Abstract
This paper argues that while research on deliberative democracy is burgeoning, there is relatively little attention paid to the contributions of civil society. Based on an interpretive conceptualization of deliberative democracy, this paper draws attention to the ways in which civil society organizations employ “storylines” about environmental issues and deliberative processes to shape deliberative policy making. It asks, how do civil society organizations promote storylines in the deliberative system to change policy? How do storylines constitute policy and policy-making processes in the deliberative system? I answer these questions through an empirical analysis of two environmental controversies in the USA: environmental justice in New Mexico and coalbed methane development in Wyoming. Findings indicate that civil society organizations used storylines in both cases to shift the dynamics of the deliberative system and to advance their own interpretations of environmental problems and policy-making processes. Specifically, they used storylines (1) to set the agenda on environmental hazards, (2) to construct the form of public deliberation, changing the rules of the game, (3) to construct the content of public deliberation, shaping meanings related to environmental policy, and (4) to couple/align forums, arenas and courts across the system. These findings suggest that promoting storylines through accommodation and selection processes can be an important mechanism for shaping policy meanings and for improving deliberative quality, although these effects are tempered by discursive and material forms of power, and the competition among alternative storylines.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These approaches are grounded in the “interpretive turn” in the social sciences, which took place in the late twentieth century. At its heart, interpretive research has an “overarching appreciation for the centrality of meaning in human life in all its aspects…” (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2006, xii, see also Ospina and Author 2005).
Drawing on Geertz (1973, 1992), Yanow (2004) defines local knowledge as “the very mundane, yet expert understanding of and practical reasoning about local conditions derived from lived experience” (S12, italics original). Coburn (2005) argues that local knowledge “includes information pertaining to local contexts or settings, including knowledge of specific characteristics, circumstances, events, and relationships, as well as important understanding of their meaning” (47).
While many deliberative scholars argue that rhetoric is a coercive form of communication, it can be necessary to convince a skeptical audience. It “can be used to draw attention to previously marginalized concerns, to reach categories of people traditionally excluded from discussion by couching points in terms familiar to them, and to force action on a problem or issue” (Dryzek 2000, 67; see also Young 2001).
In institutional theory, coupling refers to “the creation and maintenance of gaps between formal policies and organizational practices” (Beekun and Glick 2001; Meyer and Rowan 1977).
Leadership for a Changing World was sponsored by the Ford Foundation and implemented in partnership with the Advocacy Institute and the Research Center for Leadership in Action at The Wagner School/New York University. Each cohort of nominees underwent a rigorous selection process, so that out of about 1,350 nominees per year only 17–20 were selected.
This technique involves re-writing transcripts to uncover the structure and meaning of participants’ stories.
Powder River’s partners included the Wyoming Outdoor Council, the Landowners’ Association of Wyoming and the Sierra Club, and three regional coalitions: the Western Organization of Resource Council, the Rocky Mountain Energy Campaign, and the Western Coalbed Methane Project of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project.
The EJ Working Group included three grassroots organizations—Concerned Citizens of Wagon Mound & Mora County, Colonias Development Council, and Kalpulli Izkalli—three coalitions—The Laguna-Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment, the Sacred Alliances for Grassroots Equality (SAGE), and the Southwest Organizing Project—and two mainstream (i.e., white) environmental organizations—the New Mexico Environmental Law Center and the Southwest Research & Information Center.
Stacking this task force with legislators suggests an attempt to control the process rather than allow the Environmental Quality Council to decide on Powder River’s proposed regulations.
On split estates, ownership over the surface land and subsurface minerals is split between two parties. Often the state or federal government owns subsurface minerals and private landowners own the surface land.
The secretary had been deputy secretary under an EJ supporter and in an interview claimed to want to make EJ a priority. The deputy secretary had worked at the Navajo EPA and Tribal Council, and according to the Network’s executive director, “was very aware of the environmental justice issues from a reservation standpoint and… the people of color perspective.”
Powder River wanted the loss of land value included in surface use agreements, which it got. They wanted companies to post bonds of up to $100,000 to cover reclamation costs in the absence of a surface use agreement (to return land to its original condition), but they only got up to $2000. They wanted 180 days notice before development would begin but only got 30. They also wanted landowners to have equal negotiating rights, e.g., to give or deny permission for companies to enter their land, but they did not. Companies are now required to submit a plan of development to inform landowners, although implementation is uncertain.
Environmental groups thought these cases put into question the validity of BLM’s pre-leasing decisions across the Powder River Basin. Industry representatives argued that these cases only applied to the small handful of parcels that were allowed in the appeal, and did not apply to the basin as a whole.
