visioning. Finally, resources must be
city was unable to develop the kind of professional available to support the visioning process.
job growth that favored other southern cities. As a
result, growth was stymied. The manufacturing base The next phase in community visioning is organiza-
also resulted in major environmental problems, typi- tion. This phase includes key tasks such as establish-
fied by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ing a leadership team that is representative of the
determination in 1969 that Chattanooga had the community and perceived to be credible, forming a
worst air quality of any urban area in the United staff including professionals with expertise and
States. Race relations between African American and trained volunteers, and designing an appropriate and
white residents were strained. The recession of the credible process to gain broad-based participation
late 1970s intensified these economic, environmen- from the community with publicity and outreach.
tal, and social problems. By the early 1980s, leaders
in Chattanooga decided that something had to be The third phase is information gathering. In com-
done and that traditional government institutions munity visioning, the focus is on educating the pub-
were not up to the task of creating a new future. lic about the process and key issues being discussed
and on gathering ideas from the public about their
A group of local officials and business and civic long-term aspirations for the community. In face-to-
leaders came together to form a nonprofit organiza- face dialogues, citizens are asked to discuss with
tion, Chattanooga Venture, to lead action outside each other what they value about their community,
traditional government agencies. They chose com- what they want to preserve, and what they want to
Consensus Rule Making The EPA convened the Clean Fuels Advisory
On August 16, 1991, the EPA and thirty-five stake- Committee, representing thirty-five affected stake-
holders signed an agreement in principle for regula- holders in seven interest categories: oil, automobile
Winter 2004 37
manufacturing, environmental, oxygenate produc- orations and after agreement was reached. It also con-
ers (ethanol and methanol), state-level regulators, tained provisions obligating stakeholders not to liti-
and the U.S. Department of Energy. The process gate a final agreement and to work together to oppose
adhered to the Administrative Procedures Act guide- any stakeholder who defected from the final agree-
lines for public notice and comment. But unlike tra- ment. These ground rules were to remain in effect
ditional procedures for drafting proposed rules, it even after the final regulation was implemented, as
allowed agency and interest-group representatives to long as the regulation complied with the agreement.
negotiate directly with each other. The consensus
dialogue approach is designed to encourage
exchange of information among interested stake- Collaborative Network Structures
holders in search of creative approaches that meet In Goodna, Australia (a small community situated
the needs of all the stakeholders. In the case of the between Brisbane and Ipswich), a local crisis
Clean Fuels Advisory Committee, fundamental val- occurred when an elderly man was killed by a group
ues and setting the standard were not issues. Rather, of youths.14 Many of the young people were the
the issues were how much pollution would be responsibility of government and local service
removed from the air on what schedule, how providers in the community. This event caused
enforcement would be implemented, and what the increased scrutiny of the communitys escalating
market shares of the fuel producers would be. social problems. Goodnas population includes a
Certain critical conditions supported a consensus range of disadvantaged groups and was the subject
approach: the shortage and dispersion of informa- of both intervention by government services and sig-
tion among stakeholders; time and resource con- nificant funding for these services. But the crisis
straints on EPA; the potential for a range of demonstrated that significant and seemingly
approaches; and the potentially large costs in uncer- intractable problems were continuing despite the
tainty, litigation, and lobbying if the traditional interventions and funding. Business as usual did not
method of promulgating rules were used. In this seem to be appropriate. As a result, concerned
case, executive-level credibility and support and the human service practitioners held a series of informal
reputation of EPA for supporting collaboration were meetings to reflect on what had happened. A com-
also key factors. In particular, a high-level EPA offi- munity meeting was later held including public
cial was credited with bringing both support and agency officials. The Goodna Service Integration
facilitative leadership to the process. Project (SIP) emerged from the meetings. The SIP
team included representatives of the commonwealth
In addition, the key to gaining participation of all the government, several state and local agencies, learn-
stakeholders and to the success of the process was ing institutions, and project staff. The goal of the
negotiating ground rules to prevent efforts to circum- project was to move beyond previous attempts at
vent an agreement by means of going to the White consultation and coordination (which were seen as
House or Congress. (The importance of this became inadequate) to develop a sustainable system of
clear after the agreement was approved, when the human services provision (including design, funding,
ethanol producers approached Congress and the delivery, and evaluation phases). . . .15
White House to petition EPA for changes in the
agreed-on rule to benefit them at the expense of other The system was meant to accomplish more align-
stakeholders. This effort, which was opposed by EPA ment among community needs, strategies of service
and other stakeholders, failed.) The ground rules agencies, priority outcomes, and resource allocation.
