Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
and regions over which they have jurisdiction at the expense of objectives
whose realisation are necessary for the well-being of broader commun-
ities, and, in the case of reducing threats of ecological harm, of the nation
as a whole.
58
The potential result of this would be a fragmentation of
authority and a reduced national ability to deal with environmental prob-
lems whose resolution would require all units of governance to
'
pull in the
same direction
.
To avoid this potential outcome it is necessary, as proponents of
devolved decision-making power to localities have recognised, for the
state to remain in place at the pinnacle of governance structures even
where signi
'
cant devolution has occurred, and to retain a capacity to
challenge decisions where these fail to attain minimum performance
objectives or where decision-making processes fail to observe standards
of substantive and procedural fairness.
59
For example, Karkkainen advo-
cates the use of regulatory penalty defaults in which the possibility of
state intervention is intended to act as a stimulus for actors at lower
decision-making levels to make a genuine attempt to produce solutions
that advance national requirements as well as being adapted to local
circumstances.
60
Dorf and Sabel also argue that an ability to intervene is
necessary to protect citizens against abuses of power that
may result
from or be exacerbated by the pulverization of central authority
'
.
61
This
capacity would be of particular importance if public participation is to
be conducted through deliberative fora. A concern frequently expressed
over deliberative processes is that debate will be dominated by the most
powerful and well-educated deliberants, and, therefore, that the out-
comes of deliberation will be skewed towards their interests.
62
Advocates of democratic experimentalism argue that localised units of
governance should be given signi
'
cant levels of autonomy to make
decisions on matters which, in line with the principle of subsidiarity,
58
Owens and Cowell,
'
Land and Limits
'
,1stedn,pp.148
-
9; Wheeler,
'
Planning for
Sustainability
'
,pp.46
-
7; Galaz et al.,
'
The Problem of Fit
'
,pp.171
-
3.
59
G. de Búrca and J. Scott,
in
G. de Búrca and J. Scott (eds) Law and New Governance in the EU and the US (Oxford: Hart
Publishing, 2006), pp. 7
'
Introduction: New Governance, Law and Constitutionalism
'
-
8; M. C. Dorf and C. F. Sabel,
'
A Constitution of Democratic
Experimentalism
'
(1998) 98 Columbia Law Review,283
-
4, 340; Karkkainen,
'
Information-
forcing Regulation
'
, pp. 316
-
7; Galaz et al.,
'
The Problem of Fit
'
, p. 179.
60
Karkkainen,
'
Information-forcing Regulation
'
,p.296,305
-
310.
61
Dorf and Sabel,
'
Democratic Experimentalism
'
, 340.
62
Smith,
'
Deliberative Democracy
'
, p. 78; Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger,
'
Deconstructing
Communicative Rationality
'
, 1981.