NEPA, one of the first environmental laws in the US, requires federal agencies to assess environmental impacts of proposed federal projects and document them in Environmental Impact Statements. NEPA analysis must include provisions for public input and assess EJ impacts.
Confrontational action can be justifiable when activists seek to bring attention to issue of justice and fairness (Fung 2005; Young 2001), enhance overall deliberative quality (Mansbridge et al. 2012), respond to unfair procedural conditions (Hendriks 2011; Estlund, 2001), or provide “a kind of expressive force… that can aid understanding in a conflict” (Hendriks 2011, 30, citing Mansbridge 1999).
References
Alliance for Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). (2004). Final report: A report on environmental justice in New Mexico. Santa Fe: New Mexico Environment Department.
Baber, W. F., & Bartlett, R. V. (2007). Problematic participants in deliberative democracy: Experts, social movements, and environmental justice. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 5–22.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.
Bleizeffer, D. (2003). Some violations linger, despite notification. Cheyenne Star Tribune, p. 9.
Boswell, J. (2013). Why and how narrative matters in deliberative systems. Political Studies, 61(3), 620–636.
Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American men project of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568–584.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2003). Final environmental impact statement and proposed plan amendment for the Powder River Basin oil and gas project: (WY-070-02-065)/U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office and Buffalo Field Office: [Cheyenne, Wyo.]: Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office; [Buffalo, Wyo.]: Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office, [2003].
Chambers, S., & Kopstein, J. (2001). Bad civil society. Political Theory, 29(6), 837–865.
Clandinin, D., & Connelly, F. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology: Toward an explanatory science. American Press.
Cook, F. L., Delli Carpini, M. X., & Jacobs, L. R. (2007). Who deliberates? Discursive participation in America. In S. W. Rosenburg (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cordova, T., Bravo, J. T., Gauna, J., Moore, R., & Solis, R. (2000). Building networks to tackle global restructuring: The environmental and economic justice movement. In J. J. Betancur & D. C. Gills (Eds.), The collaborative city: Opportunities and struggles for Blacks and Latinos in U.S. cities (pp. 177–196). New York and London: Garland Publishing.
Dodge, J. (2009). Environmental justice and deliberative democracy: How social change organizations respond to power in the deliberative system. Policy and Society, 28(3), 225–239.
Dodge, J. (2010). Tensions in deliberative practice: A view from civil society. Critical Policy Studies, 4(4), 384–404.
Dodge, J., Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. G. (2005). Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration scholarship: The contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 286–300.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duffy, R. J. (2005). Political mobilization, venue change, and the coal bed methane conflict in Montana and Wyoming. Natural Resources Journal, 45(Spring), 409–440.
Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Elster, J. (1995). Local justice in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Espinosa, J. M., & Gauna, E. (2004). Environmental justice background report for the New Mexico Environment Department. Santa Fe: University of New Mexico and ATR Institute.
Feldman, M. S. (2005). Management and public management. The Academy of Management Journal, 6, 958.
Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. M. (2005). Principles for public management practice: From dichotomies to interdependence. In R. Hodges (Ed.), Governance and the Public Sector (pp. 140–162), Corporate Governance in the New Global Economy series. An Elgar Reference Collection. Cheltenham, Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: The cultural politics of discursive space. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19–40.
Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The Argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning/edited by Frank Fischer and John Forester. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice/edited by Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis. Durham: Duke University Press.
Forester, J. (1993a). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice: Toward a critical pragmatism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Forester, J. (1993b). Learning from practice stories: The priority of practical judgment. Department of City and Regional Planning, Cornell University.
Forester, J. F. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes for public spheres: Eight institutional design choices and their consequences. Journal of Political Philosophy, 11(3), 338–367.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (Eds.). (2003). Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. New York: Verso.
Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Gutman, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2004). Why deliberative democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hajer, M. A. (1997). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative governance: Policy-making in the age of mediatization/Maarten A. Hajer. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 7(3), 175–184.
Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society/edited by Maarten Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hendriks, C. M. (2005). Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums. Policy Sciences, 38(1), 1–20.
Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society’s dual role in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486–508.
Hendriks, C. M. (2011). The politics of public deliberation: Citizen engagement and interest advocacy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.
Howarth, D., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2000). Introducing discourse theory and political analysis. In S. D. H. Y. & A. J. Norval (Eds.), Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change (pp. 1–23). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.
Koontz, T. M., & Johnson, E. M. (2004). One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences, 2, 185.
Lejano, R. P., & Leong, C. (2012). A hermeneutic approach to explaining and understanding public controversies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 793.
