IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v39y2006i3p279-299.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues

Author

Listed:
  • Marleen Kerkhof

Abstract

This 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 – the repertory grid analysis and the dialectical approach – 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

Suggested Citation

  • Marleen Kerkhof, 2006. "Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 39(3), pages 279-299, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:39:y:2006:i:3:p:279-299
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-006-9024-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-006-9024-5
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-006-9024-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Archon Fung & Erik Olin Wright, 2001. "Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(1), pages 5-41, March.
    2. Hoogerwerf, Andries, 1990. "Reconstructing policy theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 285-291, January.
    3. Richard O. Mason, 1969. "A Dialectical Approach to Strategic Planning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(8), pages 403-414, April.
    4. Robin Gregory & Tim McDaniels & Daryl Fields, 2001. "Decision Aiding, Not Dispute Resolution: Creating Insights through Structured Environmental Decisions," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(3), pages 415-432.
    5. Coglianese, Cary, 2001. "Is Consensus an Appropriate Basis for Regulatory Policy?," Working Paper Series rwp01-012, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    6. 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.
    7. 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, June.
    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. Di Lucia, Lorenzo & Usai, Domenico & Woods, Jeremy, 2018. "Designing landscapes for sustainable outcomes – The case of advanced biofuels," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 434-446.
    2. 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.
    3. Saskia Manshoven & Wim Van Opstal, 2022. "The Carrot or the Stick? Stakeholder Support for Mandatory Regulations towards a Circular Fashion System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-31, November.
    4. Sarkki, Simo & Heikkinen, Hannu I., 2015. "Why do environmentalists not consider compromises as legitimate?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 110-117.
    5. Sisto, Roberta & Lopolito, Antonio & van Vliet, Mathijs, 2018. "Stakeholder participation in planning rural development strategies: Using backcasting to support Local Action Groups in complying with CLLD requirements," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 442-450.
    6. Dolter, Brett D. & Boucher, Martin, 2018. "Solar energy justice: A case-study analysis of Saskatchewan, Canada," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 221-232.
    7. Suwichit Chaidaroon & Kawpong Polyorat, 2013. "CSR and Stakeholder Dialogue: A Case Study of Sugar Cane Company in Thailand," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 3(8), pages 57-65, August.
    8. Schleyer, Christian & Görg, Christoph & Hauck, Jennifer & Winkler, Klara Johanna, 2015. "Opportunities and challenges for mainstreaming the ecosystem services concept in the multi-level policy-making within the EU," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 174-181.
    9. Lelieveldt, Herman, 2023. "Food industry influence in collaborative governance: The case of the Dutch prevention agreement on overweight," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Heffron, Raphael J., 2013. "The application of contrast explanation to energy policy research: UK nuclear energy policy 2002–2012," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 602-616.
    12. 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.
    13. Suwichit Chaidaroon & Kawpong Polyorat, 2013. "CSR and Stakeholder Dialogue: A Case Study of Sugar Cane Company in Thailand," International Journal of Business and Social Research, LAR Center Press, vol. 3(8), pages 57-65, August.
    14. Burt, George & Mackay, David & Mendibil, Kepa, 2021. "Overcoming multi-stakeholder fragmented narratives in land use, woodland and forestry policy: The role scenario planning and ‘dissociative jolts’," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eefje Cuppen, 2012. "Diversity and constructive conflict in stakeholder dialogue: considerations for design and methods," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 23-46, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Mikael Klintman, 2009. "Participation in Green Consumer Policies: Deliberative Democracy under Wrong Conditions?," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 43-57, March.
    4. Euclid Tsakalotos, 2007. "Competitive Equilibrium and the Social Ethos: Understanding the Inegalitarian Dynamics of Liberal Market Economies," Politics & Society, , vol. 35(3), pages 427-446, September.
    5. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    6. Lily - Trinh Hoang Hong Hue, 2019. "Gender Differences of Citizen Participation in Local Government: The Case of Vietnam," Journal of Public Administration and Governance, Macrothink Institute, vol. 9(3), pages 225-238, December.
    7. Strzelecka, Marianna & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Akhshik, Arash & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2021. "Environmental justice in Natura 2000 conservation conflicts: The case for resident empowerment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Coglianese, Cary & Allen, Laurie K., 2003. "Building Sector-Based Consensus: A Review of the EPA's Common Sense Initiative," Working Paper Series rwp03-037, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    9. Baudry, Gino & Delrue, Florian & Legrand, Jack & Pruvost, Jérémy & Vallée, Thomas, 2017. "The challenge of measuring biofuel sustainability: A stakeholder-driven approach applied to the French case," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 933-947.
    10. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    11. Yanuar Nugroho & Gindo Tampubolon, 2008. "Network Dynamics in the Transition to Democracy: Mapping Global Networks of Contemporary Indonesian Civil Society," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 13(5), pages 144-160, September.
    12. Grillos, Tara, 2017. "Participatory Budgeting and the Poor: Tracing Bias in a Multi-Staged Process in Solo, Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 343-358.
    13. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    14. Matthew Amengual & Janice Fine, 2017. "Co‐enforcing Labor standards: the unique contributions of state and worker organizations in Argentina and the United States," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 129-142, June.
    15. Anselm Schneider, 2015. "Reflexivity in Sustainability Accounting and Management: Transcending the Economic Focus of Corporate Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 525-536, March.
    16. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    17. Michiel A. Heldeweg, 2017. "Normative Alignment, Institutional Resilience and Shifts in Legal Governance of the Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-34, July.
    18. Fischer, Harry W. & Ali, Syed Shoaib, 2019. "Reshaping the public domain: Decentralization, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), and trajectories of local democracy in rural India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 147-158.
    19. Lynne Humphrey & Keith Shaw, 2004. "Regional Devolution and Democratic Renewal: Developing a Radical Approach to Stakeholder Involvement in the English Regions," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(12), pages 2183-2202, December.
    20. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.

    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:kap:policy:v:39:y:2006:i:3:p:279-299. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.