The Closer, the Better? Comparing Advisory Councils at Different Government Levels

• Published date: 01 July 2021
• Date: 01 July 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0095399720971601
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399720971601

Administration & Society

2021, Vol. 53(6) 844 –871

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095399720971601

journals.sagepub.com/home/aas

Article

The Closer, the Better?

Comparing Advisory

Councils at Different

Government Levels

Quim Brugué1, Joan Font2,

and Jorge Ruiz2

Abstract

Advisory councils exist at diverse government levels, making them especially

appropriate to address the discussion about scaling up participatory

institutions, by comparing their differences across different government

levels. We analyze the characteristics of advisory councils in Spain, where

they are quite similar at the national, regional, and local levels, allowing

a controlled comparison of their functioning and results. Results show

similarities across territorial levels and also signs of a better performance

of the local and regional ones, especially regarding the satisfaction of

participants. Relational goods and different understandings of what policy

influence means are crucial explanations of these patterns.

Keywords

advisory councils, participation, public policies

1Universitat de Girona, Spain

2Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas,

Córdoba, Spain

Corresponding Author:

Joan Font, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones

Científicas, Campo Santo Mártires 7, Córdoba 14004, Spain.

Email: jfont@iesa.csic.es

971601AASXXX10.1177/0095399720971601Administration & SocietyBrugué et al.

research-article2020

Brugué et al. 845

Introduction

Efforts to strengthen democratic quality through the intensification of citi-

zen participation often began with formal mechanisms to organize citizen

participation, such as regulations and councils, and evolved toward more

innovative ways, like participatory budgeting or citizen juries. These newer

and more attractive institutions, which seemed to make more ambitious

democratic promises (Smith, 2009), have attracted the most attention in the

recent decades.

However, one of the most promising case studies of participatory institu-

tions is based on Chicago advisory councils (ACs; Fung, 2004). The interest-

ing results of this case are in sharp contrast to less optimistic assessments

made in other contexts (Hendriks et al., 2013; Sintomer & De Maillard,

2007). Are these apparently contradictory results due to the exceptionality of

the Chicago case? Is it related to their bottom-up institutional design, to their

local character, or to particular U.S. characteristics, for example?

Today, ACs are one of the most frequent participatory institutions in many

parts of the world and at all governmental levels: municipalities, regions, and

at national level (Campos & González, 1999; Carvalho & Teixeira, 2000;

Fobé et al., 2013). This is also the case in Spain, the universe we are analyz-

ing, where they have existed since the late 1980s (Navarro, 2004) and are

present at different territorial levels.

Our aim here is to clarify the extent to which the differences in the opera-

tion and results of the ACs can be explained according to the territorial scale

in which they work. In other words, do municipal councils, regional councils,

and national councils operate in the same way, and do they achieve the same

results? In the event that they do not, does the territorial-level variable explain

these differences, or are other institutional design characteristics more impor-

tant for understanding them?

To address this question, the article is organized into five sections. First,

we develop a brief theoretical framework where we present our universe of

analysis and discuss the potential influence of the territorial variable in the

functioning of participatory institutions. Second, we explain the sources of

information and the methodology used to generate the quantitative and

qualitative empirical materials. Third, we present the results. The quantita-

tive section is built on a database created from a broad sample of councils.

It shows more similarities than differences and also a greater degree of

satisfaction among local and regional participants. The qualitative section,

carried out through the analysis of semi-structured interviews with partici-

pants in 10 ACs, helps to explain why this happens through two main

mechanisms: relational goods and the differing interpretations of what