1 / 45

Administrative and political conflict resolution

Administrative and political conflict resolution. 11 .04.2013 , Riga Agnes Kasper. LECTURE OUTLINE. INTRODUCTION PUBLIC POLICY COMPLEXITY OF RULEMAKING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION METHODS VALUE DECISIONS MEDIATION SESSION MANAGEMENT EXERCISE. The spoon, the cup and the bucket.

rupert
Download Presentation

Administrative and political conflict resolution

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Administrative and political conflict resolution 11.04.2013, Riga Agnes Kasper

  2. LECTURE OUTLINE • INTRODUCTION • PUBLIC POLICY • COMPLEXITY OF RULEMAKING • PUBLIC PARTICIPATION • METHODS • VALUE DECISIONS • MEDIATION SESSION MANAGEMENT EXERCISE

  3. The spoon, the cup and the bucket During a visit to a mental asylum, a visitor asked the director how to determine whether or not a patient should be institutionalised. “Well,” said the director, “we fill up a bathtub, then we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to the patient, and ask him to empty the bathtub.”

  4. ???

  5. The plug...

  6. PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS

  7. COMPLEXITY OF PUBLIC POLICY Public policies of various govermental sectors can influence other policies, directly or indirectly. Example: population health Related policies: • Transportation • Income • Education • Child-care • Environment

  8. Complexity Adopting a policy that takes into account all relevant fields and policies is a complex task. • There are many uncertain effects • Often no consensus in the civil society Decision-makers must manuever between different values, views, needs, preferences and interests. Increased attention is paid lately to deliberative processes  critical examination of issues in groups: reasons vs courses of action, exchange information and come to an areement which informs the decision-making

  9. Case study – Jaitapur protest • What is the surface of the conflict and what are the underlying problems? • What conflict classifications can you apply? (Resources, values, interests, relationships, identity, etc.) • Who are the parties and what motivate them? • How the conflict could have been avoided? • What positive and negative aspects of the conflict can you identify? • How can the conflict be “won” (and what)? Who will loose (and what)? • Can both parties win?

  10. Complexity

  11. Complexity The question is “how do we get into zone P?” More often then not weget there with the help of processes such as mediation or participation.

  12. Methods of public participationDeliberative vs non-deliberative Citizens panels Consensus conference Citizens juries Deliberative polling (Delphi method) Focus groups Surveys Public hearings Open houses Citizen advisory committee Referenda Citizens panels

  13. Citizens panels 1 • consists of statistically representative • sample of residents in a given area • most comprise several thousandcitizens who represent the generalpopulation of an area • panel views are regularly sought • using a survey instrument (e.g. postal, • telephone surveys)

  14. Citizens panels 2 • randomly selected group of 12citizens meet routinely (eg. four timesper year) to consider and discussissues and make decisions • used to guide health resourceallocation decision • panels act as “sounding boards” forgoverning authority

  15. Consensus conference • a group of citizens with variedbackgrounds meets to discuss issuesof a scientific and or technicalnature • consists of 2 stages: 1)meetings withexperts, discussions and work towardconsensus (involves small group ofpeople) 2)conference during which mainobservations and conclusions arepresented to the media and generalpublic

  16. Citizens’ juries • group of 12-20 randomly selectedcitizens, gathered in such a way as torepresent a microcosm of their • community, who meet over severaldays to deliberate on a policyquestion • they are informed about the issue,hear evidence from witnesses andcross-examine them • they then discuss the matter amongstthemselves and reach a decision

  17. Deliberative polling • builds on the opinion poll byincorporating element of deliberation • involves larger numbers than citizensjuries and may involve less time • measures what public would think if itwas informed and engaged aroundan issue

  18. Deliberative processes – engagement of civil society 1. Engagement of the civil society in: • definition of problem, • identification of priorities, • allocation of resources • evaluation of different policy options This approch promotes conciliation, information of public, transparency, legitimacy and accountability in decision making.

  19. Deliberative processes – engagement of civil society example The CPRN’s citizens’ dialogues – Canada Since the late 1990’s the Canadian Policy Research Networks have undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging public deliberation about various policy issues (e.g. the Ontario 2004-2008 budget strategy, the future of Canadian health care, the use of personal information, Canadian public health priorities). For more information: www.cprn.org [FR/EN]

  20. Deliberative method – expert engagement 2. Engagement of experts in: • Production of research • Interpretation of research • Bridging theory and practice This promotes evidence-informed policy making.

