Stealth democracy, elitism, and citizenship in Finnish energy policy

1 S eal h Democ acy, Eli ism, and Ci izenship in Finnish Ene gy Policy Ilkka Ruos e saa i, Uni e si y o Tampe e 1.In oduc ion Inspi ed by he in e na ional inancial and eu o zone c ises, and by he in lux o e ugees in o Eu ope, he populis poli ical pa ies ha e aised he public agenda he claim ha he e is a widening gap be ween he eli e and he people. This claim, howe e , is no new in he ield o ene gy policy, which has been cha ac e ized as a policy sec o whe e ci izens’ in ol emen is mo e limi ed han in mos o he policy sec o s. An Ame ican s udy showed ha o ganiza ional ba ie s o mo e ex ensi e in e es ep esen a ion we e highe in he ene gy sec o han in o he policy domains [1]. Some i ms, especially s a e-owned and, mo e gene ally, hose ope a ing in he ene gy supply, ha e had p i ileged access o decision-making a enas, which ha e emained mos ly closed o o a e age ci izens [2]. Simila indings ha e also been epo ed in Finland. Despi e he new ules o he game – om monopolies and ex ensi e egula ion ia compe i ion and de egula ion o e- egula ion – and he Eu opeaniza ion o he Finnish ene gy sec o , he composi ion o he ene gy eli e has been ai ly s able om he end o 1980s un il he end o he i s decade o he 2000s. The ene gy eli e has been domina ed by ene gy p oduce s. Ci ic associa ions and consume -ci izens ha e had di icul ies in gaining access o he ene gy policy decision-making a enas [3]. The pu pose o he p esen s udy is o add ess whe he he a i udinal dis ance be ween he Finnish ene gy eli e (decision-make s and expe s) and he ci izen y has changed ega ding he ene gy policy be ween 2007 and 2016, and whe he hei a i udinal di e ences we e mo e conce ned wi h he subs ance o ene gy policy han wi h he p ocess o policy-making. The a ionale o s udying he iews o he eli es and he ci izen y s ems om he no ma i e ideals o classical democ acy; ci izens mus be able o in luence poli ical decision-making and hey This is an accep ed manusc ip . The o iginal a icle has been published in Ene gy Resea ch & Social Science. 2017, 34, pp. 93-103. h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1016/j.e ss.2017.06.022 2 also ac i ely use his igh . This equi es esponsi eness o he eli es owa ds ci izens; he gap be ween hem canno be wide and abo e all, i should no g ow. The s a ing poin o ou s udy, he yea 2007, ep esen s a pe iod o apid and s able economic g ow h, while he yea 2016 ep esen s he immedia e ime a e a p olonged ecession ha esul ed om bo h in e na ional economic c ises and domes ic poli ical decisions. A majo poli ical scandal also became public in 2008. Thus, he legi imacy o he poli ical ule was called in o ques ion. Acco ding o Hibbing and Theiss-Mo se (2005, pp. 25, 36, 40), he e has been li le esea ch on how he ci izen y wan hei democ a ic p ocess o wo k. Since he bi h o democ acy in A hens 2,500 yea s ago, philosophe s ha e been oicing hei opinions on he p ope wo king o go e nmen . Since hen his has been a majo esea ch opic in poli ical philosophy (e.g. Swi 2014) [4] and mo al philosophy (e.g. Rachels 2007) [5]. Poli ical scien is s ha e s udied ci izens’ suppo o speci ic policies, poli ical pa ies, go e nmen al ins i u ions, and o democ acy in gene al, bu ci izens ha e no o en been asked in de ail abou hei a i udes on how hey wan hei go e nmen o wo k [6]. Howe e , in Finland some poli ical scien is s ha e analyzed empi ically ci izens’ a i udes on he wo king o democ a ic p ocesses [7,8]. Ame icans, o example, we e ound o be a uned o he way go e nmen wo ks mo e han o wha i p oduces (i.e., hey pay a en ion o he p ocesses mo e han he policies). This inding was in e p e ed o suppo “s eal h democ acy”, a o m o democ acy in which people do no wan o make poli ical decisions hemsel es bu lea e he decision-making in he hands o sel less poli icians and a ious expe s [6]. The opic o ou s udy, ene gy policy, will be de ined in his s udy as he poli ical s ee ing conduc ed by poli ical decision-make s and public au ho i ies ocusing on ene gy managemen . Ene gy policy co e s esea ch, planning, decision-making, implemen a ion, and e alua ion pe aining o he goals and measu es o poli ical decision-make s and public au ho i ies, which ocuses on he p oduc ion, pu chase, s o age, ans e and deli e y o ene gy, and on ene gy 3 consump ion. Howe e , ene gy policy is no de e mined exclusi ely by decisions and measu es made by poli icians and ci il se an s, and implemen a ion o ene gy policy depends hea ily on he business sec o . Fi ms and in e es g oups seek o in luence ene gy policy o p omo e hei own in e es s and shape i s con en de ac o [9]. Finnish policy-making has special cha ac e is ics by in e na ional s anda ds. Acco ding o Rask (2008, p. 199) and Ruch (1997, p. 283), he Finnish go e nmen al policies o science, echnology, and ene gy (e.g. nuclea powe , in o ma ion echnology, and bio echnology) ha e es ed on excep ionally high us in echnology and echnological de elopmen among he ci izen y [10,11]. Mo eo e , wi h espec o ci izens’ us in a ious socie al ins i u ions, he uni e si ies, science and esea ch in gene al we e ou weighed only by he police and he judicia y [12]. This a i udinal clima e has been e lec ed in decision-making. While cons uc ion o new nuclea powe plan s has been p ohibi ed in many coun ies, he Finnish Pa liamen licensed he cons uc ion o wo nuclea powe plan s in 2010. Mo eo e , Finland is among he i s coun ies in which he p ocess o he inal disposal o spen nuclea uel in he bed ock has been au ho ized bo h a he na ional (Pa liamen in 2001) and local (municipal council in 2000) le els [13]. Pe mission o cons uc ion o he acili y was g an ed in 2015. This s udy p oceeds as ollows. Fi s , social changes, mainly deep economic luc ua ions and a poli ical scandal, which likely a ec ed he ci izens’ a i udes om 2007 o 2016, a e ou lined. Second, he heo e ical s a ing poin s conce ning