IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v40y2013i1p34-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting to 'No': The method of contested exchange

Author

Listed:
  • David Castle
  • Keith Culver

Abstract

Policy processes frequently fail to reach policy recommendations or the recommendations fail in practice. An 'antecedent failure' occurs when a policy problem is not perceived in advance as unstructured and consensus methods ill-equipped to grappling with a lack of structure are used. By contrast, dissensus can be better for structuring policy problems, and a method of 'contested exchange' has been developed and evaluated for this purpose. Disputed aspects of aquaculture provide ready examples of antecedent failure and unstructured policy problems. The method of contested exchange is used to provide structure, and a number of virtues of the method are discussed. Copyright The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • David Castle & Keith Culver, 2013. "Getting to 'No': The method of contested exchange," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 34-42, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2013:i:1:p:34-42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scs118
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lonneke M. Poort & Jac. A. A. Swart & Ruth Mampuys & Arend J. Waarlo & Paul C. Struik & Lucien Hanssen, 2022. "Restore politics in societal debates on new genomic techniques," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1207-1216, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:scippl:v:40:y:2013:i:1:p:34-42. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.