{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01568627450980392, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.680628272251309, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Citizen participation and bureaucratization: the participatory turn seen through a Weberian lens

Recently, many scholars in public administration have argued for a participatory turn: the introduction of deliberative arrangements to include citizens in policymaking. In this article, the arguments and likely consequences of these proposals are assessed by using Max Weber’s classical analysis of the interplay between democracy and bureaucratization. It is argued that advocacy for a participatory turn contains blind spots. In consequence, the proposed measures are likely to increase the problems that they were intended to remedy. Points for practitioners The conclusion for practitioners is that direct participatory arrangements are not the panacea to the multiple problems they are often presented to be. The view through a Weberian lens urges caution on those who consider introducing such arrangements, as they might lead to a diminishing of predictability and accountability of public administration, a decrease in (substantial) expertise within government, and a general dissatisfaction with arrangements that do not provide citizens with what they were led to expect. More direct participation, then, easily contributes to the problems they were meant to remedy.