, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 265–286 | Cite as

Participation and the New Governance of Life

  • Herbert Gottweis


In the article we report on the findings of an EU-funded research project, Paganini (Participatory Governance and Institutional Innovation), that investigated the question of whether ‘politics of life’ themes have led to the emergence of new forms of governance in Europe. The focus of our research was on human embryonic stem cell research, genetic testing, GM crops, and BSE in the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and on the EU level—hotly contested topics at the intersection of society, politics, nature and the human body. We argue that, in the domain of life-political issues, the notions of participation and governance have become intermingled to an unusual extent. Our case studies demonstrate that the concept of participation needs to be rethought. While ‘spontaneous’ public participation certainly still is a political fact, increasingly participation has turned into a ‘technology’ that is based on the construction of publics. Different participatory technologies are linked to a changing landscape of political subjects considered relevant to the debate. As the case studies have shown, the design of any formal participatory arrangement involves a considerable amount of ‘engineering’, including arrangements seeking to invite a ‘representative’, disinterested, ‘pure’ public. There is no such thing as ‘the public’ waiting for pure representation. Formal participatory arrangements are inevitably based on a process of active construction, involving goal setting, selection, decision making and prioritization, including the decision to prioritize the pure public at the expense of engaged publics. What seems to be occurring today is that ‘old’ definitions of social order no longer hold and various groups try to impose new (partial) definitions of a new order on others. A new, postmodernist logic seems to be spinning new relations among citizens/consumers and scientists and administrators. Thus, there is no single New Way of governing Europe.


Institutional Reform Life Sciences Political Mobilization Politics of Life State 



This paper summarizes and is based on the following research reports written in the context of the Paganini project, funded by the European Commission under the 6th Framework Programme, Contract No. CIT2-CT-2004-505791. Gottweis and Braun (2006); Loeber et al. (2006); Gottweis et al. (2006); Schultz et al. (2006); Haila et al. (2006); Loeber and Hajer (2006); Reynolds et al. (2006). All reports can be downloaded at:


