The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy
AbstractCanadian nuclear waste management policy has taken a deliberative democratic turn. What explains this turn? What is its significance? What lessons does it teach us? I trace a narrative of a powerful discursive coalition that was able to take advantage of institutional and financial opportunities to advance deliberative democratic decision making. I identify limitations in this turn by evaluating the Nuclear Waste Management Organizationâ€™s subsequent consultation process against the criteria of inclusion, equality, reciprocity, agreement, and integration. Despite impressive deliberative democratic designs, the process falls short of each criterion. This analysis clarifies the relative importance of actors to coalitions and institutions. Even with a strong coalition and favorable institutional context, realizing deliberative democracy is contingent on the will of involved actors. This conclusion has implications for the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLP 2007
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): 40 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102982
Deliberative democracy; Discursive coalition; Public policy; Public policy process; Nuclear waste management policy;
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.:
- Anonymous or collective, 2001. "Interview," Revue d'Ã‰conomie FinanciÃ¨re, Programme National PersÃ©e, Programme National PersÃ©e, vol. 6(1), pages 29-37.
- Ramana, M.V., 2013. "Shifting strategies and precarious progress: Nuclear waste management in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 196-206.
- Ryane Straus, 2011. "Citizensâ€™ use of policy symbols and frames," Policy Sciences, Springer, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 13-34, March.
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 you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.