Policy Sciences

, 42:341 | Cite as

Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management

Article

Abstract

This article explores the complex relationship between democracy and long-term policy design for sustainability. At one extreme, democracy can be framed as problematic for policy planning because of the myopia fostered by some democratic institutions, such as regular elections. Alternatively, democracy can be seen as an ally of long-term policy design to the extent that it can generate public legitimacy and accountability, and potentially foster more equitable and just outcomes. Recent debates on how to ‘manage’ policy transitions to sustainability have been curiously silent on democratic matters, despite their potential implications for democracy. To explore what democracy might mean for transition management this article considers empirically how actors engaged in the Dutch Energy Transition Program make democratic sense of their activities. The analysis finds that in practice transition policies promote implicit narratives or democratic storylines on how reforms should be developed, who should participate in these, and how they should be legitimised and accountable to the public. The dominant narrative, which espouses elite theory and technocracy, privileges epistemic matters over democratic considerations. Other democratic storylines draw on representative democracy and interest group pluralism. The paper considers some possible ways to foster more productive interfaces between the governance structures of transition management, and the polycentric context of contemporary democratic systems.

Keywords

Long-term policy design Sustainability Energy Democracy Transition management Legitimacy Participation Network governance Representative Accountability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For their insights and suggestions the author would like to thank John Grin, Jan-Peter Voß and Adrian Smith, as well as two anonymous reviewers. This paper has also benefited from the comments of participants at the International Workshop: Politics and Governance in Sustainable Socio-Technical Transitions held 19–21 September 2007, at Schloss Blankensee (Berlin).

