BEYOND THE ROOM: PUBLIC RESPONSES TO DELIBERATIVE MINI-PUBLICS IN CLIMATE POLICY - A Survey Experiment on Policy Acceptability Among the Non-participating Public in Sweden

Abstract

Deliberative Mini-Publics (DMPs) have been proposed as a democratic innovation to counteract declining voter turnout, growing polarization in public discourse, and waning trust in political institutions, particularly in complex policy areas like climate change. While DMPs are often praised for their internal benefits to participants, little is known about their external impact on non-participants. This study addresses this gap by investigating whether, how, and among which parts of the population DMP involvement in policy-making affects policy acceptability among the broader public. A randomized survey experiment (N=345) was conducted in Sweden, comparing public reactions to a carbon tax policy either framed as stemming from a DMP or through the standard Swedish parliamentary process. The experiment used a 2x1 between-subjects factorial design, with additional analysis of potential mediation by perceived procedural fairness and moderation by education, political trust, and political ideology. Results showed no significant difference in policy acceptability between the two groups, rejecting the hypothesis of a positive spillover effect. This result appears to stem from two opposing effects: a decrease in perceived procedural fairness - especially among more educated, right-leaning individuals and those with higher trust in political parties - and a positive direct effect on policy acceptability. Further, no evidence indicated that education, political trust, and political ideology moderated the overall effect on policy acceptability. The study contributes with several insights for scholars and policymakers. It challenges the assumption that DMPs positively influence public attitudes, and highlights that their effects are more nuanced than what existing research often assumes.