Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Myth of Democracy

  • Chapter
Book cover The Bedrock of Opinion

Part of the book series: Environment & Policy ((ENPO,volume 32))

Abstract

Sheila Jasanoff has argued that the idea of scientific advisers who only address scientific questions is a myth. However this myth is productive, as it leads to stabilization in the process of regulation. The opinions of experts as carriers of objective science are generally regarded favourably, by both democrats and technocrats.1 In this chapter we follow the decision-making processes which were developed in the feasibility studies, i.e. the work to find a suitable site for a final repository for HLNW in Sweden2 and analyse what view of democracy is maintained by the actors involved and considered serviceable for different parties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Jasanoff 1990; see also Chapter 2.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For a description of feasibility studies see SKB 1995e: 120–122.

    Google Scholar 

  3. SFS 1998:808, ch. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cf. Chapter 1.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Holmberg 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Regarding public opinion on the right of veto see Hedberg 1997 and Holmberg 1988b.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Perhac 1998: 228.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Freudenburg 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hedberg 1996: 138.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hedberg 1996: 138. The difference in the two results is due to SKB’s question assuming that the best place to store HLNW is in your own municipality and asking to accept this actually happening, while the alternative question is asking only for an attitude. See Hedberg & Sundqvist 1998: 79–80; cf. Table 7.1 in this chapter.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mill 1972: 79.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mill 1972: 235–245.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Liedman 1979: 182.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Perhac 1998: 232.

    Google Scholar 

  15. For a critical discussion of this statement see Lidskog 1994: ch. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jasanoff 1986; see also Sundqvist 1991: 111–112.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lewin 1992:57.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lewin 1992: 62ff.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lewin 1992: 92.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lewin 1992: 126f.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dahl 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Held 1996: 104.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Held 1996: 268.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Machiavelli 1992: 48–49.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Machiavelli 1992: 29.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Habermas 1988: 177.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Habermas 1988: 194f.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Habermas 1988: 189, 195ff.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Habermas 1988: 189.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Habermas 1988: 189.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Habermas 1988: 196.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Laird 1993: 345.

    Google Scholar 

  33. For a comparison of pluralism and participatory democracy with regards to scientific and technological policy see Laird 1993. See also Fiorino 1990 and Perhac 1998 for discussions of public involvement in decision making on technological projects.

    Google Scholar 

  34. SFS 1998:808, ch. 6, § 1.

    Google Scholar 

  35. SFS 1998:808, ch. 6, § 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Swedish Special Advisor on Nuclear Waste Disposal 2000–11–07, pp. 19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Cf. Westerlund 1992: 168.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Swedish Government Bill 1990/91:90, p. 167f.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Swedish Government Decision 11, 1995–05–18.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Boken om MKB 1997: 86.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Boken om MKB 1997: 12.

    Google Scholar 

  42. MKB - Underlag för beslut som tryggar livsmiljön 1993: 3.

    Google Scholar 

  43. MKB - Underlag för beslut som tryggar livsmiljön 1993: 7.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Löfgren 1995: 64.

    Google Scholar 

  45. SOU 1996:103, Vol. 1, pp. 300–301.

    Google Scholar 

  46. SKB 2000g: 111.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Swedish Special Advisor on Nuclear Waste Disposal 2000–11–07, pp. 30–31.

    Google Scholar 

  48. See for example Swedish Government Decision 11, 1995–05–18.

    Google Scholar 

  49. SKB 2000g.

    Google Scholar 

  50. SKB 1997a: 21.

    Google Scholar 

  51. For more details about a feasibility study see SKB 1995e: 128–129. For the exception of the municipal veto on land use decisions see SFS 1987:12, ch. 4, § 3; for an interpretation see SOU 1995:50, ch. 2. For social studies of SKB’s feasibility studies focusing on local democracy, public attitudes and mass media see Lidskog 1998a; cf. Myrlund & Johansson 2000; SOU 1999:45; SOU 2001:35, ch. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  52. SKB 1995a: 19.

    Google Scholar 

  53. SKB 1995a: Appendix 5.

    Google Scholar 

  54. SKB 1998b: 94.

    Google Scholar 

  55. SKB 1995a: Appendix 2. Corporatism means that the state cooperates with organizations in public decision-making, where power also could be delegated to organizations for carrying national responsibility. Concerning a feasibility study it is not the state (or the local state: the municipality) which initiates or conducts the study, but a private corporation, SKB. However, an ambition of SKB is to make contact with the municipality, and in this respect it wants to utilize the corporatistic channel, in order to share the responsibility of the study with the municipality. The municipality, on the other hand, has to organize the study from its own perspective, and in this it could more or less use corporatistic strategies, both in relation to SKB and NGOs, to carry out the review work and make decisions about the study.