References

  1. Aars, J., & Fimreite, A. L. (2005). Local governance and governance in Norway: Stretched accountability in network policy. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 239–256. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00131.x.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science, concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Auel, K. (2006). Multi-level governance, regional policy, and democratic legitimacy in Germany. In A. Benz & Y. Papadopoulous (Eds.), Governance and democracy (pp. 44–62). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Baber, W. F., & Bartlett, R. V. (2005). Deliberative environmental politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bang, H., & Sørensen, E. (2001). The everyday maker: Building political rather than social capital. In P. Dekker & E. Uslaner (Eds.), Social capital and participation in everyday life (pp. 148–161). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. Bastingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Beetham, D., & Boyle, K. (1995). Introducing democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bekkers, V., & Edwards, A. (2007). Legitimacy and democracy. In V. Bekkers, G. Dijkstra, A. Edwards, & M. Fenger (Eds.), Governance and the democratic deficit (pp. 35–60). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  10. Benhabib, S. (1996a). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political (pp. 67–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996b). Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Berkhout, F., Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2004). Understanding system innovations: A critical literature review and a conceptual synthesis. In B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), Systems innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy (pp. 48–75). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Bevir, M. (2006). Democratic governance: Systems and radical perspectives. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 426–436. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00599.x.Google Scholar
  14. Birch, A. H. (1993). The concepts and theories of modern democracy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation—pluralism, complexity and democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Carson, L., White, S., Hendriks, C., & Palmer, J. (2002). Community consultation in environmental policy making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  17. Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democracy theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.Google Scholar
  18. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Eds.), The good polity: Normative analysis of the state (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Cohen, J. (1997). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 407–437). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Cottrell, F. (1955). Energy and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs?. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dahl, R. A. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
  23. de Rynck, F., & Voets, J. (2006). Democracy in area-based networks: The case of ghent. American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 58–78. doi: 10.1177/0275074005282585.Google Scholar
  24. Denters, B., van Heffen, O., Huisman, J., & Klok, P.-J. (Eds.). (2003). The rise of interactive governance and quasi-markets. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Dietz, F., Brouwer, H., & Wetterings, R. (2008). Energy transition experiments in the Netherlands. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. R. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy (pp. 217–244). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  26. Dobson, A. (1996). Representative democracy and the environment. In W. L. Lafferty & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects (pp. 124–139). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  27. Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. The Public Interest, 28(1), 38–50.Google Scholar
  28. Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Rational ecology: Environment and political economy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 651–669. doi: 10.1177/0090591701029005003.Google Scholar
  32. Dryzek, J. S. (2007). Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and communication. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 262–273). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  33. Eckersley, R. (2000). Deliberative democracy, ecological representation and risk: Towards a democracy of the affected. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 117–132). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Esmark, A. (2007). Democratic accountability and network governance—problems and potentials. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 274–296). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  35. Estlund, D. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 173–204). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  36. ETF. (2006). More with energy: Opportunities for the Netherlands [Meer Met Energie: Kansen Voor Nederland]. The Hague: Energy Transition Taskforce Force.Google Scholar
  37. Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1993). The elite connection: Problems and potentials of western democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  38. EZ. (2004). Innovation in energy policy [Innovatie in Het Energiebeleid]. The Hague: Ministerie voor Economische Zaken.Google Scholar
  39. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment. Durham: Duke University.Google Scholar
  41. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy—discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2000). The quest for deliberative democracy. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 17–27). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  45. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (Eds.). (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  47. Geels, F. W., Elzen, B., & Green, K. (2004). General introduction: Systems innovation and transitions to sustainability. In B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), Systems innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy (pp. 1–16). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  48. Gerlach, L. (1978). Energy wars and social change. In S. Abbott & J. van Willingen (Eds.), Predicting social change (pp. 76–94). Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  49. Ginger, C. (2006). Interpretive content analysis: Stories and arguments in analytic documents. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp. 331–348). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  50. Grin, J. (2006). Reflexive modernization as a governance issue—or designing and shaping re-Structuration. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 57–81). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  51. Gunderson, A. (1995). The environmental promise of deliberation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  52. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  53. Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  54. Heilbroner, R. L. (1974). An enquiry into the human prospect. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  55. Hendriks, C. M. (2002). Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: Roles, tensions and incentives. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 64–75. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.00259.Google Scholar
  56. Hendriks, C. M. (2005). Participatory storylines and their impact on deliberative forums. Policy Sciences, 38(4), 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s11077-005-0870-3.Google Scholar
  57. Hendriks, C. M. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: The democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transitions. Public Administration, 86(4), 1009–1031.Google Scholar
  58. Hendriks, C. M., & Grin, J. (2007). Contextualizing reflexive governance: The politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 333–350. doi: 10.1080/15239080701622790.Google Scholar
  59. Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Hirst, P. Q. (1995). Can secondary associations enhance democratic governance? In E. O. Wright (Ed.), Associations and democracy: The real utopias project (Vol. 1, pp. 101–113). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  61. Holden, M. (2006). Reflections on how political scientists (and others) might think about energy policy. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 872–889). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Hunold, C. (2001). Corporatism, pluralism, and democracy: Toward a deliberative theory of bureaucratic accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy Administration, 14(2), 151–167.Google Scholar
  63. Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risk of failure. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  65. Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: A reflexive governance approach. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 103–130). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  66. Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4093–4103. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.018.Google Scholar
  67. Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance: New government-society interactions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Lafferty, W. L., & Meadowcroft, J. (1996a). Democracy and the environment: Congruence and conflict–preliminary reflections. In W. L. Lafferty & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects (pp. 1–17). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  70. Lafferty, W. M., & Meadowcroft, J. (Eds.). (1996b). Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  71. Lasswell, H. (1951). The policy orientation. In H. Lasswell & D. Lerner (Eds.), The policy sciences (pp. 1–15). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Lasswell, H. (1965). The world revolution of our times: A framework for basic policy research. In H. Lasswell & D. Lerner (Eds.), World revolutional elites: Studies in coercive ideological movements. Cambridge: MIT Press. p Chp. 2.Google Scholar
  73. Latour, B. (2005). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public—atmospheres of democracy (pp. 4–31). Karlsruhe & Cambridge, MA: ZKM & MIT Press.Google Scholar
  74. Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  75. Linz, J. J. (1998). Democracy’s time constraint. International Political Science Review, 19(1), 19–37. doi: 10.1177/019251298019001002.Google Scholar
  76. Loorbach, D., & Kemp, R. (2008). Transition management for the Dutch energy transition: Multilevel governance aspects. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. R. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy (pp. 243–264). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  77. Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2005). Managing transitions for sustainable development. In X. Olsthoorn & A. Wieczorek (Eds.), Understanding industrial transformation views from different disciplines (pp. 187–206). Leusden: Springer.Google Scholar