s eal h democ acy and he poli ics o expe ise a e de ined based on p e ious s udies. Thi d, a model o eli e s uc u es o e alua ing empi ical indings is ou lined, and he esea ch me hods, da ase s, and hypo heses a e imposed. Fou h, he analysis is composed o ou sec ions; he wo i s sec ions ocus on he subs ance o ene gy policy, and he a i udes o he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y a e add essed wi h espec o hei no ma i e iews on he Finnish ene gy policy and he u iliza ion o a ious ene gy sou ces in ene gy p oduc ion; he hi d sec ion ocuses on he iews o he ene gy eli e and he 4 gene al popula ion on he p ocess o ene gy policy-making; and he ou h sec ion ou lines he suppo o s eal h democ acy among he ci izen y wi h di e en socio-economic backg ounds. Finally, he esea ch ques ions a e answe ed, and he indings discussed in ligh o he heo e ical s a ing poin s. 2. Changing poli ical in ol emen in Finland om 2007 o 2016 A e he ea ly 1990s, he socie al ope a ing en i onmen o he Finnish eli es and he gene al popula ion was domina ed by deep economic luc ua ions. The Finnish economy collapsed mo e d as ically in he ea ly 1990s han any o he de eloped ma ke economy a e he Second Wo ld Wa [14] and he coun y plunged in o he deepes ecession in i s his o y. Social se ices we e cu , and he wel a e s a e began o disin eg a e as a esul o he cu s in go e nmen expendi u es. This “g ea ecession” in 1991-1993 was ollowed by apid economic g ow h based mainly on go e nmen al in es men s in esea ch and de elopmen and he expansion o he elec onics indus y, especially Nokia L d. Howe e , Finland’s economic boom was hal ed in 2008 by he in e na ional inancial c isis and he eu o zone c isis. Due o ha he Finnish economy is hea ily dependen on expo s, he GNP dec eased by 8% in 2009 compa ed wi h 2008. Al hough his ecession was only abou hal as se e e as he ecession o he 1990s, he GNP s ill dec eased in Finland mo e han in o he eu o a ea coun ies and in hose EU membe s a es ha had joined he Union be o e 2004 [15]. The ecession o igina ing om 2008 las ed longe han he ecession o he ea ly 1990s; he GNP is s ill app oxima ely 5% lowe han be o e he c ises, and a sligh economic g ow h (0.5%) s a ed as la e as 2015. In addi ion o he dec eased go e nmen al ou pu as a esul o he ecession, he eli es’ legi imacy was challenged by poli ical scandals. In pa icula , he poli ical eli e was dis u bed by he elec ion campaign unding scandal o 2008, which was he mos se ious poli ical scandal 5 in Finland o da e as measu ed by he publici y su ounding he e en s [16]. This scandal oge he wi h he in e na ional inancial c isis, he eu o zone c isis, and he G eek and Po uguese bail-ou s, which domina ed he public deba e om 2008 o 2011, unde mined he legi imacy o he majo poli ical pa ies and a ec ed he esul s o he 2011 gene al elec ion; elec o al suppo o he populis Finns Pa y inc eased om 4.1% in 2007 o 19.1% in 2011. In he nex gene al elec ion in 2015, he suppo o he Finns pa y dec eased somewha (17.7%) bu he pa y ose o he inne co e o powe , i.e., he go e nmen . The new go e nmen ha was o med a e he gene al elec ion o 2015 s a ed o inc ease employe s’ bene i s and o cu ci izens’ wel a e se ices o boos economic g ow h. A subs an ial body o schola ly li e a u e indica es ha many pos -indus ial socie ies ha e expe ienced a wi hd awal om con en ional poli ical ac i ism. This ans o ma ion also applies o Finland, wi h some impo an excep ions. The o e u nou in Finland (67.9% in gene al he elec ion o 2007; 70.5% in 2011; and 70.1% in 2015) was wi hin he lowes hi d o all Wes e n democ acies and has dec eased mo e sha ply han in many o he coun ies, especially wi hin Scandina ia [17]. Howe e , Finns’ us in he poli ical and legal sys ems and in o he people was he highes among he 28 EU membe s a es in 2013. [18]. Acco ding o he 2008 Eu opean Social Su ey, Finns pa icipa ed in ci ic associa ions mo e han people in any o he o he 24 coun ies in he s udy. Howe e , Finnish people’s subjec i e ci il e icacy ( he sense ha one can unde s and poli ical p ocesses and pa icipa e in hem meaning ully) has been much lowe , on a e age, han in Eu ope. In 2008, i was he hi d-lowes among 23 Eu opean coun ies [19]. Simila ly, Rapeli [20] showed ha Finns’ knowledge base is no a such a le el, which would enable well-a gued and ho ough discussion on poli ical issues. Finns also ha e low ci ic e icacy conce ning ene gy policy-making. Clea ly mo e han hal o he ci izens we e dissa is ied wi h hei po en ial o in luence ene gy policy; he p opo ion o he ci izen y who ag eed ( ully o somewha ) wi h he s a emen ha “ci izens’ opinions ha e 6 no been hea d su icien ly enough in ene gy policy decisions” was 71% (mean) in 1983-1993, 67% in 1994-2000, and 64 % in 2001-2007 [21]. S olle and Michele i (2006, pp. 266, 39) ha e a gued ha poli ical consume ism may subs i u e o con en ional o ms o pa icipa ion ha a e inc easingly pe cei ed as less e icien and less sui able o he global na u e o poli ical p oblems. Poli ical consume ism can be de ined as “ac ions aken by hose who make choices among p oduce s, p oduc s and se ices wi h he aim o changing objec ionable ins i u ional o ma ke p ac ices.” [22]. In Finland, as in he No dic coun ies in gene al, he endo semen o poli ical consume ism has been ela i ely high since 2007. Wi h espec o in luencing he ene gy policy-making Finns’ ha e mo e us in hei consump ion choices han o ing in gene al elec ions [23]. All in all, since 2007 he Finnish ci izen y has been cha ac e ized, in in e na ional compa ison, by low le els o o e u nou , ci ic e icacy, and poli ical knowledge bu high suppo o poli ical consume ism. All o hese ac o s e lec ci izens’ low us in hei possibili ies o in luence policy-making ough ep esen a i e democ acy. Mo eo e , he economic down u n, a majo poli ical scandal, and he in lux o e ugees ha e unde mined go e nmen s’ ou pu in he ace o he ci izen y. Howe e , simul