Making a difference: On the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues
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 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
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.:
- 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.
- Coglianese, Cary, 2001. "Is Consensus an Appropriate Basis for Regulatory Policy?," Working Paper Series rwp01-012, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- 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.
- Hoogerwerf, Andries, 1990. "Reconstructing policy theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 285-291, January.
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.