scholarly journals Public Participation in Climate Policy Making: Toward Reconciling Public Preferences and Legal Frameworks

One Earth ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 341-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goda Perlaviciute ◽  
Lorenzo Squintani
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Public Preferences ◽  
Legal Frameworks

The Finnish Climate Change Act: Architecture, Functions, and Challenges

Climate Law ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 301-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ismo Pölönen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Climate Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Dynamic Features ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Term Energy ◽  
Public Scrutiny ◽  
The Cost

The article examines the key features and functions of the proposed Finnish Climate Change Act (fcca). It also analyses the legal implications of the Act and the qualities and factors which may limit its effectiveness. The paper argues that, despite its weak legal implications, the fcca would provide the regulatory preconditions for higher-quality climate policy-making in Finland, and it has the capacity to play an important role in national climate policy. The fcca would deliver regulatory foundations for systematic and integrated climate policy-making, also enabling wide public scrutiny. The proposed model leaves room for manifold climate-policy choices in varying societal and economical contexts. The cost of dynamic features is the relalow predictability in terms of sectorial paths on emission reductions. Another relevant challenge relates to the intended preparation of overlapping mid-term energy and climate plans with instruments of the fcca.

Discursive Democracy and New Labour: Five Ways in Which Decision-Makers Manage Citizen Agendas in Public Participation Initiatives

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mike Williams
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Local Authority ◽  
Public Support ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
New Labour ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
The Public ◽  
Labour Policy ◽  
The Government

New Labour's conceptualisation of public participation in local government creates a tension in public participation practice. Government legislation and guidance require local authorities to develop and provide citizen-centred services, engage the public in policy-making and respond to the public's views. Seen in this light, New Labour policy draws from radical democratic discourse. However, local authority staff are also expected to act in accordance with the direction set by their line managers, the Council and the government and to inform, engage and persuade the public of the benefit of their authority's policies. In this respect, New Labour policy draws from the discursive model of civil society, conceptualising public participation as a method for engendering civil ownership of the formal structures of representative democracy. Tension is likely to arise when the ideas, opinions and values of the local authority differ from those expressed by the participating public. This paper uses a local ‘public participation’ initiative to investigate how the tension is managed in practice. The study shows how decision-makers dealt with the tension by using participatory initiatives to supply information, understand the views of the public and encourage public support around pre-existing organisational agendas. Problems occurred when citizens introduced new agendas by breaking or manipulating the rules of participation. Decision-makers responded by using a number of distinctive methods for managing citizens’ agendas, some of which were accompanied by strategies for minimising the injury done to citizens’ motivations for further participation. The paper concludes that New Labour policy fails to deal with the tensions between the radical and discursive models of participation and in the final analysis draws mainly from the discursive model of participation. Furthermore, whilst New Labour policy promotes dialogue between the public and local authority, it does not empower local authority staff to achieve the goal of citizen-centred policy-making.

scholarly journals Cybersecurity Policy as if “Ordinary Citizens” Mattered: The Case for Public Participation in Cyber Policy Making

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter M. Shane
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Computer Networks ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
As If ◽  
Ordinary Citizens

Given the ubiquity of computer networks and our reliance as a society on their integrity and robustness, the quality of cyber-security is an issue that affects everyone. Yet, cyber-security policy making has remained almost entirely within the purview of lobbyists and technical experts. This article argues for both the plausibility and normative imperative of greater public participation in cyber policy making.

scholarly journals Lost Identity: Transgender Persons Inside Indian Prisons

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arijeet Ghosh ◽  
◽  
Madhurima Dhanuka ◽  
Sai Bourothu ◽  
Fernando Lannes Fernandes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Policy Making ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Legal Service ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Transgender Persons ◽  
Consultative Process ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
Information Requests

This report sheds light on challenges faced by Transgender persons in Indian prisons. The report analyses the international and legal frameworks in the country which provide the foundation for policy formulations with regard to confinement of LGBT+ persons, with particular reference to the Transgender community. This report also documents the responses received to right to information requests filed to prison headquarters across the country, which in addition to providing the number of Transgender prisoners in Indian prisons between 1st May 2018 to 30th April 2019, also provides relevant information on compliance within prisons with existing legal frameworks relevant to protecting the rights of Transgender persons in prisons, especially in terms of recognition of a third gender, allocation of wards, search procedures, efforts towards capacity building of prison administrators etc. The finalisation of this report has involved an intense consultative process with individuals and experts, including representatives from the community, community-based organisations as well as researcher and academicians working on this issue. This report aims to enhance the understanding of these issues among stakeholders such as prison administrators, judicial officers, lawyers, legal service providers as well as other non-state actors. It is aimed at better informed policy making, and ensuring that decisions made with respect to LGBTI+ persons in prisons recognize and are sensitive of their rights and special needs.

What Next?

2019 ◽  
pp. 141-142
Author(s):  
Gilbert E. Metcalf
Keyword(s):  
Climate Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Carbon Tax ◽  
Policy Debate ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Taking Action

This brief chapter moves from explaining why a carbon tax is smart policy to showing how the reader can learn more and get engaged in shaping the policy debate. It provides information for individuals or groups interested in taking action on a carbon tax. It provides links to various groups that carry out research on climate policy that should inform policy making as well as to groups working to enact a carbon tax. It also explains how to engage with politicians and encourages readers to reach out to their Representatives and Senators to support smart climate policy like a carbon tax.

32. Conclusion: The Future of Parliamentary Politics

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Judge ◽  
Cristina Leston-Bandeira ◽  
Louise Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Public Participation ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
The Political ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
The Core ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
The Future ◽  
Parliamentary Politics

This concluding chapter reflects on the future of parliamentary politics by identifying key puzzles implicit in previous discussions which raise fundamental questions about what Parliament is and why it exists. The goal is to determine the ‘predictable unknowns’ as starting points for exploring the future. Three principal puzzles that need ‘hard thinking’ in order to understand legislatures are considered: representation, collective decision-making, and their role in the political system. The chapter also examines the difficulties in reconciling ideas about popular sovereignty and direct public participation with notions of parliamentary sovereignty and indirect public participation in decision-making; the implications of the legislative task of disentangling UK law from EU law in the wake of Brexit for Parliament's recent strengthened scrutiny capacity; and how Parliament has integrated the core principles of representation, consent, and authorization into the legitimation of state policy-making processes and their outputs.

scholarly journals The new evidence-based policy: public participation between ‘hard evidence’ and democracy in practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-227
Author(s):  
Helen Pallett
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Ethnographic Study ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Evidence Based Policy ◽  
Hard Evidence ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

Background:Debates about evidence-based policy (EBP) were revived in the UK in the 2010s in the context of civil service reform and changing practices of policy making, including institutionalisation of public participation in science policy making. Aims and objectives:This paper aims to explore this revival of interest in EBP in the context of the Government-funded public participation programme Sciencewise, which supports and promotes public dialogues in science policy making. It is based on in-depth ethnographic study of the programme during 2013, considering the impacts on Sciencewise practices and working understandings of engaging in the EBP debate. There is a particular focus on the advantages and disadvantages of categorising public participation as a source of evidence-based policy as opposed to presenting participation as a democratic act which is separate from discussions of EBP. Key conclusions:At different times Sciencewise actors moved between these stances in order to gain credibility and attention for their work, and to situate the outcomes of public participation processes in a broader policy context. In some instances the presentation of outputs from public participation processes as legitimate evidence for policy gave them greater influence and enriched broader discussions about the meaning and practice of open policy. However, it also frequently led to their dismissal on methodological grounds, inhibiting serious engagement with their outputs and challenging internal frameworks for evaluation and learning.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document