Making Policy Deliberative: The Case of Citizens' Initiative Review in Oregon

Abstract

Literature on deliberation has made claims that deliberation in policy making will result in increased legitimacy of collective decisions, more attention to public interests, respect among disagreeing parties, and fewer policy mistakes through complete understanding of issues. Past empirical research on deliberative projects has focused on assessing whether these outcomes of deliberation occur in reality. This research seeks to answer the question of why deliberative policy is adopted in the first place, or what leads political elites to endorse deliberation in public policy. The empirical case study explores the passage of a Citizens' Initiative Review pilot by the Oregon legislature in 2009. Using personal interviews from primary actors, I have discovered four dominant explanations for the adoption of this deliberative policy: timing, effective advocacy, exceptionalism, and low-impact legislative strategy. These conclusions help to predict the future fortunes of the Citizens' Initiative Review policy in Oregon and elsewhere.