aneously he ci izen y has been p o iled by high us in he egime and echnology. Because o his special a i udinal combina ion we may an icipa e ha ci izens a e inc easingly willing o gi e poli ical decision-making in he hands o expe s a he han elec ed o icials, as he heo y o s eal h democ acy sugges s. Howe e , i is unnecessa y and e en impossible on he basis o a ailable da a o speci y he e ec o hese indi idual ac o s on he endo semen o s eal h democ acy. This ambi alen a i udinal clima e oge he wi h he adi ion o ene gy policy as a ela i ely closed policy sec o o ci izen in ol emen make Finland a pa icula ly ui ul objec o s udying he ela ionship be ween he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y and o es ing he heo y o s eal h democ acy. 7 3. App oach o s eal h democ acy o poli ical in ol emen A common no ion among social scien is s conce ning ci izens’ s ong, e en inc easing in e es in poli ical in ol emen has been challenged. Acco ding o Hibbing and Theiss-Mo se (2005, 1-2, 143, 127), a he han wan ing a mo e ac i e, pa icipa o y democ acy, a la ge numbe o people wan wha hey call “s eal h democ acy”. Thei claim is ha he people do no ou inely play an ac i e ole in decision-making, o in p o iding inpu o o moni o ing decision-make s. The goal in s eal h democ acy is o decisions o be made e icien ly, objec i ely, and wi hou commo ion and disag eemen . S eal h ai c a such as B-2 bombe s a e di icul o see wi h s anda d ada echniques, bu e e yone knows hey exis . Simila ly, he ci izens wan democ a ic p ocedu es o exis bu no o be isible on a ou ine basis. They wan o be able o make democ acy isible and accoun able on hose a e occasions ha hey a e mo i a ed o be in ol ed. Jus like s eal h bombe s can be made o show up on ada when desi ed, he ci izen y wan o know ha hei go e nmen will become isible, accoun able, and ep esen a i e should hey decide such ai s a e wa an ed. Howe e , un il ha ime, mos people p e e no o be in ol ed and he e o e desi e unob usi e accoun abili y. Thanks o ep esen a i es, people do no need o cons an ly pay a en ion o many issues abou which hey do no ca e. Because indi iduals a e o en oo unin o med, unmo i a ed, o na ow o exe app op ia e poli ical in luence, poli icians should make he decisions o hem [6]. We canno ully unde s and ci izens’ a i udes owa d go e nmen wi hou aking in o accoun how hey hink go e nmen ough o wo k and how hey hink go e nmen wo ks in p ac ice. As a as he ci izens’ a i udes owa d go e nmen a e conce ned, hey a e mo e a ec ed by he p ocess o go e nmen han by he policies go e nmen enac s. Dissa is ac ion usually s ems om pe cep ions o how go e nmen does i s business, no wha he go e nmen does. In ac , 8 he policy ma e s, bu p ocess, a he han policy, is o en a be e p edic o o ci izens’ a i udes and beha io s wi h espec o go e nmen [6]. The ac ha ci izens ha e p e e ences o policy and p ocess has also been shown in Eu opean s udies. In he absence o clea ly o mula ed in e es s and ela ed iden i ies ha ep esen a i es could wo k o p omo e, elec ed o icials ha e become mo e and mo e de ached om hei cons i uency. Vo ing has come o esemble a Schumpe e ian [24] pic u e o democ a ic eli ism whe e he main conce n is o elec people in o posi ions o powe , lea ing ac ual issues o subs ance and policy di ec ions la gely inde e minable. This is a pa icula conce n in he Finnish p opo ional elec o al sys em whe e ci izens can ne e know a he ballo box exac ly how hei o es will be used; which poli ical pa ies will o m he go e nmen coali ion, and wha objec i es hey will adop in he go e nmen p og am [25]. Hibbing and Theiss-Mo se (2005, pp. 7, 122, 85-6, 139-143) a gue ha people wan o dis ance hemsel es om go e nmen no because o a sys em de ec bu because many people a e simply a e se o poli ical con lic and many o he s belie e poli ical con lic is unnecessa y and an indica ion ha some hing is w ong wi h go e nmen al p ocedu es. Eli es a e no wha he ci izens ea ; a he , i is sel -se ing eli es who a e ea ed. The ci izen y is su p isingly smi en wi h he no ion o eli e expe s making choices - p o ided ha hose expe s ha e no hing o gain om selec ing one op ion o e ano he . Because he ci izen y ag ees on socie al goals, no con lic need exis , and go e ning is educed o he mechanical p ocess o implemen ing a good plan o a aining hese goals. De e mining app op ia e policy ac ion hus equi es no elabo a e ins i u ions and powe ul elec ed o icials. In sho , con a y o con en ional wisdom, he ci izen y like he concep o objec i e bu eauc a s making hei echnical decisions. “People wan o a oid go e nmen by people who ac sel ishly, no go e nmen by expe s and eli es” [6]. Thus, s eal h democ acy ep esen s eli is concep ion o democ acy. 9 Howe e , he s eal h democ acy claim ha he expe s ep esen ing, o example, business and public adminis a ion a e legi ima e policy-make s equal o he elec ed o icials, has long been challenged o by se e al schola s. Acco ding o F ank Fische (1990, pp. 14-21, 40, 148), undamen al o he c i ique o echnoc a ic expe ise is he a gumen ha expe s ha e o e elied on and misused scien i ic and echnical knowledge. Thus, echnoc acy is a deep- sea ed challenge o democ acy and i s poli ical o m o decision-making [26]. Wes e n science and echnology policy has gene ally been seen as a policy sec o ha is domina ed by expe s and public adminis a ion, whe e poli ical decision-make s ha e nei he played, no had an aspi a ion o play a ole [27, 28]. This is also he case in Finland; go e nmen al policy-making in he ield o science and echnology has been domina ed by expe s, pe haps mo e so han any o he policy sec o . Despi e i s i al posi ion in socie al de elopmen , howe e , his has played only a ma ginal ole in he agenda o poli ical pa ies and Pa liamen . Al hough mos poli ical pa ies had comp ehensi e pa y p og ams dealing wi h science policy as ea ly as he 1960s and 1970s, hese p og ams ha e since been absen . In ac , he link be ween science and echnology policy and ci il socie y has emained mo e agile han he link wi h poli ical decision-make s [29]. Howe e , Finns ha e us ed mos in he echnology among a ious ac o s o de ices in sol ing he en i onmen al p oblems caused by ene gy p oduc ion and consump ion [9]. 