  78. Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. (1982). Brittle power: Energy strategy for national security. Andover, Ma: Brick House Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  79. Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487. doi: 10.1017/S0007123402000194.Google Scholar
  80. Majone, G. (1996). Temporal consistency and policy credibility: Why democracies need non-majoritarian institutions. European University Institute, Working Paper RSC, 96/57.Google Scholar
  81. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  82. Marcussen, M., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Democratic network governance in Europe. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  83. Marres, N. (2005). Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippman and Dewey debate. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public—atmospheres of democracy (pp. 208–217). Karlsruhe & Cambridge, MA: ZKM & MIT Press.Google Scholar
  84. Mayer, I., de Vries, J., & Geurts, J. (1995). An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference. In S. Joss & D. John (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 109–124). London: Science Museum.Google Scholar
  85. Meadowcroft, J. (2005). Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state. New Political Economy, 10(4), 479–498. doi: 10.1080/13563460500344419.Google Scholar
  86. Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 299–314. doi: 10.1080/15239080701631544.Google Scholar
  87. Miller, D. (1992). Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies, 40(Special Issue), 54–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1992.tb01812.x.Google Scholar
  88. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agnostic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.Google Scholar
  89. Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the wilderness: Displacing symbolic politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347–372. doi: 10.1080/0964401042000209612.Google Scholar
  90. Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action—public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Ophuls, W. (1977). Ecology and the politics of scarcity: A prologue to the political theory of the steady state. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  92. Opsina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). It’s about time: Catching method up to meaning—the usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 143–157.Google Scholar
  93. Orr, D. W. (1979). U.S. energy policy and the political economy of participation. The Journal of Politics, 41(4), 1027–1056. doi: 10.2307/2129732.Google Scholar
  94. Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), 180–196. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00419.Google Scholar
  95. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Pekkarinen, J., Pohjola, M., & Rowthorn, B. (1992). Social corporatism: A superior economic system?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Perelman, L. J. (1980). Speculations on the transition to sustainable energy. Ethics, 90(3), 392–416. doi: 10.1086/292170.Google Scholar
  98. Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  99. Pierre, J. (Ed.). (2001). Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  101. Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  102. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Rehfeld, A. (2006). Towards a general theory of political representation. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00365.x.Google Scholar
  104. Rein, M., & Schön, D. A. (1993). Reframing policy discourse. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 145–166). Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham: Duke University.Google Scholar
  107. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31. doi: 10.1108/14636680110803003.Google Scholar
  108. Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2008). Transition management: Reflexive governance of societal complexity through searching, learning and experimenting. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. R. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy (pp. 15–46). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  109. Saward, M. (2001). Making democratic connections: Political equality, deliberation and direct democracy. Acta Politica, 36(Winter), 361–379.Google Scholar
  110. Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: effective and democratic?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  111. Schmitter, P., & Lehmbruch, G. (Eds.). (1979). Trends towards corporate intermediation. California: Sage, Beverley Hills.Google Scholar
  112. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Kansas: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  113. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  114. Scruggs, L. A. (1999). Institutions and environmental performance in seventeen western democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 1–31. doi: 10.1017/S0007123499000010.Google Scholar
  115. Senternovem. (2005). Gespreksverslag Betreft Transitietraining Energietransite. Competentie Centrum Transities. 4 Oct 2005. http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/051004%20Transitietraining%20definitief_tcm24-178888.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2007.
  116. Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). Caution! Transitions ahead: politics, practice and sustainable transition management. Environment & Planning A, 39, 763–770. doi: 10.1068/a39310.Google Scholar
  117. Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., & Smith, M. (2005). The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy. Public Administration, 83(3), 573–596. doi: 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00463.x.Google Scholar
  118. Skocpol, T. (1999). Associations without members. The American Prospect, 45(July–August), 66–73.Google Scholar
  119. Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative democracy and the environment. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  120. Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 78–98. doi: 10.1080/09644010802624835.Google Scholar
  121. Sørensen, E. (2002). Democratic theory and network governance. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 24(4), 693–720.Google Scholar
  122. Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114. doi: 10.1177/0275074005282584.Google Scholar
  123. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2003). Network politics, political capital, and democracy. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(6), 609–634. doi: 10.1081/PAD-120019238.Google Scholar
  124. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of network governance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x.Google Scholar
  125. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theoretical approaches to democratic network governance. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 233–246). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  126. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–37. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi: 10.1177/030631289019003001.Google Scholar
  127. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox and political reason: The art of political decision making, Revised Edition. New York: WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  128. Taiclet, A.-F. (2006). Governance, expertise and competitive politics: The case of territorial development in France. In A. Benz & Y. Papadopoulous (Eds.), Governance and democracy (pp. 63–80). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  129. Truman, D. B. (1951). The governmental process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  130. Urbinati, N. (2005). Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  131. van de Kerkhof, M., & Weiczorek, A. (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 733–747. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.002.Google Scholar
  132. van Lente, H. (2006). De Blinde Vlekken van Transities. Het Financieele Dagblad, 14 March 2006.Google Scholar
  133. van Tatenhove, J., Arts, B., & Leroy, P. (Eds.). (2000). Political modernisation and the environment. The renewal of environmental policy arrangements. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  134. van Vliet, B., Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (2005). Infrastructures of consumption: Environmental innovation in the utility industries. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  135. Vollenbroek, F. (2002). Sustainable development and the challenge of innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 215–223. doi: 10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00048-8.Google Scholar
  136. Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  137. Voß, J.-P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nölting, B. (2007). Steering for sustainable development: A typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 193–212. doi: 10.1080/15239080701622881.Google Scholar
  138. Voß, J.-P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (forthcoming). Designing long term policies: Reflexivity and political robustness. Policy Sciences (special issue).Google Scholar
  139. VROM. (2001). Een Wereld En Een Wil. Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu, The Hague.Google Scholar
  140. VROM. (2006). Beleid Met Burgers (Policy with Citizens), Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu, The Hague. Accessed April 7, 2009, from http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=16572.
  141. VROM & AER. (2004). Energietransitie: Klimaat Voor Nieuwe Kansen, Joint advice from the VROMraad and the Algemene Energieraad (AER). The Hague.Google Scholar
  142. Warren, M. E. (2002). What can democratic participation mean today? Political Theory, 30(5), 677–701. doi: 10.1177/0090591702030005003.Google Scholar
  143. Wätli, S., Kübler, D., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2004). How democratic is “governance”? Lessons from Swiss drug policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(1), 83–113.Google Scholar
  144. Willems, U., & von Winter, T. (Eds.). (2000). Politische Repräsentation Schwacher Interessen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  145. Wolsink, M. (2007). Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2692–2704. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.002.Google Scholar
  146. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  147. Yanow, D. (2006). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), The handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 405–415). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  148. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crawford School of Economics and Government, ANU College of Asia & the PacificThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations