More’ or ‘Better’ Institutionalization? Lessons from Latin American Institutions of Citizen Participation

Authors: Yanina Welp, Benjamin Goldfrank, Melisa Ross The debate around the trade-offs of embedding institutions of citizen participation (ICPs, i.e. democratic innovations) in more rigid legal frameworks is a longstanding one, now facing a revival in European democracies with questions around the impact and consequentiality of sortition-based citizens' assemblies. Among arguments in favor of 'more’ institutionalization, one stands out: the expectation that embeddedness in legal frameworks will protect such institutions from eventual changes in political tides. Among arguments against institutionalisation, the fear of crystallizing specific ‘recipes’ translates concerns that overly routinized institutions can be more easily controlled by governments and or parties. This paper presents three contributions to this conversation. First, we review the state of the field regarding the meaning and dimensions of institutionalization of ICPs. Second, we advance a twofold argument: that the debate should not be about institutionalization itself, but about the extent and shape of such institutionalization; and that the type of ICP under consideration will condition the conclusions drawn regarding the benefits and pitfalls of institutionalisation. Third, we explore these ideas by analyzing a selection of Latin American ICPs: participatory budgeting, sortition-based citizens’ assemblies, and popular initiatives. Drawing on rich bodies of empirical evidence and theoretical reflection from Latin America that have previously addressed this issue, we conclude by highlighting that, while important, institutionalization alone cannot guarantee certain expected outcomes of ICPs.