included provisions barring executive branch inter- It was also meant to accomplish building social cap-
ventions and stakeholder lobbying during the collab- ital; integration of human service delivery; and inter-
Winter 2004 39
Table 1. Characteristics and Outcomes of Network Structures
Characteristics of Network Structures Requirements Expected Outcomes
Common mission Seeing the whole picture Each member sees self as one piece of a
New valuesaround the issue, total issue
not the service Synergies develop
New attitudes Doing more with less
Developing more meaningful programs
Increasing power by being able to
convince the power brokers because
of the increased strength of the network
members as a whole
Seeing points of convergence, rather
than of contention (not fighting over
scarce resources, but seeing how each
wants the same thing)
Not wasting time and money
Members are interdependent Changing perceptions: It is not what Building relationships is primary; tasks
you expect from others but rather how are secondary
you understand them that makes a Building trust (in each other and in
difference government)
Stepping into others shoes Developing relationships is very time
consuming
Breaking down communication barriers
Building new resources to use (gaining
new eyes and ears on the scene)
Expanding expertise, meshing differ-
ent types of expertise
Listening to both professional and com-
munity experts
Recognizing the expertise of others
Resolving conflicts (or potential con-
flicts)
Unique structural arrangement, Actively doing something Risk taking
composed of representatives of many Systems change Flexible, innovative ideas merge
diverse organizations and groups; may Members need to represent their own Visible and invisible conflicts
include representatives of government, organization and the network structure
businesses, voluntary sector, community New way of thinking
Source: Reprinted by permission from Robyn Keast, Myrna P. Mandell, Kerry Brown, and Geoffrey Woolcock, Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing
Because of tension between individual participant a graduate certificate in social sciences (interperson-
goals and the shared goals, and the importance of al leadership) was developed for the SIP partici-
building interpersonal relationships and joint learn- pants. It involved sixteen full days over two
ing, participants often need training on how to oper- semesters, in which the participants learned new the-
ate in a new structure. In the case of the Goodna SIP, ories, unlearned old behaviors, cultivated shared
Winter 2004 41
course that is based on a product of structural sary: The best democratic theory and practice will
inequality.19 Again, these are contested concepts.20 affirm both while recognizing the tension between
them.21
Nonetheless, the empirical evidence suggests that
collaborative practice is not incompatible with the
concept that activism is required to represent the dis- As Iris Marion Young has argued, activists seeking
advantaged, for at least two reasons. First, when to promote justice need to engage both in discus-
done properly collaborative practice is inclusive of sion with others to persuade them and in direct
all the interests and concerns relevant to a policy action when it is necessary.
issue. If not, it is not truly a collaborative process. In
addition, collaborative governance practice requires
that activists, like all participants, be able to freely Institutional Challenge
challenge existing discourse. This brings out a key A third important challenge to collaborative gover-
lesson because there are situations where a govern- nance practice is the way the existing institutional
mental process may be called collaborative but context is structured around adversarial approaches
instead be a strategy to coopt potential opposition. to collective decision making that discourage collab-
These counterfeit processes must be challenged oration. Collaboration is likely to conflict with the
not only by activists but also by proponents of political and bureaucratic styles that define much
authentic collaborative governance. public policy practice.22 Many public officials and
members of the public are unfamiliar with such
Second, proper collaborative governance practice methods of collaborative governance practice as
does not require that activists give up their right to mediation and facilitation, process design, authentic
pursue their cause outside the process if they believe public participation, cross-cultural communication,
it is necessary. For example, with the Sacramento and reflective dialogue; nor do they have the skills to
Transportation and Air Quality Collaborative (a participate. The practice may feel risky to many peo-
spin-off from the Sacramento Water Forum), the ple in traditional agencies because it could upset
process continued even while environmental long-established arrangements and have unknown
activists took their challenge to the courts. On the consequences. Further, many traditional practices,
other hand, the participants in the Clean Fuels such as holding public hearings, are not designed to
Advisory Committeeamong them environmental involve the public in decision making.23 In addition,
activistsinsisted on ground rules that constrained many structural aspects of these institutions have
outside advocacy against the process. There is a unintended perverse effects that discourage deliber-
clear tension between collaborating in a process and ative dialogue.24
at the same time taking the issue to another venue
for action. This reality sometimes requires partici-
pants to live in two worlds. Groups setting clear The existing institutional context is structured
ground rules about what participants can expect of around adversarial approaches to collective deci-
each other help manage the tension. In the final sion making that discourage collaboration.