  1. Akkerman T., Hajer M.A., & Grin J. (2004). The interactive state: Democratisation from above? Political Studies, 52, 82–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein S.R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, July, 216–224.Google Scholar
  3. Bellucci S., & Joss S. (Eds) (2002). Participatory technology assessment: European perspectives. London: CSD.Google Scholar
  4. Bogner A., Menz W., & Schumm W. (2006). The production of ethics expertise and political decision-making. Bioethical policy advice in Germany and Austria. Paper presented at conference ‘The Politics of Ethics and the Crisis of Government. Contested Technologies, the Language of Ethics and the Transformation of Governance in Europe and North America’, 25–26 May 2006, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  5. Bradish P., Feyerabend E., & Winkler U. (1989). Frauen gegen Gen- und Reproduktionstechnologien. Beiträge zum 2. bundesweiten Kongreß in Frankfurt, 28–30 October 1988. München.Google Scholar
  6. Braun K. (2005). Stellungnahme zur öffentlichen Anhörung: ‘Aktuelle Entwicklungen und Perspektiven in der PND der Enquetekommission Ethik und Recht der modernen Medizin’, 30 May 2005. Berlin.Google Scholar
  7. Bundesminister für Forschung und Technologie (1985). In-Vitro-Fertilisation, Genomanalyse und Gentherapie: Bericht der gemeinsamen Arbeitsgruppe des Bundesministers für Forschung und Technologie und des Bundesministeriums der Justiz. München: Schweitzer.Google Scholar
  8. Bürobert, minimal club, & Schultz, S. (1996). geld.beat.synthetik. Abwerten bio/technologischer Annahmen. Berlin/Amsterdam: Edition ID-Archiv.Google Scholar
  9. Cabinet Office and Office of Science and Technology (1999). The advisory and regulatory framework for biotechnology: Report from the government review. London: Office of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
  10. Chandler D. (2000). Active citizens and the therapeutic state: The role of democratic participation in local government reform. Policy and Politics, 29, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Commission of the European Communities (2001). European governance. A White Paper. COM(2001) 428 final. Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. Commission of the European Communities (2002). Life sciences and biotechnology. A strategy for Europe. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. COM (2002).Google Scholar
  13. Collins H., & Evans R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32, 235–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Die Grünen im Bundestag (1985). Frauen gegen Gentechnik und Reproduktionstechnik. Dokumentation zum Kongreß vom 19–21 April 1985, Bonn. Köln.Google Scholar
  15. Elster J. (1989). The cement of society: A study of social order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enquetekommission Chancen und Risiken der Gentechnologie (1987). Abschlussbericht. Bonn.Google Scholar
  17. Fiorino D.J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 15, 226–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox C., & Miller H.T. (1996). Postmodern public administration: Towards discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  19. Gottweis H. (2002). Stem cell policies in the United States and in Germany between bioethics and regulation. Policy Studies Journal, 30, 444–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottweis H. (2003a). Embryos for Europe: Emerging strategies and institutional situations. Paper prepared for Workshop 21: Assessing Emergent Forms of Governance: European Public Policies Beyond the Institutional Void. ECPR Joint Session of Workshops, Edinburgh, 28 March–2 April 2003.Google Scholar
  21. Gottweis H. (2003b). Theoretical strategies of post-structuralist policy analysis: Towards an analytics of government. In Hajer M.A., & Wagenaar H. (Eds), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, 247–265. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gottweis H., & Braun K. (2006). Summary Report Paganini.
  23. Gottweis H., Metzler I., & Griessler E. (2006). Work PACKAGE 2: Defining human life: Human embryonic stem cell research between politics and ethics. Paganini Final Report.
  24. Haila Y., Kousis M., & Jokinen A., Nygren N., & Psarikidou K. (2006). Work Package 4: Building trust through public participation: Learning from conflicts over the implementation of the Habitat Directive. Paganini Final Report.
  25. Hajer M.A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernisation and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hajer M.A. (2000). Politiek als vormgeving. Universiteit van Amsterdam: inaugurele rede 16 juni 2000.Google Scholar
  27. Hajer M.A. (2003). Policy without a polity: Policy analysis and the institutional void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hajer M.A., & Underhill G. (2003). Rethinking politics: Transnational society, network interaction, and democratic governance. Working document, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  29. Halfmann W. (2003). Boundaries of regulatory science. Thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  30. Jasanoff S. (1997). Civilization and madness: The great BSE scare of 1996. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jasanoff S. (2004). Post-sovereign science and global nature. Harvard University, Environmental Politics/Colloquium Papers.Google Scholar
  32. Jasanoff S. (2005). In the democracies of DNA: Ontological uncertainty and political order in three states. New Genetics and Society, 34, 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kontos S. (1985). Wider die Dämonisierung der Technik. Beiträge zur feministischen Theorie und Praxis, 8, 68–78.Google Scholar
  34. Laird F.N. (1993). Participatory analysis, democracy and technological decision making. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18, 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Laclau E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  36. Loeber A., & Hajer M. (2006). Work package 5: Learning after the event: Assessing the institutional role of civic participation after food scandals and food scares. Paganini Final Report.
  37. Loeber A., Hajer M., & van Tatenhove, J. (with contributions of B. Szerszynski) (2006). Work package 1: Theory and method: Investigating new participatory practices of the ‘politics of life’ in a European context. Paganini Final Report.
  38. Mayntz R. (1980). Implementation politischer Programme. Köningstein: Verlagsgruppe Athenäum, Hain, Scriptor, Haustein.Google Scholar
  39. Mayntz R., & Scharpf F.W. (1975). Policymaking in the German federal bureaucracy. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  40. Mol A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prusiner S.B. (1982). Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie. Science, 216(4542), 136–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynolds L., Szerszynski B., Kousis M., & Volakakis Y. (2006). Work package 6: GM food: The role of participation in a techno-scientific controversy. Paganini Final Report.
  43. Rote Zora (1989). Die Rote Zora. Frankfurt/M.: Selbstverlag.Google Scholar
  44. Rowe G., & Frewer L.J. (2004). Evaluating public-participation exercises: A research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values, 29, 512–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schultz S. (1996). Selbstbestimmtes Technopatriarchat. Sackgassen einer immanenten feministischen Kritik an den neuen Reproduktionstechnologien. In Bürobert, minimal club, & Schultz S. (Ed.), geld.beat.synthetik. Abwerten bio/technologischer Annahmen, 76–95. Berlin/Amsterdam: Edition ID-Archiv.Google Scholar
  46. Schultz S. Braun K., & Griessler E. (2006). Work package 3: The governance of genetic testing. A non-antagonistic setting, ‘authentic publics’, and moments of unease. Paganini Final Report.
  47. Torgersen H., Hampel J., Bergmann-Winberg M.-L. von, Bridgman E., Durant J., Einsiedel E. et al. (2002). Promise, problems and proxies, twenty-five years of debate and regulation in Europe. In Bauer M., & Gaskell G. (Ed.), Biotechnology: The making of a global controversy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Van Zwanenberg P., & Millstone E. (2005). BSE: Risk, science, and governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. J. Elster (Ed.), The cement of society: A study of social order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ziegler U. (2004). Präimplantationsdiagnostik in England und Deutschland. Ethische, rechtliche und praktische Probleme. Frankfurt/M. & New York: Campus.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© London School of Economics and Political Science 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Herbert Gottweis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceLife-Science-Governance Research Platform, University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations