CONSENSUS CONFERENCES

PLANNING CELLSLay citizen deliberations

Consensus Conf + Planning Cells

1. Include “ordinary” citizens

2. Unorganized organized– HIGHLY structured

3. Randomly selected citizens

4. 10-25 per group – (100-500 total)

5. 3-4 days of deliberation +

6. Elicit citizen preferences on policy issues (social research)

STRUCTURERelationship to Expertise?

Briefing materials

Present.sField Trips

FacilitationDevelop report

Present andDisseminate

NO EXPERTISENO SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND YET

PRIORITIZE CITZENS

PLANNING CELLSINFORM ON ISSUE

HEARINGS

SITE VISITS

SMALL GROUP DISCUS

SION

MULTIPLE

STEWARDS

INFORM ON ISSUE

HEARINGS

SITE VISITS

SMALL GROUP DISCUS

SION

MULTIPLE

STEWARDS

INFORM ON ISSUE

HEARINGS

SITE VISITSSMALL GROUP

DISCUSSION

MULTIPLE STEWARDS

CITIZENS’ REPORT

PRESENTED

Planning Cells Cont.

• Emphasize small group work (5)– More opportunities to be heard/interact– Lessen fear of large audience

• Rotate group membership• Resistance to team-building “games” = do

these manipulate?• Results Aggregated, not synthesized = huge

amount of data (quantitatitive)

BOTH• One time events• Take huge efforts to plan (6-18 mo.)• Often convened by research institutes

• Real concrete problem – not hypothetical's

• Close ties to state – Have a direct input (+)– Are highly vulnerable to manipulation (-)

Democracy in Denmark

• Highly participatory (150+)

• Home of consensus conferences

• Focused particularly on technology assessment (1987 +)– Gene technology– Air pollution– Infertility

• 50 + in 13 countries

Planning Cells/Citizens’ Report

1970sinfrastructure problems

• 50 + worldwide (most in Germany)• 12 weeks? 3 weeks? 4 day standard?• Citizens’ report

EFFECTS/OUTCOMES

• Direct effects– Can change policy– Change citizen

deliberators

• Indirect– Change public discourse– Change ideas of policy

makers

• Randomly invited citizens do tend to participate (many)

• Do roughly represent community

• take it seriously• shift preferences• find it fulfilling• Most support extending

process

Success/Failure

• REPORTS compete with advice from:– Political parties– Expert committees– Interest groups

• Success depends on OUTSIDE factors:–Willingness of decision makers to LISTEN– Ferocity of competing agendas– Nature of public discourse

• “Dramatic shift from the elite, technocratic model of decision making”

• Commitment from politicians and administrators are key to outcome (lead to policy outcomes)

• AIM = “elicit considered input from lay citizens on complex policy issues”

DRAWBACKS

Resource intensive – strong financial support

Administratively demanding

Require someone to champion them

Unsustained contact (1 time)

Subject to manipulation via planning

BEST FOR ADDRESSING

• Publicly significant and current issue

• Relevant to the lives of citizens

• Relatively urgent problem with

• Different options which have very different benefits and risks

• involve social, ethical and technical consequences

• Demarcated but controversial

LESS SUCCESSFUL WHEN

• Binary outcomes

• Highly polarized issue

• Large inequalities within community

• A very quick decision needs to be made

QUESTIONS

1. Random selection means some who want to have a voice in the process do not.– How is this problematic or unjust?– How could it be justified?

2. Can non-experts and unaffiliated citizens make legitimate contributions to public policy? Why or why not?

GOALS/OUTCOMES

• Rearranges power dynamics– Policy actors become presenters– Expose coercive forms of power

• Transform communicative conditions– Remove competition and– Use reasoned argument and reflection

• Collective will? Individual will?• Aiming for demographic diversity, not

statistical representation

cooperative discourse model (Ortwin Renn)

Stakeholders – values and

criteria

Expert – develop

performance profiles of

options

lay public – evaluate and design policy

Feedback from public -- accountability