UCLA

Research Question and Framework:

Does public engagement in the democratic process at the local level actually matter? Can we conceptualize public engagement beyond voting in elections? Furthermore, how does non-electoral public engagement interact with the racial and ethnic politics already in existence in local communities? This study looks to develop and empirically test a theory of local government based on the extent to which local public officials engage in public deliberation with residents of municipalities. In building this framework, the project employs the deliberative democracy theoretical framework. This study also appends to the framework a typology of how public deliberation should function under varying racial conditions in cities, and I empirically test these theoretical concepts by examining the school board politics of the school districts in Los Angeles County.

Methods:

This dissertation project explores the question of interest through a mixture of quantitative and qualitative analysis. Through surveying superintendents across Los Angeles County, I develop the first localized comparative index scale of deliberative democracy – the Deliberative Democracy Index Scale (DDIS). I also measure the policy priorities of the district superintendents as well as collect open-ended responses from the superintendents regarding public participation at school board meetings. Furthermore, this study measures the public’s evaluations of their local government using a separate public opinion survey of Los Angeles County residents. Then, this project concludes with a qualitative analysis of how institutional leadership plays a role the extent to which districts utilize deliberative democracy.

Findings:

Districts with greater minority political empowerment and lower levels of racial conflict produce higher DDIS scores. Superintendents of districts with higher DDIS scores are more likely to prioritize issues important to the public as a whole. Residents of districts with higher DDIS scores are more likely harbor positive evaluations of their local government. Districts with higher DDIS scores tend to utilize more creative means to encourage public participation in school board meetings.

Conclusion:

A quantitative measure of deliberative democracy carries significant explanatory power. An institution’s level of commitment to deliberative democracy influences how administrators think about policy. That institutional commitment also shapes the public’s perceptions of local government performance. The commitment to deliberative democracy largely begins with the norms and conditions established by the governing body.