    Google Scholar 

  56. SKB 1995a: 8.

    Google Scholar 

  57. SKB 1995a: 12.

    Google Scholar 

  58. SKB 1995a: Appendix 5.

    Google Scholar 

  59. SKB 1995a: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  60. SKB 1995a: Appendix 5.

    Google Scholar 

  61. SKB 1996b: 4.

    Google Scholar 

  62. SKB 1995a: x.

    Google Scholar 

  63. SKB 1996b: 3, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Cf. Drottz Sjöberg 1996: 21–22; Lidskog 1998b: 268, n. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  65. SKB 1995a: 96.

    Google Scholar 

  66. SKB 1996a: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  67. SKB 1996a: Appendix 3:2.

    Google Scholar 

  68. SKB 1996a: Appendix 3:2.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Löfgren 1997: 5.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Swedish Government Decision 11, 1995–05–18.

    Google Scholar 

  71. SKB 1996a: 15; Findahl 1998: 234–235.

    Google Scholar 

  72. SKB 1996a: 18.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Sjölander 1998: 199; cf. Findahl 1998: 242.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Sjölander 1998: 199.

    Google Scholar 

  75. SKB 1998b: 94.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Findahl 1998: 236.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Findahl 1998: 242–243.

    Google Scholar 

  78. SKB 1996a: x.

    Google Scholar 

  79. SKB 1996a: 129, 131; cf. Chapter 5.

    Google Scholar 

  80. SKB 1994: 42.

    Google Scholar 

  81. SKB 1995c. Besides the four municipalities hosting commercial nuclear power plants, Oskarshamn (Simpevarp), Östhammar (Forsmark), Kävlinge (Barsebäck) and Varberg (Ringhals), the municipality of Nyköping was investigated. In Nyköping the nuclear research and development facility Studsvik is located.

    Google Scholar 

  82. In the study of the five nuclear municipalities, existing infrastructure and competence were seen as positive factors, which according to SKB motivated its interest in these municipalities (SKB 1995c: 1). They were also considered to have an advantage as regards the transport issue (SKB 1995c: i).

    Google Scholar 

  83. SKB 1995c: i-ii.

    Google Scholar 

  84. SKB 1997d: 19.

    Google Scholar 

  85. SKB 1997d: 19. It was also stated in the SKB inquiry to the municipalities hosting nuclear facilities that no formal approval was required but “a necessary condition for conducting a feasibility study in a proper way is that SKB and concerned municipalities agree on the forms it will take” (SKB 1995d).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Swedish Government Decision 11, 1995–05–18.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Thegerström & Forsström 1995: 163–164.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Swedish Government Decision 11, 1995–05–18.

    Google Scholar 

  89. SKB 2000a: 31.

    Google Scholar 

  90. SKB 2000a: Appendix 5.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Södermanlands Nyheter 1996–10–01.

    Google Scholar 

  92. SOU 2001:35, p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Lidskog 1998b: 255.

    Google Scholar 

  94. SOU 1999:45, p, 104.

    Google Scholar 

  95. SKB 1997c: ix.

    Google Scholar 

  96. SKB 1995c: 63.

    Google Scholar 

  97. SKB 2000a: 196.

    Google Scholar 

  98. SKB 2000b: 31.

    Google Scholar 

  99. SKB 2000b: 32.

    Google Scholar 

  100. SKB 2000b: 36.

    Google Scholar 

  101. SKB 1997d: 25 and Appendix 4.

    Google Scholar 

  102. SKB 1997d: 195.

    Google Scholar 

  103. SKB 2000b: 204.

    Google Scholar 

  104. SKB 1992a: 55.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Oskarshamns kommun 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Oskarshamns kommun 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Oskarshamns kommun 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Oskarshamns kommun 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  109. A year later the government decided to appoint a national coordinator on nuclear waste, to “aid the coordination of the information and administration as regards the siting of nuclear waste which the municipalities involved in SKB studies thought necessary” (Swedish Government Decision 1, 1996–05–15).