4. Model o eli e s uc u es, esea ch ques ions and hypo heses The exis ence o eli es is an una oidable ac in all pas and cu en socie ies, bo h in democ a ic and un-democ a ic ones [30]. Eli es and democ acy a e no necessa ily mu ually exclusi e bu he compa ibili y o eli es wi h democ a ic p inciples depends on eli es’ cha ac e is ics o ypes. A ypology o eli e s uc u es can be ou lined based on wo a iables; deg ee o he eli es’ 16 was he same in all su eys conduc ed in 2007 and 2016, excep ha in he 2016 su ey “ he u u e” was de ined by he yea 2030. Response op ions we e “inc ease subs an ially”, “inc ease a li le”, “nowadays app op ia e”, “cu ail a li le”, “cu ail subs an ially”, “close down o ally”, and “can’ say” (Table 2). Table 2 abou he e In e ms o he u iliza ion o a ious ene gy sou ces, he ene gy eli e we e much mo e unanimous han he ci izen y in e ms o cohe ence index. The index sco es o he eli e we e 70.5 in 2007 and 62.3 in 2016, and o he ci izen y 53.8 and 53.7. 4 The indings indica e ha he unanimi y, o cohe ence, wi hin he eli e dec eased, while i emained unchanged among he ci izen y. The cohe ence among he eli e and he ci izen y was no iceably highe in e ms o he u iliza ion o a ious ene gy sou ces (Table 2) han wi h espec o he s a emen s o ene gy policy (Table 1). The g ea es di e ences be ween he eli e and he ci izen y in 2007 conce ned he u iliza ion o nuclea powe , wood uels, and biogas, all o which he eli e p e e ed mo e han he gene al popula ion. In 2016, he di e ences we e smalle bu hey conce ned he same ene gy sou ces as in 2007. The g ea es disag eemen be ween he eli e and he popula ion du ing he en i e esea ch pe iod in ol ed he u u e o nuclea powe in ene gy p oduc ion. Howe e , dissension abou nuclea powe dec eased, which can be explained by he ac ha he addi ional cons uc ion o nuclea powe was much deba ed be o e Pa liamen accep ed i in 2010, while in 2016 i was less p ominen in he mass media agenda. 4.6% (3.5%), ne impo o elec ici y 4.5% (3.1%), pea 4.1% (6.9%), wind powe 0.6% (~0%), and o he 3.8% (1.7%) (S a is ics Finland 2007; 2016a). 4 Unanimi y wi hin he eli e and he ci izen y can be measu ed by an index: (inc ease subs an ially % + inc ease a li le %) – (cu ail subs an ially %+ cu ail a li le %+close down o ally)/N. 17 The a i udinal dis ance be ween he eli e and he ci izen y can be measu ed again by s anda d de ia ion in e ms o u iliza ion o a ious ene gy sou ces. Thus, he s anda d de ia ion be ween he eli e and he ci izen y was 15.2 in 2007 and 8.7 in 2016, espec i ely. This means ha he a i udinal dis ance be ween he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y dec eased. The a i udinal dis ance be ween he eli e and he gene al popula ion was clea ly lesse in 2016 in e ms o he u iliza ion o a ious ene gy sou ces han wi h espec o he s a emen s many o which add essed he ways ene gy policy is di ec ed (Table 1). This sugges s ha he di e ences be ween he ene gy eli e and he gene al popula ion may especially conce n he p ocess o policy-making. 8. The p ocess o ene gy policy-making The esponden s we e asked a s uc u ed ques ion, as ollows: “How g ea is he impo ance ha you a ach o ollowing p inciples in ene gy policy-making?” The esponse op ions we e “ e y impo an ”, “ ai ly impo an ”, “no eally impo an ”, “no impo an a all”, and “can’ say”. (Table 3). Table 3 abou he e In 2007, he g ea es di e ence be ween he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y conce ned he s a emen acco ding o which expe s should be in cha ge o decision making. While 91% o he gene al popula ion pe cei ed his s a emen as impo an , only 38% o he eli e we e o he same opinion. The o he majo di e ences conce ned he p inciples acco ding o which hose poli ically esponsible o he cons i uency should be in cha ge o decision-making ( he eli e s essed his mo e), and decisions should be made by consensus based on nego ia ions ( he ci izen y s essed his mo e). In 2016, he g ea es di e ence be ween he eli e and he gene al popula ion deal wi h he same s a emen as in 2007, i.e., he expe s should be in cha ge o 18 decision-making, which he ci izen y unde sco ed mo e han he eli e. Ano he majo di e ence conce ned he s a emen s acco ding o which en i onmen al o ganiza ions should play a cen al ole in decision-making ( he ci izen y s essed his mo e). The i ms’ ole in decision-making was s essed bo h in 2007 and 2016, sligh ly mo e by he eli e bu he di e ence be ween he eli e and he ci izen y was ma ginal. The eli e accen ua ed mo e he ole o business o ganiza ions in decision-making han he gene al popula ion in 2007, while in 2016 he e was no di e ence. Mo eo e , he eli e pe cei ed he pa icipa ion o i ms in decision-making as being sligh ly mo e impo an han he ci izen y since 2007. Ou inding ha ci izens we e willing o see poli ical powe mo e in he hands o non-elec ed expe s han businessmen was in ag eemen wi h Beng sson and Ma ila’s (2009, p. 1040) su ey conduc ed among Finns in 2007 (no ocused on ene gy policy). They ound ha app oxima ely 30% we e in a o o gi ing powe o a mo e p onounced expe s, while less han 20% wished o gi e mo e powe o business leade s. These sha es a e lowe han in ou su ey ha ocused on ene gy policy. Resul s om he wo ld alues su ey o 1995, howe e , p o ided a di e en esul , which indica ed ha poli ical o economic ac o s migh s ongly in luence he answe s. Finland showed he s onges suppo among Wes e n democ acies o an ex ended use o expe ule in poli ical ma e s. As much as 61% o he Finnish esponden s ga e a posi i e esponse o his ques ion in 1995, compa ed wi h 33% in No way, 34% in he US and 38% in Sweden 2009 [7]. Ou da ase