  21. Deliberative method – expert engagement example IDEAHealth– KhonKaen, Thailand IDEAHealth was an international dialogue sponsored by the World Health Organization that took place between December 13 and 16, 2006. It allowed decision makers, experts and other stakeholders to share their ideas and experiences and to consider the results of systematic reviews in an attempt to find concrete solutions to problems confronting developing countries. For more information: www.who.int/rpc/meetings/ideahealth/ens non-deliberative

  22. Objectives of two deliberative trends October 2009 Author: François-Pierre Gauvin, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy

  23. Some methods of participatory democracy • Popular/Citizens’ initiatives • Referenda • Public consultation • Surveys • Focus groups • Open houses • Public hearings • Negotiated rulemaking • Consensus-building • Etc.

  24. Citizens’ initiative • It allows electorate to resolve questions where the elected representatives don’t act despite the public desire. Typical provisions in Constitutions. • “The European citizens' initiative allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the European Commission to make a legislative proposal.” (Commission’s homepage) • Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU, Regulation No 211/2011

  25. Public consultation In public consultations the agency ‘s goal is to gain information about the concerns of the public, but the final decision is still made by the agency. No consensus or decision by the public is sought. May be dominated by special interestgroups - feed-back obtained from this formatneeds to be treated carefully becauseit may not be representativeof thecommunity

  26. Negotiated rulemaking • In negotiated rulemaking process the agency seeks out the representatives of interests that will be affected and empanel them into an advisory committee that includes senior members of the agency itself. The committee is tasked with deveoping a consensus for the proposed rule. Then the normal legislative process applies.

  27. Consensus building • Consensus building is used to settle conflicts that involve multiple parties and complicatedissues. The approach seeks to transform Adversarialconfrontations into a cooperative searchfor information and solutions that meet all parties' interests and needs.(Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

  28. Consensus building • Consensus building (also known as collaborativeproblem solving or collaboration) is a conflictresolutionprocess used mainly to settle complex,multiparty disputes. Since the 1980s, it hasbecome widely used in the environmental andpublic policy arena in the United States, but isuseful whenever multiple parties are involved in acomplex dispute or conflict. • The process allowsvarious stakeholders (parties with an interest in the problem or issue) to work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution. (Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

  29. Consensus building • Like a town meeting, consensus building is based on the principles of local participation andownership of decisions. • Ideally, the consensus reached will meet all of the relevant interests ofstakeholders, who thereby come to a unanimous agreement. • While everyone may not geteverything they initially wanted, "consensus has been reached when everyone agrees they canlive with whatever is proposed after every effort has been made to meet the interests of allstake holding parties.“ (Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

  30. Workshop exercise VALUES ● It is 2014, and there is now scientific consensus that secondary smoking is a significant cause of cancer. ● You are all the staff of a regulatory agency that has to act once it is known that a substance causes cancer. ● Where do you stand? Please line up at the most appropriate place on the line.

  31. Workshop exerciseVALUES WHY?

  32. Workhop exerciseVALUES • The instructions made clear that the science was conclusive: secondary smokingcauses cancer. • There was not a disagreement on a technical basis, the disagreement was aboutvalues.

  33. Workshop exerciseConsider the figure

  34. Workshop exerciseConsider the figure

  35. Workshop exerciseCommunication 1. You will be paired with another participant. 2. On the following grid, write what you would say if you were the facilitator – usingthe model below – to handle the seven circumstances that are listed on the grid. I feel (ownership) + feeling word + behavioral description Example: I feel worried about the passivity of the majority of the group. 3. Then compare notes with your partner, discussing how best to send yourconcerns without creating defensiveness, putting anybody down, or seemingunduly controlling.

  36. Situation 1. Group hasdrifted off theagreed-upontopic Your message: ...............................................

  37. Situation 2. People are notable to completetheir commentsbecause ofinterruptions Your message: ...............................................

  38. Situation 3. Too many people talking at once Your message: ...............................................

  39. Situation 4. Comments are exceeding agreed-upon time limits Your message: ...............................................

  40. Situation 5. Participant’scomments areinsulting tootherparticipants – “name-calling” Your message: ...............................................

  41. Situation 6. Group needs tobe reminded ofagenda timelimits Your message: ...............................................

  42. Situation 7. You want topropose the useof a technique,for example,brainstorming Your message: ...............................................

  43. The end Thank you for your attention! Questions???

  44. Sources • A Review of Public Participation and Consultation Methods, Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E and Gauvin F-P. Deliberations about Deliberation: Issues in the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes, McMaster University Centre forHealth Economics and Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01-04, June 2001. • Consensus building, Heidi Burgess and Brad Spangler, 2003.www.beyonintractability.com • Deeliberative process, François-Pierre Gauvin, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy • Participation, Consensus Building and Conflict management training course, Jerome Delli Priscoli, Unesco, 2003. • www.europa.eu

More Related