analysis, activists have the option of declining to
participate if they feel they are better off pursuing
their concerns in another venue. As Iris Marion The institutional challenge is a difficult practical
Young has argued, activists seeking to promote jus- obstacle, but the collaborative governance practices
tice need to engage both in discussion with others to discussed here suggest that it can be addressed. For
persuade them and in direct action when it is neces- example, new skills and methods can be imparted to
Winter 2004 43
A corollary and second lesson is that collaborative comes in the public interest, and it may actually
practices are not appropriate for every public poli- cause harm.
cy problem, or even most problems. By and large,
existing institutions and practices work adequately
to manage policy issues, and these practices do not It matters very much how the practice is carried
offer any added value. Alternatively, actors may out. Not every process calling itself collaborative
believe that they cannot address their problem with is an authentic collaborative governance practice.
collaboration. In addition, collaborative practices
are not appropriate where the eight conditions enu-
merated earlier in this article dont exist to initiate The fourth lesson these cases suggest is that public
or sustain them. Most important, for the practices officials and community leaders can do much to cre-
to be effective the full diversity of the interests ate a context for collaborative democratic gover-
affected by the issue must be included and the par- nance to emerge when it is appropriate. They can
ticipants must recognize their interdependence in create the space for the practice, as the public offi-
moving toward a solution. If used for an inappro- cials in Sacramento did when they created the
priate situation, the practices may not only fail to Sacramento Water Forum. They can create the struc-
produce outcomes in the public interest but actual- tures for collaborative governance practice, as
ly do harm. Congress and the EPA did when they created a struc-
ture for the Clean Fuels Advisory Committee. They
can provide support and facilitative leadership to
Collaborative practices are not appropriate for every initiate and maintain practices, as they did in all
these cases. They can present training opportunities
public policy problem, or even most problems.
for managers and the public to give them the tools
and methods to use in collaborative practice. Public
managers can adapt their everyday practices for
A third important lesson is that it matters very much public participation to make them more participato-
how the practice is carried out. Not every process ry. They can build into their performance incentives
calling itself collaborative is an authentic collabora- for managers recognition of the importance of col-
tive governance practice. To be authentic requires laborative skills, along with the other skills of man-
the use of appropriate organization, methods, and agement. Institutions of higher education can
tools; facilitative leadership; and deliberative space generate curricula that educate students in public
free of coercion. Authentic collaborative practice administration, public policy, planning, and political
usually requires professional expertise for guidance. science about collaborative governance practices.
It begins with an assessment to determine whether For example, my own Department of Public Policy
the conditions and resources exist for potential suc- and Administration at California State University,
cess. It requires in the organization phase adoption Sacramento, has integrated collaborative policy
of ground rules for the process. Also needed is an making into its program for graduate students.
information-gathering phase before the negotiation Finally, scholars can undertake research and theory
and problem-solving phase begins. This latter phase building to strengthen the capacity of democratic
must ensure the conditions for authentic dialogue.27 governance to produce better public policy with
Finally, it calls for an implementation phase that appropriate collaborative practices. As an example,
offers assurance to the participants and the means the Collaborative Democracy Network, a network
to monitor and adapt to results. A process not car- of international and interdisciplinary scholars,
ried out properly is also not likely to produce out- began in 2003 to collaborate toward this end.
the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. 8. Connick, S., and Innes, J. E. Outcomes of Collaborative
N I C C O L M A C H I AV E L L I
Water Policy Making: Applying Complexity Thinking to
Evaluation. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 2003, 46(2), 177-197.
ENDNOTES 9. Adapted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd from
1. Innes, J. E., and Booher, D. E. Collaborative Judith Innes, Consensus Building: Clarifications for the
Policymaking: Governance Through Dialogue. In M. Hajer Critics. Planning Theory, 2004, 3(1), 520. Sage
and H. Wagenaar (eds.), Deliberative Policy Analysis: Publications.
Understanding Governance in the Network Society.
10. Innes, J. E., and Booher, D. E. Consensus Building as
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Role Playing and Bricolage. Journal of the American
2. There is not space here to explore many practices from Planning Association, Winter 1999, 65(1), 9-26.
other countries. A particularly interesting example, though,
11. For more information on community visioning and the
is local implementation of Agenda 21 in Europe using col-
source of this summary, see Moore, C. M., Longo, G., and
laborative practice. For more information, see
Palmer, P. Visioning. In Susskind, McKearnan, and
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/index.h
Thomas-Larmer (1999). For an update on continuing chal-
tm. See also Murray, M., and Greer, J. Participatory Village
lenges and collaboration in Chattanooga, see Elliott, M.
