Democratic Innovations: Reinforcing or Changing Perceptions of Trust?

References

• Allen, N., & Birch, S. (2015). Process preferences and public opinion: Citizens’ judgements about government in an era of anti-politics. Political Studies, 63 (2), 390–411. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Åström, J., & Grönlund, A. (2012). Online consultations in local government: What works, when, and why? In S. Coleman & P. Shane (Eds.), Connecting democracy: Online consultation and the flow of political communication (pp. 75–96). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Åström, J., Hinsberg, H., Jonsson, M. E., & Karlsson, M. (eds.). (2013). Case Studies on E-Participation Policy – Sweden, and Iceland. Tallinn, Estonia: PRAXIS Center for Policy Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Åström, J. & Sedelius, T. (2010) Representativ demokrati 2.0. En utvärdering av Malmöinitiativet och Malmöpanelen (Malmö: Malmö stad).
   Google Scholar
• Bang, H. P. (2003). Governance as social and political communication. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bengtsson, Å., & Christensen, H. (2014). Ideals and actions: Do citizens’ patterns of political participation correspond to their conceptions of democracy? Government and Opposition, Online First.
   Google Scholar
• Blaug, R. (2002). Engineering democracy. Political Studies, 50, 102–116. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00361
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Böhle, K., & Reihm, U. (2013). E-petition systems and political participation: About institutional challenges and democratic opportunities. First Monday, 18 (7). doi:10.5210/fm.v18i7.4220
   Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., & Van De Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of “Good Governance”: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69 (3), 329–343.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carman, C. (2010). The process is the reality: Perceptions of procedural fairness and participatory democracy. Political Studies, 58, 731–751. doi:10.1111/post.2010.58.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carman, C. J. (2014). Barriers are Barriers: Asymmetric Participation in the Scottish Public Petitions System. Parliamentary Affairs, 67, 151–171. doi:10.1093/pa/gss039
   Google Scholar
• Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 239–256. doi:10.1086/317987
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, H. (2014) Power sharing and political dissatisfactions: A multilevel analysis of the impact of institutional power sharing on kinds of political dissatisfaction in 24 European democracies. Paper presented at ECPR joint sessions, 10–15 April 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2005). Trust in government: The relative importance of service satisfaction, political factors and demography. Public Performance and Management Review, 28 (4), 487–511.
   Google Scholar
• Coleman, S., & Shane, P. M. (2012). Connecting democracy: Online consultation and the flow of political communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Curato, N., & Niemayer, S. (2013). Reaching out to overcome political apathy: Building participatory capacity through deliberative engagement. Politics & Policy, 41 (3), 355–383. doi:10.1111/polp.12015
   Google Scholar
• Curtin, R., Presser, S., & Singer, E. (2005). Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 87–98. doi:10.1093/poq/nfi002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dalton, R. J. (2004). Democratic challenges, democratic choices: The erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• European Social Survey Round 6 Data. (2012). Data file edition 2.1. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway — Data Archive and distributor of ESS data.
   Google Scholar
• Fan, W. M., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26 (2), 132–139. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (2), 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricker, R. D., Jr, & Schonlau, M. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of internet research surveys: Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14 (4), 347–367. doi:10.1177/152582202237725
   Google Scholar
• Geissel, B., & Newton, K. (Eds.). (2012). Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise? London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hansard Society. (2012). What next for e-petitions? London, UK: Hansard Society.
   Google Scholar
• Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-Morse, E. (2002). Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, L. G., & Betz, D. L. (2005, December 2005). Revisiting the retrospective pretest. American Journal of Evaluation, 26 (4), 501–517. doi:10.1177/1098214005281356
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hooghe, M., & Marien, S. (2013). A comparative analysis of the relation between political trust and forms of political participation in Europe. European Societies, 15(1), 131–152. doi:10.1080/14616696.2012.692807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human development sequence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8(02), 551–567.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, C. (2014). Local civic participation and democratic legitimacy: Evidence from England and Wales. Political Studies, Online First.
   Google Scholar
• Kampen, J. K., Van De Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2006). Assessing the relation between satisfaction with public service delivery and trust in government. The impact of the predisposition of citizens toward government on evaluations of its performance. Public Performance & Management Review, 29 (4), 387–404.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R. B. (2009). Becoming a behavioral science researcher: A guide to producing research that matters. New York, NY: Guilford.
   Google Scholar
• Kumlin, S. (2002). The personal & the political: How personal welfare state experiences affect political trust and ideology. Göteborg Studies in Politics no 78. Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborgs universitet.
   Google Scholar
• Lam, C. M., & Bengo, P. (2003). A comparison of three retrospective self-reporting methods of measuring change in institutional practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (1), 65–80. doi:10.1177/109821400302400106
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linde, J., & Ekman, J. (2003). Satisfaction with democracy: A note on a frequently used indicator in comparative politics. European Journal of Political Research, 42 (3), 391–408. doi:10.1111/ejpr.2003.42.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mair, P. (2006). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. New Left Review, 42, 25–51.
   Google Scholar
• Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77 (2), 275–293. doi:10.1177/0020852311399851
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, A. H., & Listhaug, O. (1990). Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 20 (3), 357–386. doi:10.1017/S0007123400005883
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newton, K., & Geissel, B. (Eds.). (2012). Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise?. Oxon, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit—Critical citizens revisited. New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oscarsson, H. (1999). Demokratiopinioner. Stockholm, Sweden: Fakta info direkt.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pratt, C. C., Mcguigan,William, M., & Katzev, A. R. (2000). Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology. American Journal of Evaluation, 21 (3), 341–349. doi:10.1177/109821400002100305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J.-H., & Johnsen, K. (2014). On the use of the E-petition platform of the German Bundestag. HIG Discussion Paper Series. Hamburg, Germany: Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stoker, G. (2006). Why politics matters: Making democracy work. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Stoker, G. (2013). Engaging citizens: Can Westminister co-exist with meaningful citizen engagement? In E. Lindqvist (Ed.), Putting citizens first: Engagement and service delivery for the 21st century. Canberra, Australia: ANU E Press.
   Google Scholar
• Syd-SOM. (2011). Survey. Göteborgs, Sweden: SOM-Institutet.
   Google Scholar
• Thomassen, J. (2015). What´s gone wrong with democracy, or with theories explaining why it has? In T. Poguntke, S. Rossteutscher, R. Schmitt-Beck, & S. Zmerli (Eds.), Citizenship and democracy in an era of crisis. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Van De Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: The problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26 (8–9), 891–913. doi:10.1081/PAD-120019352
   Google Scholar
• Van Ryzin, G. G. (2007). Pieces of a puzzle: Linking government performance, citizen satisfaction and trust. Public Performance & Management Review, 30 (4), 521–535. doi:10.2753/PMR1530-9576300403
   Google Scholar
• Warren, M. E. (2012) When, where and why do we need deliberation, voting, and other means of organizing democracy? A problem-based approach to democratic systems. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 30–September 2, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Weßels, B. (2015). Political culture, political satisfaction and the rollback of democracy. Global Policy, 6 (Supplement 1), 93–105. doi:10.1111/gpol.2015.6.issue-S1
   Google Scholar
• Wiberg, M. (2012). Beware of deliberations: Strategic aspects. In C. Anckar, & D. Anckar (Eds.), Comparisons, regimes, elections. Festschrift for Lauri Karvonen. Åbo, Finland: Åbo Akademi University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. (2012). Assessing (e-)democratic innovations: “Democratic Goods” and downing street E-petitions. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9 (4), 453–470. doi:10.1080/19331681.2012.712820
   Google Scholar