Uncertainty and Participatory Democracy

The article deals with some implications of radical uncertainty for participatory democracy, and more precisely for Participatory Technology Assessment (PTA). Two main forms of PTA are discussed. One is aimed at involving lay citizens and highlighting public opinion. The other is addressed to stakeholder groups and organisations, not only in terms of interest mediation but also of inclusion of their insight into a problem. Radical uncertainty makes 'intractable' many environmental and technological issues and brings into question traditional and new approaches to policy-making. Its consequences are explored from the viewpoint of new science, deliberative democracy, and network governance. Radical uncertainty calls for a rethinking of the aims of public deliberation, and a reinterpretation of the divide between opinion- and position-oriented PTA. To look for a public opinion, understood as a shared principled view, can prove misleading, as can thinking of stakeholder participatory arrangements in the usual way. When facts and values overlap, and are deeply controversial, the only opportunity for mutual understanding may be to look for practical, 'local' answers, based on different positional insights. Moreover, radical uncertainty also affects interest determination and pursuit, and may enhance the opportunity of joint, inclusive, non-strategic issue definition and solution-devising. This vision of public deliberation is consistent with the idea of network governance. However, fragmentation can affect the effectiveness and legitimacy of participatory policies. Trying to handle fragmentation from the top, as many suggest, is unlikely to be successful. A more promising endeavour is to foster deliberative settings which, although positioned at the level of 'local' and often contingent networks and commonalities, are open to include 'Otherness' - other contexts, other problem definitions, other concerns.

[1]  Birgit Jæger,et al.  Scenario workshops and consensus conferences: Towards more democratic decision-making , 1999 .

[2]  H. Bressers,et al.  Innovation, Learning, and Environmental Policy: Overcoming "A Plague of Uncertainties" , 2000 .

[3]  Eve Seguin The UK BSE crisis: Strengths and weaknesses of existing conceptual approaches , 2000 .

[4]  Contributions from Social Studies of Science and Constructive Technology Assessment , 2002 .

[5]  Donald A. Schön,et al.  Frame Reflection: Toward The Resolution Of Intractable Policy Controversies , 1994 .

[6]  Frank I. Michelman,et al.  Between Facts and Norms , 1992 .

[7]  David Miller,et al.  Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice , 1992 .

[8]  D. Guston,et al.  24 Politics by the Same Means Government and Science in the United States , 1995 .

[9]  R. Bernstein Beyond objectivism and relativism , 1983 .

[10]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  Reason, Truth and History. , 1985 .

[11]  Jonathan Murdoch,et al.  Local knowledge and the precarious extension of scientific networks: a reflection on three case studies , 1997 .

[12]  Renato Schibeci,et al.  Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology , 1997 .

[13]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the Post-Normal Age , 1993, Commonplace.

[14]  J. Femia Complexity and deliberative democracy , 1996 .

[15]  C. Radaelli IDEE E CONOSCENZA NELLE POLITICHE PUBBLICHE EUROPEE: TECNOCRAZIA O POLITICIZZAZIONE? , 1999, Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica.

[16]  B. Kohler-Koch Framing: the bottleneck of constructing legitimate institutions , 2000 .

[17]  Richard J. Bernstein,et al.  Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis , 1984 .

[18]  Frank N. Laird,et al.  Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision Making , 1993 .

[19]  David Wield,et al.  Genetically modified crops in the European Union: regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities , 2000 .

[20]  S. Hilgartner,et al.  The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arenas Model , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  Simon Joss,et al.  Danish consensus conferences as a model of participatory technology assessment: An impact study of consensus conferences on Danish Parliament and Danish public debate , 1998 .

[22]  Simon Joss,et al.  Public participation in science : the role of consensus conferences in Europe , 1995 .

[23]  A. Giddens,et al.  Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order , 1994 .

[24]  G. Rowe,et al.  Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation , 2000 .

[25]  Graham Smith,et al.  Citizens' Juries and Deliberative Democracy , 2000 .

[26]  Joel Rogers,et al.  Solidarity, Democracy, Association , 1994 .

[27]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Planning Cells: A Gate to “Fractal” Mediation , 1995 .

[28]  Joel Rogers,et al.  Secondary Associations and Democratic Governance , 1992 .

[29]  Transgressive Competence , 2000 .

[30]  P. Weingart Scientific expertise and political accountability: paradoxes of science in politics , 1999 .

[31]  Brian Wynne,et al.  May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. , 2004 .

[32]  Ned Crosby,et al.  Citizens Juries: One Solution for Difficult Environmental Questions , 1995 .

[33]  L. Pellizzoni The myth of the best argument: power, deliberation and reason. , 2001, The British journal of sociology.

[34]  James D. Fearon,et al.  Deliberative Democracy: Deliberation as Discussion , 1998 .

[35]  J. I. Vargas Science for the 21 st century * , 2001 .

[36]  J. Bohman,et al.  Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics , 1997 .

[37]  Steven Yearley,et al.  Regulatory science—Towards a sociological framework☆ , 1997 .

[38]  Matthijs Hisschemöller,et al.  Coping with intractable controversies: The case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis , 1995 .

[39]  T. Burns,et al.  The Future of Parliamentary Democracy: Transition and Challenge in European Governance , 2000 .

[40]  P. Kelly,et al.  From statism to pluralism , 1997 .

[41]  L. Pellizzoni,et al.  Technological risk, participation and deliberation. Some results from three Italian case studies. , 2000, Journal of hazardous materials.

[42]  L. Sanders,et al.  Against Deliberation , 1997 .

[43]  L. Pellizzoni Reflexive Modernization and Beyond , 1999 .

[44]  R. Rhodes,et al.  The New Governance: Governing without Government , 1996 .

[45]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  Democracy in the Risk Society - Learning from the Politics of Mobility in Munich , 1999 .

[46]  C. Mouffe Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism , 2000 .

[47]  Jon Fixdal Consensus conferences as ‘extended peer groups’ , 1997 .

[48]  David H. Guston,et al.  Evaluating the First U.S. Consensus Conference: The Impact of the Citizens’ Panel on Telecommunications and the Future of Democracy , 1999 .

[49]  B. Wynne Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. , 1992 .

[50]  Jerry Ravetz Science and Governance in the European Union. A Contribution to the Debate. , 2000 .

[51]  L. Pellizzoni,et al.  Democracy and the governance of uncertainty. The case of agricultural gene technologies. , 2001, Journal of hazardous materials.

[52]  T. Nagel The view from nowhere , 1987 .

[53]  Ortwin Renn A Model for an Analytic−Deliberative Process in Risk Management , 1999 .