s sugges ha he ci izens p io i ized he in ol emen o he expe s and ep esen a i es o i ms mo e han elec ed o icials in ene gy policy-making. Mo eo e , he ci izen y s essed he impo ance o consensus and nego ia ions, which a oids con lic s in ene gy policy-making mo e han he eli e. Howe e , he eli e accen ua ed he ole o elec ed 19 o icials in decision-making mo e han he gene al popula ion. These indings a e consis en wi h ou hypo hesis ha he ci izen y endo ses s eal h democ acy mo e han he eli e. In e ms o he p ocess o ene gy policy-making, he ene gy eli e we e mo e unanimous (cohe en ) han he ci izen y; index sco es o he eli e we e 66.4 in 2007 and 55.4 in 2016, and o he ci izen y, hey we e 53.4 and 52.6, espec i ely. Thus, he a i udinal unanimi y has dec eased wi hin he eli e bu also o a lesse ex en among he ci izen y om 2007 o 2016. The a i udinal dis ance be ween he eli e and he ci izen y in e ms o he p ocess can again be measu ed by he s anda d de ia ion. Because he s anda d de ia ion was 17.4 in 2007 and 10.1 in 2016, we may conclude ha he a i udinal dis ance be ween he eli e and he gene al popula ion has dec eased om 2007 o 2016. As a esul o ha he s anda d de ia ion be ween he eli e and he ci izen y wi h espec o use o a ious ene gy sou ces was 15.2 in 2007 and 8.7 in 2016 (Table 2), ou hypo hesis in ha he a i udinal dis ance be ween he eli e and he ci izen y is lesse in ela ion o policy han o p ocess was e i ied. Howe e , in e ms o s a emen s (Table 1) he s anda d de ia ion was 16.0 in 2016, i.e., e en highe han wi h espec o a p ocess in he same yea ha did no suppo he hypo hesis. To es ou hypo hesis in ha he suppo on s eal h democ acy has inc eased among he ci izen y bu emained unchanged wi hin he eli e om 2007 o 2016, we cons uc ed a sum a iable om i e o he s a emen s men ioned in Table 3. The i e s a emen s all depic he claim o s eal h democ acy, as ollows: “expe s should be in cha ge o he d a ing o decisions”, “expe s should be in cha ge o decision-making”, “ ep esen a i es o i ms should ake pa in decision-making”, “business o ganiza ions should play a cen al ole in he decision- making”, and “decisions should be made by consensus as a esul o nego ia ions”. The mean suppo ( e y o somewha impo an ) o he sum a iable among he eli e was 61.0% in 2007 and 63.0% in 2016, while among he ci izen y, i was 71.0% and 72.2%, espec i ely. Thus, 20 ou hypo hesis was no e i ied because he endo semen inc eased sligh ly among bo h he eli e and he ci izen y om 2007 o 2016. Ou indings exposed a s iking dec easing app ecia ion o democ acy wi hin he ene gy eli e. In 2007, 92% o he eli e ag eed wi h he s a emen acco ding o which hose poli ically esponsible o he cons i uency should be in cha ge o decision-making, bu his numbe was no mo e han 68% in 2016. Howe e , o he eli e 38% in 2007 and 68% in 2016 ag eed wi h he s a emen ha expe s should be in cha ge o decision-making. Mo eo e , he suppo o he idea ha ci izens should be able o in luence decisions dec eased om 76% o 61% in 2007 and 2016, espec i ely. 9. E ec s o socio-demog aphic backg ound on he suppo o s eal h democ acy 9.1. Ci ic e icacy We ha e shown abo e ha he ci izens p io i ized he in ol emen o expe s and businessmen mo e han ha o elec ed o icials in ene gy policy-making. Bu how he o dina y people expe ience hei own ole in ene gy policy-making? To analyze he endo semen o s eal h democ acy among a ious ci izens g oups, we used he sum a iable cons uc ed in he p e ious chap e . The esponse op ions o “ e y impo an ” o “somewha impo an ” we e coded as an endo semen o s eal h democ acy, while he op ions o “no eally impo an ”, “no impo an a all”, and “can’ say” we e coded as non- endo semen o s eal h democ acy. Table 3 showed ha h ee- ou hs o people pe cei ed hei in ol emen as impo an in ene gy policy-making. Howe e , ene gy issues ha e no played an impo an ole in he elec o al a ena; he numbe o ci izens who admi ed ha ene gy issues had a ec ed hei o ing decision in he 21 las gene al elec ion was only 25% in 2007 and 23% in 2016. The suppo o s eal h democ acy was highe among people whose o ing decision was a ec ed by ene gy issues compa ed wi h hose whose o ing decision was no a ec ed. The dependence was s a is ically signi ican bo h in 2007 (p<.05) and 2016 (p<.001). In 2007, 44% o ci izens ag eed ( ully o somewha ) wi h he s a emen “I am well acquain ed wi h ene gy issues”, while he p opo ion (57%) was clea ly highe in 2016. The suppo o s eal h democ acy was highe among ci izens who el ha hey we e knowledgeable in ene gy issues han among hose who we e no . The dependence was s a is ically signi ican only in 2016 (p<.001). Howe e , Finns’ subjec i e ci ic e icacy in he ield o ene gy policy was low; only 25 % in 2007 and 24% in 2016 pe cei ed ha hey can in luence he Finnish ene gy policy by hei own ac ion, while 66% o he eli e we e o he same opinion in 2016. People who pe cei ed ha ing possibili y o in luence suppo ed s eal h democ acy mo e han hose who did no us in hei possibili y o in luence. Howe e , he dependence was s a is ically signi ican only in 2016 (p<.001). In 2016, 52% o people ag eed wi h he s a emen ha “ci izens’ opinions ha e no been hea d su icien ly in ene gy policy decisions” (29% disag eed), while 40% o he eli e ag eed (57% disag eed). Howe e , he Finns’ o e all sense o powe lessness has dec eased signi ican ly; in 1983-2007, he p opo ion o hose who ag eed wi h his s a emen was mo e han 60% (Ene gy A i udes 2007). In 2016, suppo o s eal h democ acy was highe among people who ag eed wi h he s a emen han among hose who disag eed wi h i (p<.001), while among he ene gy eli e membe s he ela ionship was he e e se. These indings sugges ha he e we e di e ences wi h espec o endo semen o s eal h democ acy among people wi h di e en socio-economic cha ac e is ics which will be add essed nex . 