Agonistic pluralism for enhancing the co-design of agri-environmental policy.

Abstract

This study examines the role of agonistic pluralism in shaping policy co-design, including the development of agri-environment schemes. Embracing agonism may provide a democratic framework for deliberative co-design. By 'relinquishing all claims to finality, to happy endings', this involves embracing conflict rather than seeking consensus (McManus in Polity 40:509-525, 2008). By recognising and navigating power imbalances rather than eliminating them, it enhances co-design elements such as framing, facilitation, and ongoing negotiation. Although seemingly more time-consuming than less deliberative methods, this approach may prove efficient if it produces policies viewed as legitimate by diverse parties. In urgent contexts, adopting agonistic pluralism could foster rapid policy development by advancing 'good enough' ideas rather than pursuing unattainable consensus, particularly where complex challenges are being addressed. Furthermore, agonistic pluralism advocates for policies to remain flexible and continually evolve through meaningful negotiation, ensuring they are genuinely co-designed and adaptable to changing needs.