Democracy and the governance of uncertainty. The case of agricultural gene technologies.

The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in agriculture and food production is the object of an intense and divisive debate. Drawing on a study on the public perception of agricultural gene technologies carried out in five European countries, the article deals with the policy aspects of the issue, and more precisely on the relation between institutions, experts and the public in a context of deep uncertainty. A theoretical framework is developed and compared with the study findings, suggesting that issues like the GMOs one represent a strong case for a more participatory policy-making. My conclusions suggest a style of governance based on the principles of deliberative democracy, as a suitable approach to the confrontation of different viewpoints and forms of knowledge. This appears to be the best way to improve the overall quality of policy-making: in this I include its legitimacy, the degree of public trust, and also the actual quality of its products. Strengthening the role of the public sphere seems more effective than simply increasing direct decision-making by the populace, and it offers an alternative to the 'elitist' solutions to the crisis of representative democracy.

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

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

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

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

[5]  A. Irwin.  Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development , 1995 .

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

[7]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Democracy and Disagreement , 1996 .

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

[9]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and public uptake of science , 1992 .

[10]  I. Young.  Justice and the Politics of Difference , 1990, The New Social Theory Reader.

[11]  Ulrich Beck,et al.  The reinvention of politics : rethinking modernity in the global social order , 1999 .

[12]  Wolfgang Streeck,et al.  Private interest government : beyond market and state , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[13]  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 .

[14]  Frances M. Lynn,et al.  Citizen Advisory Committees and Environmental Policy: What We Know, What's Left to Discover , 1995 .

[15]  N. Roberts,et al.  Policy entrepreneurs: catalysts for policy innovation , 1987 .

[16]  Alan Cawson,et al.  Corporatism and political theory , 1986 .

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

[18]  Maarten A. Hajer,et al.  The Politics of Environmental Discourse , 1997 .

[19]  Emery Roe,et al.  Narrative policy analysis , 1994 .

[20]  Kevin Featherstone.  Jean Monnet and the ‘Democratic Deficit’ in the European Union , 1994 .

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

[22]  P. Haas.  Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination , 1992, International Organization.

[23]  Claudio M. Radaelli,et al.  Limits to EU technocratic regulation , 1999 .

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

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

[26]  Brian Wynne,et al.  Misunderstanding science?: Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public uptake of science , 1996 .

[27]  T. Webler,et al.  A Need for Discourse on Citizen Participation: Objectives and Structure of the Book , 1995 .

[28]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation , 1995 .

[29]  Svein S. Andersen,et al.  The European Union and the Erosion of Parliamentary Democracy: A Study of Post-Parliamentary Governance , 1996 .

[30]  Jerome R. Ravetz,et al.  Risk management and governance:: a post-normal science approach , 1999 .

[31]  C. Radaelli.  The Politics of Corporate Taxation in the European Union: Knowledge and International Policy Agendas , 1997 .

[32]  J. Durant.  Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science , 1999 .

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

[34]  Krishan Kumar.  From Post-Industrial to Post-Modern Society: New Theories of the Contemporary World , 1995 .