22 9.2. Sex and age Due o he ac ha poli ical consume ism, an al e na i e o m o elec o al pa icipa ion, was ound in p e ious s udies o be connec ed o he ci izen agency o women and he young [22], we expec ed ha women suppo s eal h democ acy (which also can be seen as an al e na i e p ac ice o con olling decision-make s h ough elec ions) mo e han men. Because young people gene ally o ed less ac i ely in gene al elec ions and us ed less in con en ional modes o poli ical pa icipa ion han olde people [32], we an icipa ed ha young people will app o e o s eal h democ acy mo e han olde people. In con as o ou expec a ions, women did no suppo s eal h democ acy mo e han men (Table 4). In 2007, he endo semen was he same among men and women (78%), while in 2016 i was sligh ly highe among women (80%) han men (77%). Ou expec a ion conce ning he e ec o age was also no obse ed. The endo semen o s eal h democ acy inc eased linea ly om he younges age coho o 18-29-yea -olds o he oldes age coho o 60-75-yea -olds in 2007 and 2016. Table 4 9.3. Educa ion and occupa ion The high le els o educa ion and occupa ional posi ion ha e gene ally been connec ed o ac i e elec o al pa icipa ion [34]. Thus, we an icipa ed ha highly educa ed people and indi iduals wi h a high occupa ional s a us would suppo s eal h democ acy less han o he people because mo e well-o people ha e mo e ma e ial and knowledge-based esou ces a hei disposal. Due o ha he ene gy sec o is e y echnical in na u e, we expec ed ha people wi h an enginee ing educa ion would endo se he impo an ole o expe s ep esen ing business o public 23 adminis a ion, such as hei colleagues, in ene gy policy-making mo e han people educa ed in o he a eas, o example, in humani ies. Basic educa ion pa ly explained he adhe ence o s eal h democ acy; he sha e o suppo e s o s eal h democ acy was lowes among people wi h he highes le el o basic educa ion, i.e., comple ed hei ma icula ion examina ion. Howe e , adhe ence o s eal h democ acy was no highes among people wi h lowes educa ion (p ima y school) bu among indi iduals wi h elemen a y school educa ion. The endo semen o s eal h democ acy was no s a is ically dependen on oca ional educa ion. Con a y o ou expec a ions, suppo was lowes among he leas educa ed ci izens, i.e., hose who had no occupa ional educa ion a all in 2007 a he han among he mos highly educa ed ci izens. Howe e , i was he second lowes among people wi h highes educa ion, i.e., hose wi h an academic educa ion. In ac , he adhe ence o s eal h democ acy was highes among ci izens wi h he second lowes educa ion, i.e., oca ional cou se. Thus, ou inding di e ed om ha o a Finnish su ey conduc ed in 2007 among he gene al popula ion in which he suppo on s eal h democ acy co ela ed wi h lowe educa ion le els [7]. In 2007, endo semen o s eal h democ acy was lowes among ci izens wi h educa ion in he na u al sciences (67%), humani ies and a s (65%), business (77%), and enginee ing (77%), and highes among people educa ed in pedagogics (89%). In 2016, he adhe ence o s eal h democ acy was lowes among ci izens educa ed in social sciences (65%) and ag icul u e and o es y science (75%), and he highes among people wi h a business educa ion (84%). Thus, he e ec o he educa ion ield was no ha wha we expec ed (p>.05). Ou expec a ion abou a nega i e connec ion be ween a high occupa ional posi ion and he suppo o s eal h democ acy was pa ially ealized. In 2007, he suppo o s eal h democ acy was highes among he unemployed, pensione s and en ep eneu s, and lowes among s uden s, 24 uppe unc iona ies, and people wi h a leade ship posi ion. In 2016, he endo semen was highes among a me s and lowe unc iona ies bu lowes among he unemployed, s uden s, uppe unc iona ies, and people wi h a leade ship posi ion. 9.4. Type o accommoda ion and poli ical a ilia ion Indi iduals who own hei esidences ha e had highe likelihood o o ing in gene al elec ions han hose li ing in en ed la s. This may pa ially be a esul o g ea e s abili y wi h espec o esidency and hus e lec ing social a achmen [34]. Hence, we expec ed ha ci izens li ing in en ed la s endo ses s eal h democ acy mo e han hose who own hei esidence. This was he case in 2007 bu no in 2016. In 2007, 80% o ci izens who li ed in en ed la s endo sed s eal h democ acy, while he p opo ion was 78% among people who owned hei esidences; in 2016, he ela ionship was he e e se 77% and 79%, espec i ely. The dependency was no s a is ically signi ican (p>.05). The deg ee o a achmen o he poli ical sys em has a ied o some ex en be ween he o e s o di e en poli ical pa ies. The in e es in poli ics, a sense o ci il e icacy, and he le el o knowledge on poli ics ha e been highe among he o e s o he Conse a i es and he Le Alliance han among he suppo e s o o he poli ical pa ies [41]. Thus, we an icipa ed ha he suppo e s o he Conse a i es and he Le Alliance would endo se s eal h democ acy less han suppo e s o o he pa ies. Howe e , ou expec a ions we e no ealized. In 2007, s eal h democ acy was suppo ed mos by he esponden s who iden i ied hemsel es wi h he Le Alliance, he G eens, and he Conse a i es, while he adhe ence o s eal h democ acy was lowes among ci izens who did no wan o disclose hei poli ical pa y iden i ica ion, would no o e a all, and couldn’ say hei pa y a ilia ions. In 2016, i was highes among suppo e s o he Ch is ian Democ a s 25 and he Swedish People’s Pa y o Finland, and lowes among hose who would no o e a all as well as suppo e s o he Finns’ Pa y and he G eens. All in all, he dependence be ween he endo semen o s eal h democ acy and a iables measu ing ci izens’ socio-economic backg ound was s a is ically signi ican only in e ms o age in 2007 and 2016, and poli ical a ilia ion in 2016 (Table 4). As ou expec a ions ha we e de i ed om he elec o al beha iou o a ious ci izens’ g oups did no ma e ialize, ou hypo hesis in which socio-economically unde p i ileged people endo se s eal h democ acy mo e han he p i ileged was no e i ied. 10. Resul s The p esen s udy add essed whe he he a i udinal dis ance be ween he