Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 279–299 | Cite as

Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues

  • Marleen van de Kerkhof
Original Article

Abstract

This article illuminates the contribution of stakeholder dialogues to environmental policy making. It makes a distinction between stakeholder dialogues as consensus building and stakeholder dialogues as deliberation. Although consensus building seems to be the dominant approach in participatory environmental policy making, this article questions the merits of consensus building and it uses the experience of the Dutch stakeholder dialogue project Climate OptiOns for the Long term (COOL) to explore, in a deliberative design, the shortcomings of a consensus-building approach and how they are possibly dealt with. The article presents the results of two deliberative methods that have been used in the COOL project – the repertory grid analysis and the dialectical approach – to demonstrate how a deliberative design can help policy makers to critically assess arguments in favor of and against a broad range of policy options, and deal with stakeholder conflict in an early phase of the policy process.

Keywords

Stakeholder dialogue Deliberation Climate change Consensus building Repertory grid Dialectical approach 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andersson, M., Tuinstra, W., & Mol, A.P.J. (2002). Climate OptiOns for the Long Term (COOL) – European Dialogue. Bilthoven: NRP report 410200117.Google Scholar
  2. Arnstein, S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.Google Scholar
  3. Arvai, J., & Gregory, R. (2003). Testing alternative decision approaches for identifying cleanup priorities at contaminated sites. Environmental Science & Technology, 37, 1469–1476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Berk, M., van Minnen, J.G., Metz, B., Moomaw, W., den Elzen, M.G.J., van Vuuren, D.P., & Gupta, J. (2001). Climate OptiOns for the long term (COOL). Global dialogue synthesis report. Bilthoven: RIVM report 490200003.Google Scholar
  6. Berk, M., Hordijk, L., Hisschemöller, M., Kok, M., Liefferink, D., Swart, R., & Tuinstra, W. (1999). Climate OptiOns for the Long Term (COOL). Interim phase report. Bilthoven: NRP report 410200028.Google Scholar
  7. Bezinningsgroep Energiebeleid (2000). Klimaatprobleem: Oplossing in Zicht. BG-00-P2. Amsterdam. VU Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (Eds.) (1997). Deliberative democracy. Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, S. (1986). Q technique and method: Principles and procedures. In W.D. Berry, & M.S. Lewis-Beck (Eds.), New tools for social scientists. California: Sage, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  10. Coglianese, C. (1997). Assessing consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, 46, 1255–1349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coglianese, C. (1999). The limits of consensus. The environmental protection system in transition: Toward a more desirable future. Environment, 41, 1–6.Google Scholar
  12. Coglianese, C. (2001). Is consensus an appropriate basis for regulatory policy? In E. Orts, & K. Deketelaere (Eds.), Environmental contracts: comparative approaches to regulatory innovations in the United States and Europe (pp. 93–113). London: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  13. Coglianese, C., & Allen, L.K. (2004). Does consensus make common sense? An analysis of EPA’s common sense initiative. Environment, 46, 10–25.Google Scholar
  14. Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond. Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dunn, W. (1988). Methods of the second type: Coping with the wilderness of conventional policy analysis. Policy Studies Review, 7, 720–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dunn, W. (1994). Public policy analysis. An introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Dunn, W. (2001). Using the method of context validation to mitigate Type III errors in environmental policy analysis. In M. Hisschemöller, R. Hoppe, W. Dunn, & J. Ravetz (Eds.), Knowledge, power and participation in environmental policy analysis (pp. 417–436). New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Ezrahi, Y. (1980). Utopian and pragmatic rationalism: The political context of scientific advice. Minerva. A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 18, 111–131.Google Scholar
  19. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment. The politics of local knowledge. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique. Second edition. Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  21. Fung, A., & Wright, E. (2001). Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics & Society, 29, 5–41.Google Scholar
  22. Glasbergen, P. (2002). The green polder model: institutionalizing multi-stakeholder processes in strategic environmental decision-making. European Environment, 12, 303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gregory, R., McDaniels, T., & Fields, D. (2001). Decision aiding, not dispute resolution: creating insights through structured environmental decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Habermas, J. (1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. Inquiry, 13, 363–372.Google Scholar
  25. Harter, P.J. (1982). Negotiating regulations: a cure for Malaise. Georgetown Law Journal, 71. Google Scholar
  26. Heise, D.R. (1970). The semantic differential and attitude research. In G.F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measurement (pp. 235–253). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  27. Hisschemöller, M. (2003). The dutch energy transition and its institutional problems. In M. Faure, J. Gupta, & A. Nentjes (Eds.), Institutions and instruments to control global climate change (pp. 292–311). London: Edward Elgar Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Hisschemöller, M., & Mol, A. (Eds.) (2002). Evaluating the COOL dialogues. Climate OptiOns for the Long Term. Final report – Volume E. Bilthoven: NRP report 410 200 119.Google Scholar
  29. Hisschemöller, M., van de Kerkhof, M., Kok, M., & Folkert, R. (2002a). Climate OptiOns for the long term (COOL): Stakeholders’ views on 80% emission reduction. In M. Kok, W. Vermeulen, A. Faaij, & D. de Jager (Eds.), Global warming and social innovation: the challenge of a climate neutral society. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  30. Hisschemöller, M., van de Kerkhof, M., Annema, J.A., Folkert, R., Kok, M., Spakman, J., Faaij, A., Treffers, D.J., de Jager, D., Jeeninga, H., Kroon, P., Seebregts, A., & Spanjersberg, M. (2002b). Climate OptiOns for the Long Term – Nationale Dialoog. Final report – Volume B. Bilthoven: NRP report 410 200 120.Google Scholar
