What Are Petitions Good for? Institutional Design and Democratic Functions

• Rosenberger, Sieglinde ^[1] ; Seisl, Benedikt ^[1] ; Stadlmair, Jeremias ^[1] ; Dalpra, Elio ^[1]
  1. [1] University of Vienna

     University of Vienna

     Innere Stadt, Austria

     
• Localización: Parliamentary affairs: A journal of representative politics, ISSN 0031-2290, Vol. 75, Nº 1, 2022, págs. 217-237
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1093/pa/gsaa058
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Parliamentary efforts to facilitate wider participation and specialised online platforms have made petition instruments more attractive and relevant, yet comparisons of petition instruments are rare. This article examines formalised (parliamentary petitions) and non-formalised petition instruments (online petitions) in Austria via a cluster analysis of actors and content of 600 petitions between 2011 and 2018. We find that, depending on the legal and institutional design, different petition instruments serve three different democratic functions: voice in parliament, link with constituents and public mobilisation. Complementing these results with insights from expert interviews with petitioners, the article provides also an understanding of how petition instruments affect petitioners’ motivations. Our findings yield a more nuanced picture of the motivations and functions of petition instruments.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Berg, (2017), First Monday, 22
  • Blümel, (2005), Forum Parlament, 3, pp. 60
  • Bochel, (2013), Parliamentary Affairs, 66, pp. 798, 10.1093/pa/gss005
  • Carman, (2010), Political Studies, 58, pp. 731, 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00840.x
  • Carman, (2014), Parliamentary Affairs, 67, pp. 151, 10.1093/pa/gss039
  • Dalton, (2008), Political Studies, 56, pp. 76, 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x
  • Eder, (2015), Electoral Studies, 39, pp. 316, 10.1016/j.electstud.2014.04.008
  • Escher, (2017), Parliamentary Affairs, 70, pp. 132, 10.1093/pa/gsw009
  • Flick, (2016), Sozialforschung
  • Glavanovits, (2019), Sozialstruktur Und Wertewandel in Österreich, pp. 439, 10.1007/978-3-658-21081-6_18
  • Hadj Abdou, (2019), Social Movement Studies, 18, pp. 391, 10.1080/14742837.2019.1567321
  • Halpin, (2018), Australian Journal of Political Science, 53, pp. 428, 10.1080/10361146.2018.1499010
  • Hooghe, (2002), Comparative Political Studies, 35, pp. 965, 10.1177/001041402236310
  • Hough, (2012), The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18, pp. 479, 10.1080/13572334.2012.706057
  • Jungherr, (2010), Policy & Internet, 2, pp. 127, 10.2202/1944-2866.1084
  • Korinek, (1977), Recht und Staat in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 474, pp. 1
  • Leston-Bandeira, (2012), The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18, pp. 265, 10.1080/13572334.2012.706044
  • Leston-Bandeira, (2019), Policy & Politics, 47, pp. 415, 10.1332/030557319X15579230420117
  • Lindner, Policy & Internet, 3, pp. 63, 10.2202/1944-2866.1083
  • Marien, (2010), Political Studies, 58, pp. 187, 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2009.00801.x
  • Riehm, (2013), Elektronische Petitionssysteme. Analysen zur Modernisierung des parlamentarischen Petitionswesens in Deutschland und Europa
  • Rosenberger, (2015), Direkte Demokratie und Parlamentarismus – Wie kommen wir zu den besten Entscheidungen, pp. 227, 10.7767/boehlau.9783205794158.227
  • Saalfeld, (2012), The Journal of Legislative Studies, 18, pp. 314, 10.1080/13572334.2012.706047
  • Tálos, (2015), 20 Jahre EU-Mitgliedschaft Österreichs, pp. 307
  • Teorell, (2007), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies: A Comparative Analysis, pp. 334
  • Tibúrcio, (2015), 'The Right to Petition
  • Voss, (2014), Internet und Partizipation, pp. 149, 10.1007/978-3-658-01028-7_7
  • Wright, (2015), Political Communication, 32, pp. 414, 10.1080/10584609.2014.958256