Whereas the effects of democratic innovations on the quality of democracy are discussed very controversial, there are fewer debates regarding the measurement / the measurability of participatory procedures. The purpose of this paper is to explore how the success of deliberative procedures can be defined and measured in comparative large-n case studies. We discuss some parts of an analytical framework that is applied within a comparative empirical research project at the University of Frankfurt, Germany. This meta-analytical pilot study investigates the impact of democratic innovations (including participatory budgeting and local agenda 21 processes). We distinguish the results of participatory procedures at micro, meso and macro level. On the micro level, public participation can enhance civic skills such as knowledge and democratic virtues. Moreover, public participation can strengthen legitimacy, namely the civic acceptance of political decisions. On the meso level, participatory procedures can increase the building of social capital, the deliberative quality and the inclusiveness of political processes. Finally, on the macro level, participatory processes can influence the decision-making process in politics as well as public opinion. In our paper we develop indicators to measure results at these three levels and provide first findings of our meta-analytical pilot study.