Levine, P., & Nierras, R. M. (2007). Activists’ views of deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1), 1–14.
Macedo, S., Alex-Assensoh, Y., Berry, J. M., Brintnall, M., Campbell, D. E., Fraga, L. R., et al. (2005). Democracy at risk. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, 1, 211–239.
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., et al. (2012). Deliberative system: Theories of institutional design. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mendelberg, T., & Karpowitz, C. (2007). How people deliberate about justice: Groups, gender, and decision rules. In S. W. Rosenberg (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy (pp. 101–129). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Montpetit, E., Scala, F., & Fortier, I. (2004). The paradox of deliberative democracy: The National Action Committee on the Status of Women and Canada’s policy on reproductive technology. Policy sciences, 37(2), 137–157.
Nalbandian, J. (1999). Facilitating community, enabling democracy: New roles for local government managers. Public Administration Review, 3, 187.
Nelson, A., & Pettit, C. (2004). Effective community engagement for sustainability: Wombat community forest management case study. Australian Geographer, 35(3), 301–315.
Niemi, J. I. (2005). Jurgen Habermas’s theory of communicative rationality: the foundational distinction between communicative and strategic action. Social Theory and Practice 4, 513.
Norval, A. (2008). Aversive democracy: Inheritance and originality in the democratic tradition. London: Cambridge University Press.
Pelletier, D., Kraak, V., McCullum, C., Uusitalo, U., & Rich, R. (1999). The shaping of collective values through deliberative democracy: an empirical study from New York’s North Country. Policy Sciences 2, 103.
Powder River Basin Resource Council (PRBRC). (2005). 2005 Annual report. Sheridan: Powder River Basin Resource Council.
Pralle, S. B. (2006). Branching out, digging in: Environmental advocacy and agenda setting. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Roberts, N. (1997). Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting direction. Public Administration Review, 2, 124.
Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the policy agenda/edited by David A. Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.
Rogers, T. (2006). Keeping CBM task force on task. Casper Star Tribune.
Schlosberg, D. (1995). Comunicative action in practice: Inter-subjectivity and new social movements. Political Studies, 43, 291–311.
Schlosberg, D. (1999). Environmental justice and the new pluralism: The challenge of difference for environmentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Schwadel, P. (2002). Testing the promise of the churches: Income inequality in the opportunity to learn civic skills in Christian congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(3): 565–575.
Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Judging quality: Evaluative criteria epistemic communities. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp. 89–114). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Sirianni, C. (2009). Investing in democracy: Engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Brookings Institution Press.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration Review, 54(4), 364-369.
Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300.
Surdam, R., Clayton, T., Fox, K., Hulme, D., Lind, K., Palma, J., et al. (2003). Permitting task force report: Review and evaluation of the national pollutant discharge elimination system permitting process. Wyoming: Department of Environmental Quality.
Thomas, C. (2001). Habitat conservation planning: Certainly empowered, somewhat deliberative, questionably democratic. Politics & Society, 29(1), 105–130.
Torpe, L. (2003). Democracy and associations in Denmark: Changing relationships between individuals and associations. Nonprofit and voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, 329–343.
WDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality) (2005a). Soil survey handbook: 618-Soil properties and qualities. Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/wypdes_permitting/WYPDES_cbm/Pages/CBM_Watershed_Permitting/Bibliography/BibliographyDownloads/NRCS%20Soil%20Survey%20Handbook.pdf.
WDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality) (2005b). Water Quality Rules and Regulations: Chapter 8. Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/wqdrules/Chapter_08.pdf.
Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
Yanow, D. (2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries*. British Journal of Management, 15(S1), S9–S25.
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. ME Sharpe Inc.
Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670–690.
Zwart, I. (2003). A greener alternative? Deliberative democracy meets local government. Environmental Politics, 12(2), 23.
Acknowledgments
I gratefully acknowledge the contribution of staff, affiliates, and colleagues of the Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice and the Powder River Basin Resource Council for their contribution to this research. They brought to interviews a deep knowledge of their respective social change efforts. This research was supported by the Research and Documentation component of Leadership for a Changing World (LCW), a program sponsored by the Ford Foundation; I recognize the contributions of my colleagues at the Research Center for Leadership in Action, and our co-researchers and partners in this program who shaped my understanding of social change work. An earlier version of this article was presented at the American Political Science Association conference, September 2013. My thanks to John Dryzek, Stephen Elstub, Selen Ercan, Frank Fischer, and Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça for their comments and conversation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dodge, J. Civil society organizations and deliberative policy making: interpreting environmental controversies in the deliberative system. Policy Sci 47, 161–185 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9200-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9200-y