Download
1 / 13
140 likes | 414 Views
DELIBERATION. JACQUIE BURGESS DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, UCL EUROPEAN RESEARCH 2002 CONFERENCE. Framing relationships. How are relations between science, policy and civil society framed? “deficit model” – top-down communication “public mistrust” – greater consultation
E N D
DELIBERATION • JACQUIE BURGESS • DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, UCL • EUROPEAN RESEARCH 2002 CONFERENCE
Framing relationships • How are relations between science, policy and civil society framed? • “deficit model” – top-down communication • “public mistrust” – greater consultation • “democratising expertise” – partnerships
“Knowledge used for policy-making and public debate should not only be excellent from a scientific point of view; it also needs to be ‘socially robust’, responding to policy, social, economic needs or concerns. This involves expertise beyond traditional and professional ‘peer’ community to include those with practical or other knowledge about the issue at hand.” EU White Paper on Governance, Liberatore, A. rapporteur, 2001.
New environmental governance 'Collective action resulting from interactions of multiple, mutually influencing actors both within government and beyond formal authority… [at issue is]… how to conceptualise unknowns, the limits of available scientific knowledge, the cognitive biases inherent in risk research, and thus the terms for wider participation in such judgements.‘ Levidow and Marris, 2001.
Participation and deliberation • Traditional forms of involvement: [information dissemination; public consultation; public participation] • New forms of deliberation [face-to-face communication; argumentation; use of ‘local’ and ‘expert’ knowledges to reach practical judgements about what to do].
increase range of valid knowledges increase the range of voices heard Increase reflexivity and capacity to learn increase legitimacy of policy decisions increase robustness of policy responses Increase public trust in democratic institutions Positive benefits of deliberation
open to capture by sectional interests inefficient use of resources – time, people, money induces bureaucratic inaction stakeholder fatigue fuels public apathy and cynicism leads to forced /false consensus Potential Problems
5 questions for deliberative processes • How do citizens, stakeholders and specialists define the meanings, components and boundaries of the issue? • What do these different groups want or need to know to help them arrivearrive at an informed definition of, and judgement about the issue?
How should uncertainty be handled within the process of deliberation and judgement? • What resources do participants require to assist them? • How are the outputs of deliberative processes to be taken into policy making institutions?
Must ask about: INPUT • Why and how is geographical context important? are deliberative processes culturally specific? can processes be applied in different EU contexts.? • Is the deliberative process fit-for-purpose? does the decision-situation warrant and support the application of a resource intensive process? Will the outputs and outcomes make a difference?
Must ask about: -PROCESS • How to embed analytic tools within deliberative processes? Few participatory techniques suitable for uncertainty assessment/appraisal. • How to ensure that divergent values and understandings are not captured in 'group think'; reaching closure without forcing unreasonable consensus. How to persuade governments of institutional value of contest?
Must ask about: -OUTCOMES • How to ensure institutional receptivity? given sustainability as cross cutting theme; + political sensitivities. • How to scale up socially and spatially? 'small scale and intense experience for participants, but what about wider civil society? • How to balance top-down regulatory institutions with particularities of places, regions, countries?