  31. Hoogerwerf, A. (1990). Reconstructing policy theory. Journal of Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Innes, J.E. (1999). Evaluating consensus building. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 631–675). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  33. IPCC (2001). Climate change 2001: mitigation. In B. Metz, O. Davidson, & R. Swart (Eds.), Contribution of working group III to the third assessment report of the IPCC. UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science: a study of people, expertise and sustainable development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Jankowicz, D. (2004). The easy guide to repertory grids. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  36. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Keeney, R.L. (1994). Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking. Sloan Management Review, 35, 33–41.Google Scholar
  38. Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Volume one – a theory of personality. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  39. Laird, F. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy, and technological decision making. Science, Technology & Human Values, 18, 341–361.Google Scholar
  40. Mason, R. (1969). A dialectical approach to strategic planning. Management Science, 15, 403–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mason, R., & Mitroff, I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions. Theory, Cases and Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  42. Mayer, I. (1997). Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Osgood, C.E., Tannenbaum, P.H., & Suci, G.J. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  44. Ozawa, C.P. (1991). Recasting science. Consensual procedures in public policy making. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  45. Renn, O. (2004). The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise. Participation and discourse in risk management. In T. MacDaniels, & M. Small (Eds.), Risk analysis and society: an interdisciplinary characterization of the field (pp. 289–366). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Renn, O., Webler, T., Rakel, H., Dienel, P., & Johnson, B. (1993). Public participation in decision-making: a three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Siebenhühner, B. (2004). Social learning and sustainability science: which role can stakeholder participation play? International Journal on Sustainable Development, 7, 146–163.Google Scholar
  48. Smith, M.E. (1995). Chaos, consensus and common sense. The Ecologist, 25, 80–85.Google Scholar
  49. Susskind, L. (1999). A short guide to consensus building. In L. Susskind, S. McKearnan, & J. Thomas-Larmer (Eds.), The consensus building handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement (pp. 3–57). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  50. Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J.L. (1987). Breaking the impasse: consensual approaches to resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  51. Susskind, L., & Field, P. (1996). Dealing with an angry public. The mutual gains approach to resolving disputes. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Susskind, L., Fuller, B., Ferenz, M., & Fairman, D. (2003). Multistakeholder dialogue at the global scale. International Negotiation, 8, 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Toth, F. (2002). State of the art and future for integrated environmental assessment. Keynote presentation at the opening conference of EFIEA-II. Amsterdam, October 8–9.Google Scholar
  54. Thompson Klein, J., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R., & Welti, M. (Eds.) (2001). Transdisciplinarity: joint problem-solving among science, technology and society. An effective way for managing complexity. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag.Google Scholar
  55. Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Tuinstra, W., van de Kerkhof, M., & Hisschemöller, M. (2002). Assumptions that underlie the design of the COOL dialogues. In M. Hisschemöller, & A.P.J. Mol (Eds.), Climate OptiOns for the Long Term (COOL). Evaluating the Dialogues. Final Report – Volume E. Bilthoven: NRP report 410 200 119, Appendix 1.2, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  57. Van Asselt, M., & Rijkens-Klomp, N. (2002). A look in the mirror: reflection on participation in integrated assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change, 12, 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van de Kerkhof, M. (2004). Debating climate change. A study of stakeholder participation in an integrated assessment of long term climate policy in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Lemma Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. Van de Kerkhof, M., & Wieczorek, A. (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability: methodological considerations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 733–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van de Kerkhof, M., Hisschemöller, M., & Spanjersberg, M. (2002). Shaping diversity in participatory foresight studies. Experiences with interactive backcasting in a stakeholder dialogue on long-term climate policy in the netherlands. Greener Management International, 37, 95–99.Google Scholar
  61. Van der Sluijs, J., Hisschemöller, M., de Boer, J., & Kloprogge, P. (2001). Climate risk assessment: evaluation of approaches. Synthesis report. Bilthoven. NRP.Google Scholar
  62. Von Winterfeldt, D. (1992). Expert knowledge and public values in risk management: the role of decision analysis. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 321–342). London: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  63. Webler, T. (1995). Right discourse in citizen participation: an evaluative yardstick. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 35–86). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  64. Webler, T., Tuler, S., & Krueger, R. (2001). What is a good public participation process? Five perspectives from the public. Environmental Management, 27, 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLP 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit, Institute for Environmental StudiesAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations