IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v16y2012icp93-101.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans

Author

Listed:
  • Buizer, Marleen
  • Van Herzele, Ann

Abstract

In the past few decades governments in Western European countries have put increasing efforts into creating new green and forest areas in and around cities. At first sight, these centrally formulated plans seem to run counter to the current trend towards less central steering and more participation (and deliberation). However, closer scrutiny in two cases of green structure planning in the Netherlands and Flanders – Balij-Biesland forest and Park forest Ghent – reveals that we are facing a seemingly contradictory image of central steering on the one hand and openness to various actors and ideas on the other. This paper takes a closer look at this ambivalent situation using the two theoretical perspectives of deliberative governance and a discourse analysis. Although the green structure planning exercises did not intentionally have a deliberative character, we argue that such a perspective can and should be put on situations where new local coalitions challenge the centrally formulated plans, and try to start deliberations about their ideas In order to become more specific about the ‘deliberative incompleteness’ of the two Flemish and Dutch processes, a discourse-analytical focal point needs to be taken as well. Normatively, the paper first addresses the diversity of viewpoints and openness to preference shifts in the Dutch and the Flemish cases. It concludes that in the course of both processes, a high diversity of viewpoints surfaced, as well as a certain degree of openness to preference shifts. When the two processes are subjected to discourse analysis, it becomes evident however that the preference shifts occurring as a result of the input of a greater diversity of viewpoints did not bring about changes in some vital discursive practices that had been connected to the green structure planning and implementation processes. It was suggested, therefore, that combining the two theoretical perspectives gives a good insight into ‘deliberative incompleteness’ and highlights persistent institutional obstacles to come to more inclusive green structures in urbanized areas.

Suggested Citation

  • Buizer, Marleen & Van Herzele, Ann, 2012. "Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 93-101.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:16:y:2012:i:c:p:93-101
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2010.02.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934110000432
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2010.02.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Archon Fung & Erik Olin Wright, 2001. "Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(1), pages 5-41, March.
    2. Noelle Aarts & Cees Van Woerkum & Babette Vermunt, 2007. "Policy and planning in the dutch countryside: The role of regional innovation networks," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(6), pages 727-744.
    3. Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(2), pages 362-383, June.
    4. Aviezer Tucker, 2008. "Pre-emptive Democracy: Oligarchic Tendencies in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56, pages 127-147, March.
    5. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 486-508, October.
    6. Carolyn M. Hendriks & John S. Dryzek & Christian Hunold, 2007. "Turning Up the Heat: Partisanship in Deliberative Innovation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55, pages 362-383, June.
    7. Carolyn M. Hendriks, 2006. "Integrated Deliberation: Reconciling Civil Society's Dual Role in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54, pages 486-508, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ann Herzele & Noelle Aarts, 2013. "“My forest, my kingdom”—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 63-81, March.
    2. Pecurul-Botines, Mireia & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni, 2019. "Multi-level processes and the institutionalization of forest conservation discourses: Insights from Natura 2000," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 136-145.
    3. Tikkanen, Jukka, 2018. "Participatory turn - and down-turn - in Finland's regional forest programme process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 87-97.
    4. Blicharska, Malgorzata & Van Herzele, Ann, 2015. "What a forest? Whose forest? Struggles over concepts and meanings in the debate about the conservation of the Białowieża Forest in Poland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 22-30.
    5. Jinvo Nam & Nicola Dempsey, 2019. "Place-Keeping for Health? Charting the Challenges for Urban Park Management in Practice," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-26, August.
    6. Yelizaveta Mikhailovna Sharonova, 2021. "Quantitative Cross-country Analysis of Nuclear Power Discourse in Politically Distinct India and Russia," South Asian Survey, , vol. 28(2), pages 205-221, September.
    7. Marleen Buizer & Bas Arts & Judith Westerink, 2016. "Landscape governance as policy integration ‘from below’: A case of displaced and contained political conflict in the Netherlands," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 34(3), pages 448-462, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carey Doberstein, 2016. "Designing Collaborative Governance Decision-Making in Search of a ‘Collaborative Advantage’," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(6), pages 819-841, July.
    2. Corus, Canan & Ozanne, Julie L., 2012. "Stakeholder engagement: Building participatory and deliberative spaces in subsistence markets," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1728-1735.
    3. Gunn, Callum J. & Bertelsen, Neil & Regeer, Barbara J. & Schuitmaker-Warnaar, Tjerk Jan, 2021. "Valuing patient engagement: Reflexive learning in evidence generation practices for health technology assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 280(C).
    4. Chris Skelcher & Jacob Torfing, 2010. "Improving democratic governance through institutional design: Civic participation and democratic ownership in Europe," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 71-91, March.
    5. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    6. John Dryzek, 2015. "Deliberative engagement: the forum in the system," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 5(4), pages 750-754, December.
    7. Lehtonen, Markku, 2019. "Ecological Economics and Opening up of Megaproject Appraisal: Lessons From Megaproject Scholarship and Topics for a Research Programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 148-156.
    8. Jonathan White & Lea Ypi, 2010. "Rethinking the Modern Prince: Partisanship and the Democratic Ethos," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 809-828, October.
    9. Hodgetts, Katherine & Elshaug, Adam G. & Hiller, Janet E., 2012. "What counts and how to count it: Physicians’ constructions of evidence in a disinvestment context," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2191-2199.
    10. Jennifer Dodge, 2014. "Civil society organizations and deliberative policy making: interpreting environmental controversies in the deliberative system," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(2), pages 161-185, June.
    11. M. Jae Moon & Seulgi Lee & Seunggyu Park, 2023. "Citizensourcing policy advisory systems in a turbulent era," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 303-318.
    12. Margaret Gollagher & Janette Hartz-Karp, 2013. "The Role of Deliberative Collaborative Governance in Achieving Sustainable Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(6), pages 1-24, May.
    13. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.
    14. Ya Li, 2015. "Think tank 2.0 for deliberative policy analysis," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(1), pages 25-50, March.
    15. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    16. Helen Pallett & Jason Chilvers, 2013. "A Decade of Learning about Publics, Participation, and Climate Change: Institutionalising Reflexivity?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(5), pages 1162-1183, May.
    17. Andrew F Smith, 2014. "Political deliberation and the challenge of bounded rationality," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 13(3), pages 269-291, August.
    18. Robert Weymouth & Janette Hartz-Karp & Dora Marinova, 2020. "Repairing Political Trust for Practical Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-25, August.
    19. Alfred Moore, 2010. "Public Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(4), pages 715-730, October.
    20. A. Russell & Frank Vanclay & Janet Salisbury & Heather Aslin, 2011. "Technology assessment in Australia: the case for a formal agency to improve advice to policy makers," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 157-177, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:16:y:2012:i:c:p:93-101. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.