Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues
AbstractThis 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 â€“ the repertory grid analysis and the dialectical approach â€“ 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. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLP 2006
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Policy Sciences.
Volume (Year): 39 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 (September)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102982
Stakeholder dialogue; Deliberation; Climate change; Consensus building; Repertory grid; Dialectical approach;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- William N. Dunn, 1988. "Methods Of The Second Type: Coping With The Wilderness Of Conventional Policy Analysis," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 7(4), pages 720-737, 06.
- Coglianese, Cary, 2001. "Is Consensus an Appropriate Basis for Regulatory Policy?," Working Paper Series rwp01-012, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Bernd Siebenhuner, 2004. "Social learning and sustainability science: which role can stakeholder participation play?," International Journal of Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(2), pages 146-163.
- Hoogerwerf, Andries, 1990. "Reconstructing policy theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 285-291, January.
- Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
- Roelofsen, Anneloes & Boon, Wouter P.C. & Kloet, Roy R. & Broerse, Jacqueline E.W., 2011. "Stakeholder interaction within research consortia on emerging technologies: Learning how and what?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 341-354, April.
- Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.