Winter 2004 45
When the Parents Be Cancer-Free: Community Voice, meet criteria of democracy, see Leach, W. D. Is Devolution
Toxics, and Environmental Justice in Chattanooga, Democratic? Assessing Collaborative Environmental
Tennessee. In R. J. Lewicki, B. Gray, and M. Elliott (eds.), Management. Sacramento, Calif.: Center for Collaborative
Making Sense of Intractable Environmental Conflicts: Policy, 2004. (www.csus.edu/ccp/publications.htm)
Concepts and Cases. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003.
18. Schattschneider (1960), p. 138.
12. For more information on indicators, see Gahin, R., and
19. For an excellent discussion of this challenge, see Young,
Paterson, C. Community Indicators: Past, Present, and
I. M. Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy. In J.
Future. National Civic Review, Winter 2001, 90(4), 347-361.
S. Fishkin and P. Laslett (eds.), Debating Deliberative
13. For more information on consensus regulatory rule mak- Democracy. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2003.
ing and the source of this summary, see Weber, E. P.
20. For an excellent response to this challenge, see Innes, J.
Pluralism by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in
E. Consensus Building: Clarifications for the Critics.
Environmental Regulation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
Planning Theory, 2004, 3(1), 5-20.
University Press, 2001. For an additional case study of con-
sensus regulatory rule making, see Sunoo, J. J.-M., and 21. Young (2003), p. 119.
Falkner, J. A. Regulatory Negotiations: The Native 22. Innes, J. E., and Gruber, J. Planning Styles in Conflict at
American Experience. In Susskind, McKearnan, and the San Francisco Bay Areas Metropolitan Transportation
Thomas-Larmer (1999). Commission. Journal of the American Planning
14. For information on network structures and the source of Association, in press.
this summary, see Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., and 23. See Innes, J. E., and Booher, D. E. Reframing Public
Woolcock, G. Network Structures: Working Differently Participation Strategies for the 21st Century. Planning
and Changing Expectations. Public Administration Review, Theory and Practice, in press.
May/June 2004, 64(3), 363-371. See also Mandel, M. (ed.).
Getting Results Through Collaboration: Networks and 24. Boxer-Macumber, L. Too Much Sun? Emerging
Network Structures for Public Policy and Management. Challenges Presented by California and Federal Open
Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books, 2001. Meeting Legislation to Public Policy Consensus Building
Processes. Sacramento, Calif.: Center for Collaborative
15. Keast, Mandell, Brown, and Woolcock (2004), p. 366. Policy, 2003. (www.csus.edu/ccp/publications.htm)
16. See, for example, Truman, D. B. The Governmental 25. Innes and Booher (2004), and Boxer-Macumber (2003).
Process. New York: Knopf, 1951; Dahl, R. A. Who See also Bohman, J. Public Deliberation: Pluralism,
Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1961; and 1996.
Schattschneider, E. E. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realists
View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart 26. Innes, J. E. Evaluating Consensus Building. In Susskind,
and Winston, 1960. McKearnan, and Thomas-Larmer (1999), pp. 631-675.
17. An extensive literature on deliberative democracy 27. Booher, D. E., and Innes, J. E. Network Power and
includes treatments of pluralist theory. See, for example, Collaborative Planning. Journal of Planning Education and
Pateman, C. Participation and Democratic Theory. Research, Spring 2002, 21(3), 221-236.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1970; 28. Machiavelli, N. The Prince. Chicago: Encyclopaedia
Gutman, A., and Thompson, D. Democracy and Britannica Great Books, 1952, p. 9.
Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in
Politics, and What Should Be Done About It. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996; Dryzek, J. S. David E. Booher is a planning and policy consultant in Davis,
Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, and California. Among his clients is the Center for Collaborative
Contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000; Policy at California State University, Sacramento. He grate-
and Gastil, J. By Popular Demand: Revitalizing fully acknowledges the suggestions for this essay by Judith
Innes, Myrna Mandell, and Iris Marion Young.
Representative Democracy Through Deliberative Elections.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. For empirical
research on the extent to which collaborative practice may For bulk reprints of this article, please call (201) 748-8789.