Note: This article is in need of assistance with editing and content. Please help us complete it.
This case study features a citizens' deliberation on the renovation of a public square in Italy. Many meetings and workshops were organized to take many different stakeholders' perspectives into account, including those of minorities and disabled individuals. The result was a successful, participatory decision to make some major construction modifications to the square.
This case is a randomized field experiment, which examines the differences in decision-making and legitimacy in town meeting versus plebiscitary (direct voting) methods of decision. The experimenter - Benjamin Olken - examined this question in the context of decisions about infrastructure investments in Indonesian villages.
In January of 1995, greater Kobe, Japan experienced a high intensity earthquake called the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake. The damage extended into Kyoto, Osaka, and Hyogo. Just in Hyogo alone, over 240,000 homes burned or collapsed as a result. In March of 1995, the City of Kobe local government issued plans for “Designation of Land Readjustment and Redevelopment Areas,” which called for six areas of land readjustment and two areas to be redeveloped inside Kobe. The City of Kobe also divided the effected areas into black, gray and white zones, referring to the gover
Dieser Fall ist ein randomisierter Feldversuch, welcher die Unterschiede bezüglich Entscheidungsfindung und Legitimität zwischen Bürgerversammlung und plebiszitären Entscheidungsfindungsmethoden (des direkten Wählens) untersucht. Der Experimentator Benjamin Olken hat diese Frage im Kontext von Entscheidungsfragen bezüglich Infrastruktur-Investitionen in indonesischen Dörfern untersucht.