Dealing with the epistemic-democratic tension in policy-making. Institutional design choices for multi-layered democratic innovations

IF 1.8 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Eva Krick
{"title":"Dealing with the epistemic-democratic tension in policy-making. Institutional design choices for multi-layered democratic innovations","authors":"Eva Krick","doi":"10.1080/2474736X.2021.1893608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study analyses a particularly auspicious and seemingly thriving kind of democratic innovation in terms of its potential to deal with epistemic and democratic demands to policy-making at the same time. In focus are highly complex, multi-layered arrangements of policy deliberation, consultation and advice that combine an array of input channels and actor groups in a shared quest for a joint, consensual solution to a policy problem. The study asks under which conditions these democratic innovations manage to deal with the double challenge of delivering reliable expertise and providing for substantive participation of all affected viewpoints. Two cases from the German environmental policy context are analyzed in-depth, i.e. the committee on the final storage of nuclear waste and the dialogue on the government’s climate action plan. The comparative case analysis is guided by an assessment framework that builds on input-oriented democratic theory, participatory governance research as well as sociological and epistemological debates of expertise and knowledge in the policy context. Based on the case analyses, the study traces favourable institutional design conditions for striking a balance between the multiple normative demands at play.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1893608","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Exchange","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2021.1893608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study analyses a particularly auspicious and seemingly thriving kind of democratic innovation in terms of its potential to deal with epistemic and democratic demands to policy-making at the same time. In focus are highly complex, multi-layered arrangements of policy deliberation, consultation and advice that combine an array of input channels and actor groups in a shared quest for a joint, consensual solution to a policy problem. The study asks under which conditions these democratic innovations manage to deal with the double challenge of delivering reliable expertise and providing for substantive participation of all affected viewpoints. Two cases from the German environmental policy context are analyzed in-depth, i.e. the committee on the final storage of nuclear waste and the dialogue on the government’s climate action plan. The comparative case analysis is guided by an assessment framework that builds on input-oriented democratic theory, participatory governance research as well as sociological and epistemological debates of expertise and knowledge in the policy context. Based on the case analyses, the study traces favourable institutional design conditions for striking a balance between the multiple normative demands at play.
处理政策制定中的认知-民主张力。多层次民主创新的制度设计选择
本研究分析了一种特别吉祥且看似蓬勃发展的民主创新,它同时处理认知和民主对决策的需求的潜力。重点是高度复杂的、多层次的政策审议、协商和建议安排,将一系列输入渠道和行动者群体结合起来,共同寻求共同的、协商一致的政策问题解决方案。该研究提出,在何种条件下,这些民主创新能够应对提供可靠的专业知识和为所有受影响的观点提供实质性参与的双重挑战。深入分析了德国环境政策背景下的两个案例,即核废料最终储存委员会和政府气候行动计划对话。比较案例分析以一个评估框架为指导,该框架建立在以投入为导向的民主理论、参与式治理研究以及政策背景下专业知识和知识的社会学和认识论辩论的基础上。在案例分析的基础上,本研究追溯了在多重规范需求之间取得平衡的有利制度设计条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Political Research Exchange
Political Research Exchange POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
39 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信