Finnish ene gy eli e (decision-make s and expe s) and he ci izen y has changed wi h espec o he ene gy policy be ween 2007 and 2016, and whe he he a i udinal di e ence was mo e conce ned wi h he subs ance o ene gy policy han he p ocess o policy-making. Wi h espec o use o a ious ene gy sou ces in ene gy p oduc ion in he u u e, he a i udinal dis ance be ween he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y dec eased om 2007 o 2016. The a i udinal dis ance be ween he eli e and he gene al popula ion in 2016 was clea ly lesse ega ding use o a ious ene gy sou ces han wi h espec o he s a emen s abou ene gy policy. Thus, in e ms o he subs ance o ene gy policy, he a i udinal dis ance be ween he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y dec eased om 2007 o 2016. Addi ionally, he a i udinal gap dec eased be ween he eli e and gene al popula ion ega ding he p ocess. Ou hypo hesis in which he a i udinal dis ance be ween he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y is lesse in ela ion o subs ance, i.e., ela ed mo e o policy han o p ocess, was e i ied when he ela ionship o he policy was measu ed by he iews on he u iliza ion o a ious ene gy sou ces. Howe e , wi h espec o policy 32 conce ned he ene gy ce i ica e; Pa liamen o de ed he go e nmen o cla i y he con en o he Ene gy Ce i ica e Ac . In 2015, one- hi d o people epo ed ha hey ha e signed a leas one ci ic ini ia i e, and ou - i hs a gued ha his oppo uni y imp o es democ acy. Ci ic ini ia i es ha e especially ac i a ed young people, and aised he poli ical agenda impo an ques ions o alues, which we e p e iously excluded om he agenda, o di ided pa ies in e nally. [45]. All in all, he high popula i y o e e endums and ci ic ini ia i es do no suppo he key claim o s eal h democ acy, acco ding o which, people do no eally wan o be pe sonally mo e in ol ed in poli ics. Acknowledgemen s: The s udy was unded by he S a egic Resea ch Council a he Academy o Finland Re e ences [1] J.E. Chubb, J., In e es G oups and he Bu eauc acy, The Poli ics o Ene gy. S an o d Uni e si y P ess, S an o d, 1983. [2] A. P on e a, Ene gy Policy: Concep s, Ac o s, Ins umen s and Recen De elopmen s. Wo ld Poli ical Sci. Re . 5(1) (2009) 1-30. [3] Remo ed [4] A. Swi , Poli ical Philosophy, 3 d ed., Poli y P ess, Camb idge, 2014. [5] J. Rachels, The Elemen s o Mo al Philosophy, 5 h ed., McG ew-Hill, Bos on, 2007. [6] J. R. Hibbing, E. Theiss-Mo se, S eal h Democ acy. Ame icans’ Belie s abou How Go e nmen Should Wo k, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, 2005. [7] Å. Beng sson, M. Ma ila, Di ec Democ acy and i s C i ics: Suppo o Di ec Democ acy and ‘S eal h Democ acy’ in Finland. Wes Eu . Poli ics 32(5) (2009) 1031-1048. 33 [8] Å. Beng sson, Ci izens' pe cep ions o poli ical p ocesses: A C i ical E alua ion o Consis ency and Su ey I ems. Re is a In e nacional de Sociologia 70(2) (2012) 45-60. [9] Remo ed [10] M. Rask, Expanding Expe ise in Science and Technology Decision Making. Fu u a 27(3) (2008) 76-81. [11] D. Ruch , The Impac o An i-Nuclea Powe Mo emen s in In e na ional Compa ison, in: M. Baue , M. (Ed.), Resis ance o New Technology. Nuclea Powe , In o ma ion echnology and Bio echnology, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, Camb idge, 1997, pp, 277-292. [12] Science Ba ome e , Tie een iedo us y., Helsinki, 2016. [13] T. Li manen, M. Kojo, No Excluding Powe : he Dynamics and S abili y o Nuclea Powe Policy A angemen s in Finland. J. o In eg. En i on. Sci.8(3) (2011) 171-194. [14] M. Kuisma, T. Keskisa ja, E eh ymä ömä . Ta ina suu es a pankkisodas a ja liikepankeis a Suomen koh aloissa. WSOY, Helsinki, 2012. [15] M. Pohjola, Taan uma ei ollu ennä yksellisen sy ä. Helsingin Sanoma , 1s Decembe , 2010. [16] A. Kan ola, J. Vesa, Skandaali ja julkinen elämä Suomessa, in: A. Kan ola (Ed.), He ken halli sija . Gaudeamus, Helsinki, 2011, pp. 42-64. [17] P. No is, Democ a ic De ici . C i ical Ci izens Re isi ed. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, New Yo k, 2011. [18] Eu os a , Quali y o li e in Eu ope – ac s and iews – go e nance. h p://ec.eu opa.eu/eu os a /s a is ics-explained/index.php? i le=Quali y_o _li e_in_Eu ope_- 34 _ ac s_and_ iews_-_go e nance&oldid=270643#T us _in_ins i u ions_and_ us _in_o he s , 2015 (accessed 6.1.2017). [19] E. Kes ilä-Kekkonen, Puoluedemok a ian haas ee , in: T. Fo sbe g, T. Raunio, (Eds.), Poli iikan muu os, Vas apaino, Tampe e, 2014, pp. 41-76. [20] L. Rapeli, Tie ääkö kansa? Kansalais en poli iikka ie ämys eo ee isessa ja empii isessä a kas elussa. Annales Uni e si a is Tu kuensis, Se . C, Tom 296, Uni e si y o Tu ku, Tu ku 2010. [21] Ene gy A i udes 2007, Resea ch epo 25.4.2008. Finnish Ene gy Indus ies, Helsinki. /h p://www.sci. i-yhdys.eas._07/eas- ied 07.h ms. (accessed 27.8.2008). [22] D. S olle, M. Michele i, Poli ical Consume ism. Global Responsibili y in Ac ion, Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, New Yo k, 2013. [23] Remo ed [24] J. A. Schumpe e , Capi alism, Socialism and Democ acy. Eigh imp ession, Allen & Unwin. London, 1959. [25] H. Paloheimo, S. Bo g, Eduskun a aali yleisödemok a ian aikakaudella, in: S. Bo g, H. Paloheimo (Eds.), Vaali yleisödemok a iassa. Eduskun a aali u kimus 2007, Tampe e Uni e si y P ess, Tampe e, 2009, pp. 357-276. [26] F. Fische , Technoc acy and he Poli ics o Expe ise. Sage, London, 1990. [27] S. Kui unen, K. Läh eenmäki-Smi h, Elii ien peliken ä? Teknologiapoli iikan malli ja pe iaa ee Suomessa, Poli . 48(2) (2006) 99-114. [28] J. Pe e son, M. Sha p, Technology Policy in he Eu opean Union. MacMillan, New Yo k, 2001. 