    Google Scholar 

  110. The voting was held on March 29, 1996, and the question was worded: “Should SKB be allowed to carry out a feasibility study to investigate whether the municipality is suitable for disposal of spent fuel?”. 54 percent of the pupils (704) voted and the result was an overwhelming majority for the “yes” side: 76 percent voted yes and 23 percent voted no (one percent were blank).

    Google Scholar 

  111. See SKB 1997b: 6–7.

    Google Scholar 

  112. SOU 1999:45, p. 120.

    Google Scholar 

  113. SKB 2000c: 228.

    Google Scholar 

  114. The data was collected via postal questionnaires. For a detailed presentation of the results see Hedberg & Sundqvist 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Holmberg 1996; Holmberg & Asp 1984; Oskarson 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Since the middle of the eighties the Department of Political Science, Göteborg University, has investigated the Swedish public opinion on nuclear power and nuclear waste as part of the SOM survey. See for example Hedberg 1991, 2000; Holmberg 2000. The attitudes towards final storage in my own municipality have been quite stable during the 90s (1994–1999), between 7 and 9 percent being positive. See Hedberg 2000: 331. Therefore, the results from the most recent SOM survey (1999) is compared to the 1996 Oskarshamn survey.

    Google Scholar 

  117. The data from the national SOM survey is presented in Hedberg 2000: 331.

    Google Scholar 

  118. SKB 1997a: 21.

    Google Scholar 

  119. SOU 1999:45, p. 126.

    Google Scholar 

  120. SKB 2000f: 31.

    Google Scholar 

  121. SKB 2000e: 33.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Göteborgs–Posten 1999–06–23.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Göteborgs–Posten 1999–06–23.

    Google Scholar 

  124. SKB 2000d: 35.

    Google Scholar 

  125. SOU 2001:35, p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  126. SKB 2000f: 32.

    Google Scholar 

  127. SOU 2001:35, pp. 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  128. SKB 2000d: 33.

    Google Scholar 

  129. SKB 2000d: Appendix 4.

    Google Scholar 

  130. SOU 2001:35, p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  131. SKB 1995a: Appendix 4:3.

    Google Scholar 

  132. SKB 1992b: 21; cf. Chapter 5.

    Google Scholar 

  133. SKB 1995c: i.

    Google Scholar 

  134. Swedish National Coordinator on Nuclear Waste 1997–09–08.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Swedish National Coordinator on Nuclear Waste 1997–09–08.

    Google Scholar 

  136. Swedish National Coordinator on Nuclear Waste 1997–06–11.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Swedish National Coordinator on Nuclear Waste 1997–11–18a.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Swedish National Coordinator on Nuclear Waste 1997–1 1–18b.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Swedish National Coordinator on Nuclear Waste 1997–02–21.

    Google Scholar 

  140. In May 1999 the Coordinator was given new tasks by the government, and was also renamed Special Advisor on Nuclear Waste Disposal. See Swedish Government Decision 1, 1999–05–06. At this time the National EIA Forum was ended. Subsequently the Advisor was taking part in the EIA consultations arranged by the county administrations in the regions where feasibility studies were conducted.

    Google Scholar 

  141. SKB 2000g. Some weeks before the report was published SKB at a press conference presented the three areas of most interest for site investigations. See SOU 2001:35, p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  142. SKB 2000g: 150.

    Google Scholar 

  143. SKB 2000g: 198.

    Google Scholar 

  144. SKB 2000g: 198–200.

    Google Scholar 

  145. SKB 2000g: 199.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Cf. SKB 2000g: Figures 11.1 and 12.3.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Andersson & Tirén 2001:41.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Andersson & Tirén 2001:46.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Andersson & Tirén 2001:49.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Andersson & Tirén 2001: 47.

    Google Scholar 

  151. See Chapter 5.

    Google Scholar 

  152. SKB 2000g: 107.

    Google Scholar 

  153. SÖdermanlands Nyheter 2001–05–09.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Swedish Government Decision 11, 1995–05–18.

    Google Scholar 

  155. See for example SKB 1997c: 24.

    Google Scholar 

  156. See for example SKI 1993c: Appendix 1.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Cf. Ashmore 1996 and Chapter 2.

    Google Scholar 

  158. See Collins & Pinch 1998 for an introduction to a constructivist view on expert knowledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Section of Science and Technology Studies, Göteborg University, Sweden

    Göran Sundqvist

Authors
  1. Göran Sundqvist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sundqvist, G. (2002). The Myth of Democracy. In: The Bedrock of Opinion. Environment & Policy, vol 32. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9950-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9950-4_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5958-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9950-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation