IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i4p1023-d206432.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition

Author

Listed:
  • Michael B. Wironen

    () (Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
    Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA)

  • Robert V. Bartlett

    () (Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
    Department of Political Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA)

  • Jon D. Erickson

    () (Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
    Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA)

Abstract

Ecological economics arose as a normative transdiscipline aiming to generate knowledge and tools to help transition the economy toward a scale which is sustainable within the bounds of the earth system. Yet it remains unclear in practice how to legitimize its explicitly normative agenda. One potential means for legitimation can be found in deliberative social and political theory. We review how deliberative theory has informed ecological economics, pointing to three uses: first, to support valuation of non-market goods and services; second, to inform environmental decision-making more broadly; third, to ground alternative theories of development and wellbeing. We argue that deliberation has been used as problem-solving theory, but that its more radical implications have rarely been embraced. Embracing a deliberative foundation for ecological economics raises questions about the compatibility of deeply democratic practice and the normative discourses arguing for a sustainability transition. We highlight three potential mechanisms by which deliberation may contribute to a sustainability transition: preference formation; normative evaluation; and legitimation. We explore each in turn, demonstrating the theoretical possibility that deliberation may be conducive in and of itself to a sustainability transition. We point to a series of challenges facing the “scaling up” of deliberative systems that demand further empirical and theoretical work. These challenges constitute a research agenda for a deeply democratic sustainability transition and can inform the future development of ecological economics and other normative, critical transdisciplines.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:4:p:1023-:d:206432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/4/1023/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/4/1023/
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Munda, G. & Nijkamp, P. & Rietveld, P., 1994. "Qualitative multicriteria evaluation for environmental management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 97-112, July.
    2. Sneddon, Chris & Howarth, Richard B. & Norgaard, Richard B., 2006. "Sustainable development in a post-Brundtland world," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 253-268, May.
    3. Daly, Herman E., 1992. "Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 185-193, December.
    4. Bromley, Daniel W., 1990. "The ideology of efficiency: Searching for a theory of policy analysis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 86-107, July.
    5. Sagoff, M., 1998. "Aggregation and deliberation in valuing environmental public goods:: A look beyond contingent pricing," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2-3), pages 213-230, February.
    6. Howarth, Richard B., 2007. "Towards an operational sustainability criterion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 656-663, September.
    7. Wilson, Matthew A. & Howarth, Richard B., 2002. "Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 431-443, June.
    8. John Gowdy & Jon D. Erickson, 2005. "The approach of ecological economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 207-222, March.
    9. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    10. Rauschmayer, Felix & Leßmann, Ortrud, 2011. "Assets and drawbacks of the CA as a foundation for sustainability economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1835-1836, September.
    11. Max-Neef, Manfred, 1995. "Economic growth and quality of life: a threshold hypothesis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 115-118, November.
    12. Funtowicz, Silvio O. & Ravetz, Jerome R., 1994. "The worth of a songbird: ecological economics as a post-normal science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 197-207, August.
    13. Geoffrey Lamberton, 2005. "Sustainable sufficiency - an internally consistent version of sustainability," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(1), pages 53-68.
    14. Gisli Palsson & Bronislaw Szerszynski & Sverker Sörlin & John Marks & Bernard Avril & Carole Crumley & Heide Hackmann & Poul Holm & John Ingram & Alan Kirman & Mercedes Pardo Buendia & Rifka Weehuizen, 2013. "Reconceptualizing the 'Anthropos' in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research," Post-Print hal-01500892, HAL.
    15. Gregory, Robin & Lichtenstein, Sarah & Slovic, Paul, 1993. "Valuing Environmental Resources: A Constructive Approach," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 177-197, October.
    16. Pelenc, Jérôme & Ballet, Jérôme, 2015. "Strong sustainability, critical natural capital and the capability approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 36-44.
    17. Spash, Clive L., 2007. "Deliberative monetary valuation (DMV): Issues in combining economic and political processes to value environmental change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 690-699, September.
    18. Leßmann, Ortrud & Rauschmayer, Felix, 2012. "Re-conceptualising sustainable development on the basis of the capability approach: A model and its difficulties," UFZ Discussion Papers 03/2012, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    19. Polishchuk, Yuliana & Rauschmayer, Felix, 2012. "Beyond “benefits”? Looking at ecosystem services through the capability approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 103-111.
    20. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Lienhoop, Nele, 2018. "Beyond Rationality, Towards Reasonableness: Enriching the Theoretical Foundation of Deliberative Monetary Valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 97-104.
    21. Gowdy, John M., 2007. "Toward an experimental foundation for benefit-cost analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 649-655, September.
    22. Ananda, Jayanath & Herath, Gamini, 2009. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2535-2548, August.
    23. Daly, Herman E, 1974. "The Economics of the Steady State," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 15-21, May.
    24. Lehtonen, Markku, 2004. "The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 199-214, June.
    25. Failing, L. & Gregory, R. & Harstone, M., 2007. "Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1), pages 47-60, October.
    26. Derek Bell, 2002. "How can Political Liberals be Environmentalists?," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 50(4), pages 703-724, September.
    27. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    28. Ortrud Lessmann & Felix Rauschmayer, 2013. "Re-conceptualizing Sustainable Development on the Basis of the Capability Approach: A Model and Its Difficulties," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 95-114, February.
    29. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54, pages 486-508, October.
    30. Carolyn Hendriks, 2009. "Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 341-368, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vatn, Arild, 2020. "Institutions for sustainability—Towards an expanded research program for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    2. Ivan Vargas Roncancio & Leah Temper & Joshua Sterlin & Nina L. Smolyar & Shaun Sellers & Maya Moore & Rigo Melgar-Melgar & Jolyon Larson & Catherine Horner & Jon D. Erickson & Megan Egler & Peter G. B, 2019. "From the Anthropocene to Mutual Thriving: An Agenda for Higher Education in the Ecozoic," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    deliberative democracy; sustainability transitions; ecological economics; normative science; modernity; social-ecological transformations;

    JEL classification:

    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics
    • Q0 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - General
    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q3 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Nonrenewable Resources and Conservation
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • Q56 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environment and Development; Environment and Trade; Sustainability; Environmental Accounts and Accounting; Environmental Equity; Population Growth
    • O13 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Agriculture; Natural Resources; Environment; Other Primary Products

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:4:p:1023-:d:206432. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com/ .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.