Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
information quality but 'deliberative democracy' (e.g., Pellizzoni,
2003 ) should then close informational controversies.
Under the new conditions of late or reflexive modernity, new par-
ticipative institutions are seen as a necessary condition in order to
deal with the large quantity and variety of information in public poli-
cies. In a kind of Habermasian tradition, decisions made through a
(local) participative process are regarded as intrinsically more 'good'
and more right than others (Macnaghten and Jacobs, 1997 ; Sagoff,
1988 ). These ideas have formed the basis for various experiments with
public participation in environmental governance processes, includ-
ing (but not limited to) consensus conferences, citizens' juries, round-
tables, and focus groups. The implications of the various forms, modes
and experiments of participation for the policy process are ambiguous,
perhaps even more in an era of digitalised governance. Noveck ( 2003 )
details the informational problems on the Internet (disinformation,
information overflow) and the challenges of enacting accountability,
transparency and deliberative governance through the hyperconnectiv-
ity of cyberspace. But also outside cyberspace, deliberative democracy
has its challenges. Behind the seemingly practical issues of sometimes
huge resource spendings through participative processes, questions on
who should be involved and how should participatory processes be
integrated into formal state policy-making processes lie deeper ques-
tions of representation and outcomes (Bloomfield et al., 2001 ; O'Neill,
2001 ; Owens, 2000 ). This raises the critical issue as to “whether there
can be any direct correlation between a more participative democracy
and environmental protection . . . there are no guarantees that proce-
dural democracy will produce substantive environmental benefits if
there are competing views of what the environment should be like and
what it is valuable for” (Davies, 2001 : 80). The enthusiasm that has
been shown for new modes of and institutional arrangements for par-
ticipation in environmental politics and policies is often tempered by
the recognition of the complex and fundamental questions that these
processes raise: how they are to be integrated into processes of policy
formation and how to conclude among a range of stakeholders, experts
and the public, whose views are all considered valid but opposite.
Although participation serves or means to serve democratic goals,
Jasanoff ( 1996 ) questions the often-celebrated relationship between
participation and solving environmental controversies and uncertain-
ties. It is not so that the most open decision with most opportunities
for participation necessarily leads to the greatest transparency with
Search WWH ::




Custom Search