35 [29] T. Lemola, Tiede- ja eknologiapoli iikan muu os a pee , in: T. Lemola, P. Honkanen, (Eds.), Inno aa iopoli iikka. Kenen hy äksi, keiden ehdoilla? Gaudeamus, Helsinki, 2004, pp. 290-303. [30] E. E zioni-Hale y, The Eli e Connec ion. P oblems and Po en ial o Wes e n Democ acy, Poli y P ess, Camb idge, 1993. [31] C. W. Mills, The Powe Eli e, Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, New Yo k, 1956. [32] Remo ed [33] OECD, Socie y a a Glance: The C isis and i s A e ma h: OECD Social Indica o s, www.oecd.o /publishing, (accessed 27.3.2014). [34] H. Wass, S. Bo g, Yhden e aisuus äänes yskopissa uoden 2015 eduskun a aaleissa, in: K. G önlund, H. Wass (Eds.), Polii isen osallis umisen e iy yminen. Eduskun a aali u kimus 2015, Sel i yksiä ja ohjei a 28, oikeusminis e iö, Helsinki, 2016, pp. 177-199. [35] S a is ics Finland 2008. S a is ical Yea Book o Finland. S a is ics Finland, Helsinki, 2008 [36] S a is ics Finland 2016. S a is ical Yea Book o Finland. S a is ics Finland, Helsinki, 2016. [37] U. Ho man-Lange, U sula, Su eying Na ional Eli es in he Fede al Republic o Ge many, in: G. Moyse , M. Wags a e (Eds.), Resea ch Me hods o Eli e S udies. London, Allen and Unwin, 1987, pp. 27-47. [38] R. He z, J.B. Imbe (Eds) , S udying Eli es Using Quali a i e Me hods. Sage, London, 1995. [39] Remo ed 36 [40] G. King, R.O. Keohane, S. Ve ba, Designing Social Inqui y, P ince on Uni e si y P ess, P ince on, 1994. [41] L. Rapeli, S. Bo g, Kiinnos a aa mu a monimu kais a: iedo , osallis uminen ja suh au uminen aiku amiseen, in: K. G önlund, H. Wass (Eds.), Polii isen osallis umisen e iy yminen. Eduskun a aali u kimus 2015, Sel i yksiä ja ohjei a 28, oikeusminis e iö, Helsinki, 2016, pp. 358-378. [42] S. J. Pha , R.D. Pu nam (Eds.), Disa ec ed Democ acies, P ince on Uni e si y P ess, P ince on, 2000. [43] J. A. J. E ans, Vo e s and Vo ing. An In oduc ion, Sage, London 2004. [44] M. X. Delli Ca pini, S. Kee e , Wha Ame icans Know abou Poli ics and Why i Ma e s, Yale Uni e si y P ess, New Ha en, 1996, [45] H. Se up Ch is ensen, M. Ka jalainen, M. Se älä, Kansalaisaloi e polii isen yhden e aisuuden näkökulmas a, in: K. G önlund, H. Wass (Eds.), Polii isen osallis umisen e iy yminen. Eduskun a aali u kimus 2015, Sel i yksiä ja ohjei a 28, oikeusminis e iö, Helsinki, 2016, pp. 435-456. Table 1: The iews o he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y on he s a emen s dealing wi h he subs ance o he ene gy policy in 2016 (ag ee ully o somewha %) S a emen Eli e Ci izen y Di e ence E-C Clima e change is se ious, bu is has ecei ed a oo li le a en ion in ou coun y’s poli ical decision-making. 44 61 -17 Finland’s dependence on he ene gy impo s om Russia should be educed. 84 79 +5 A cen alized ene gy sys em based on la ge-scale ene gy p oduc ion uni s is be e han he decen alized sys em based on small-scale ene gy p oduc ion uni s. 36 26 +10 The EU should di ec he membe s a es’ ene gy policy o a g ea e ex en han hey do oday. 34 29 +5 The e is su icien compe i ion be ween elec ici y supplie s. 74 50 +24 Finland should s i e o he na ional ene gy sel -su iciency by 2030. 53 74 -21 Public subsidies o he ene gy policy should be inc eased ha new echnology can be pu in o ope a ion mo e quickly han i is oday. 47 65 -18 Ene gy ma ke s should be allowed o ope a e on he ma ke e ms. 81 41 +40 Use o pe oleum and diesel as a ic uels should be discon inued by 2030. 40 26 +14 Finland should mo e en i ely o he use o enewable ene gy sou ces by 2030. 36 42 -6 Cohe ence index 30.0 30.3 A i udinal dis ance (s anda d de ia ion) 16.0 N= 93 1349 Table 2: The p opo ion o he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y who p e e ed o inc ease (subs an ially o somewha ) he use o a ious ene gy sou ces in he u u e (%) Ene gy sou ce 2007 2016 Eli e Ci izen y Di e ence Eli e Ci izen y Di e ence E-C E-C Wind powe 96 87 +9 74 77 -3 Biogas 96 69 +26 88 74 +14 Wood uels 96 64 +32 77 52 +25 Nuclea powe 84 43 +41 43 22 +29 Sola ene gy 76 91 -15 92 91 +1 Hyd oelec ic powe 66 65 +1 54 60 -6 Pea 33 39 -6 12 22 -10 Na u al gas 25 43 -18 30 34 -4 Coal 4 4 0 1 2 -1 Oil 0 3 -3 1 2 -1 Cohe ence index 70.5 53.8 62.3 53.7 A i udinal dis ance (s anda d de ia ion) 15.2 8.7 N= 24 1180 93 1349 Table 3: The p opo ion o he ene gy eli e and he ci izen y who pe cei ed e y o somewha impo an he p inciples conce ning he p ocess o ene gy policy-making in 2007 and 2016 (%) P inciple 2007 2016 Eli e Ci izen y Di e ence Eli e Ci izen y Di e ence Decision should be announced as openly as possible. 100 96 +4 99 95 +4 Expe s should be in cha ge o he d a ing o decisions. 100 96 +4 99 94 +5 Socie al e ec s o decisions should be aken widely in o accoun . 100 93 +7 100 94 +6 Decisions should ake accoun o a ious in e es g oups. 96 67 +29 68 69 -1 En i onmen al e ec s o decisions should be aken widely in o accoun . 92 95 -3 99 92 +7 Those poli ically esponsible o he cons i uency should be in cha ge o decision- making. 92 54 +38 68 56 +12 The d a ing p ocess o decisions should be open. 88 90 -2 91 89 +2 Ci izens should be able o in luence decisions. 76 75 +1 61 75 -14 Expe s should be in cha ge o decision-making. 38 91 -52 68 89 -21 Rep esen a i es o i ms should ake pa in decision-making. 67 62 +5 68 66 +2 Business o ganiza ions should play a cen al ole in decision-making. 67 41 +26 48 48 0 Decisions should be made by consensus based on nego ia ions. 33 65 -32 32 64 -32 En i onmen al o ganiza ions should play a cen al ole in decision-making. 30 54 -24 28 53 -25 Ene gy policy should be de e mined ee o go e nmen al di ec ion 12 29 -17 21 32 -11 Cohe ence index 66.4 53.4 55.4 52.6 A i udinal dis ance (s anda d de ia ion) 17.4 10.1 N= 24 1189 93 1349 Table 4: P opo ion o suppo e s o s eal h democ acy among a ious socio-economic ci izen g oups in 2007 and 2016 (%) 2007 2016 Sex Men 78 77 Women 78 80 p>.05 p>.05 Age g oup 18-29 72 73 30-44 74 75 45-59 79 76 60-75 83 83 p<.05 p<.01 Basic educa ion P ima y school 78 79 Elemen a y school 80 80 High school 77 78 p>.05 p>.05 Voca ional educa ion No oca ional educa ion 74 75 Voca ional cou se 82 82 Voca ional school 79 78 Poly echnic 78 81 Uni e si y 76 78 p>.05 p>.05 Occupa ional posi ion Leading posi ion 76 76 Uppe unc iona y 72 72 Lowe unc iona y 77 85 Blue-colla wo ke 76 77 En ep eneu 84 82 Fa me 76 90