Deliberation in public governance: a comparative legal analysis of practices in foreign states and Ukraine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines deliberative governance in the public sector through a comparative legal analysis of practices in foreign countries and Ukraine. It reveals the conceptual foundations of deliberative governance as a tool for enhancing the democratic legitimacy of public authority by ensuring transparency, citizen participation, and the substantiation of public decisions. The experience of the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Canada, the European Union, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom regarding the institutionalization of deliberative procedures in public administration is analyzed. The main models of deliberation implementation are identified: mandatory public consultations, public debates, participation in rule-making, and Citizens’ Assemblies. Common features of foreign practices are outlined, including the recognition of deliberation as a condition for the legitimacy of public decisions and the need for clear procedural regulation. The state of normative consolidation of deliberative mechanisms in Ukraine is analyzed, based on the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine concerning popular sovereignty, human dignity, the rule of law, citizen participation, and the openness of government activities. The fragmentation of existing deliberative practices in Ukrainian public governance is identified, and the necessity of improving the normative regulation of participationprocedures, ensuring institutional guarantees of good-faith communication, and expanding opportunities for judicial control over the implementation of procedural fairness principles is emphasized. Attention is drawn to universal challenges in the institutionalization of deliberative governance, such as deliberative overload, pseudo-deliberation, non-inclusivity of communication, lack of procedural sincerity, and conflicts with the principle of efficiency. It is argued that overcoming these risks requires the development of clear procedural standards, the definition of areas where deliberation is mandatory, and the creation of conditions for real citizen participation in decision-making processes. It is emphasized that the implementation of deliberative governance should become one of the key directions for the development of democratic constitutionalism and the improvement of public administration in Ukraine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".