IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envira/v40y2008i8p1881-1900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Power Relations: The Politics of Risk and Procedure in Nuclear Waste Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Jason Chilvers

    (School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, England)

  • Jacquelin Burgess

    (School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, England)

Abstract

This paper develops a critical perspective on the ‘new’ governance of science and the environment which is increasingly evident in practical attempts to build more constructive relations between science and democracy through hybrid ‘analytic–deliberative’ processes. The focus is on recent institutional and participatory experiments in the governance of nuclear waste, specifically the work of the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management and the trialling of a novel participatory, multicriteria, options appraisal tool called Deliberative Mapping undertaken by the authors as part of this process. Drawing on these attempts to build relations and make connections between citizens, specialists, stakeholders and policy makers, radioactive wastes, and possible courses of action for their long-term management, the methodological performance of analytic–deliberative practices and the contextual influences that frame and govern them is evaluated. The paper demonstrates powerful framing effects operated at the level of specific participatory practices, procedural politics surrounding the design of ‘new’ governance institutions, and institutional behaviour linked to wider politics of environmental risk and energy futures which narrowed down and marginalised particular discourses, knowledges, meanings, and forms of expression. Unless these often tacit power relations are acknowledged, accounted for, and exposed by all involved, but especially vested interests, analytic–deliberative institutions may well undermine public trust, credibility, and legitimacy rather than promote these democratic virtues as is widely claimed.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Chilvers & Jacquelin Burgess, 2008. "Power Relations: The Politics of Risk and Procedure in Nuclear Waste Governance," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(8), pages 1881-1900, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:envira:v:40:y:2008:i:8:p:1881-1900
    DOI: 10.1068/a40334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a40334
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/a40334?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacquelin Burgess & Jason Chilvers, 2006. "Upping the ante: A conceptual framework for designing and evaluating participatory technology assessments," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(10), pages 713-728, December.
    2. Claudio Pescatore & Anna Vári, 2006. "Stepwise Approach to the Long-Term Management of Radioactive Waste1," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 13-40, January.
    3. Genevieve Johnson, 2007. "The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 40(2), pages 79-99, June.
    4. Steve Rayner, 2003. "Democracy in the age of assessment: Reflections on the roles of expertise and democracy in public-sector decision making," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 163-170, June.
    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. Walmsley, Heather L., 2011. "Stock options, tax credits or employment contracts please! The value of deliberative public disagreement about human tissue donation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 209-216, July.
    2. Geng, Liuna & Liu, Ting & Zhou, Kexin & Yang, Genmao, 2018. "Can power affect environmental risk attitude toward nuclear energy?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 87-93.

    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. 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).
    2. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165, January.
    3. Finardi, Corrado & Pellegrini, Giuseppe & Rowe, Gene, 2012. "Food safety issues: From Enlightened Elitism towards Deliberative Democracy? An overview of EFSA’s “Public Consultation” instrument," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 427-438.
    4. Umbrello, Steven & Bernstein, Michael J. & Vermaas, Pieter E. & Resseguier, Anaïs & Gonzalez, Gustavo & Porcari, Andrea & Grinbaum, Alexei & Adomaitis, Laurynas, 2023. "From speculation to reality: Enhancing anticipatory ethics for emerging technologies (ATE) in practice," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    5. Michael Barnett, 2016. "Accountability and global governance: The view from paternalism," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 134-148, June.
    6. Jonathan Metzger & Linda Soneryd & Sebastian Linke, 2017. "The legitimization of concern: A flexible framework for investigating the enactment of stakeholders in environmental planning and governance processes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(11), pages 2517-2535, November.
    7. Jason Chilvers, 2008. "Environmental Risk, Uncertainty, and Participation: Mapping an Emergent Epistemic Community," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 40(12), pages 2990-3008, December.
    8. Esther Turnhout & Katja Neves & Elisa de Lijster, 2014. "‘Measurementality’ in Biodiversity Governance: Knowledge, Transparency, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Ipbes)," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 581-597, March.
    9. Klenk, Nicole L. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2011. "A virtual and anonymous, deliberative and analytic participation process for planning and evaluation: The Concept Mapping Policy Delphi," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 152-165.
    10. Les Levidow & Susan Carr, 2007. "Europeanising Advisory Expertise: The Role of ‘Independent, Objective, and Transparent’ Scientific Advice in Agri-Biotech Regulation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 25(6), pages 880-895, December.
    11. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.
    12. Popa, Eugen Octav & Blok, Vincent & Katsoukis, Georgios & Schubert, Cornelius, 2023. "Moral impact of technologies from a pluralist perspective: Artificial photosynthesis as a case in point," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    13. Nguyen, Sun V. & Langston, Nancy & Wellstead, Adam & Howlett, Michael, 2020. "Mining the evidence: Public comments and evidence-based policymaking in the controversial Minnesota PolyMet mining project," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    14. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2005. "Shared Visions, Unholy Alliances: Power, Governance and Deliberative Processes in Local Transport Planning," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(12), pages 2123-2144, November.
    15. Douglas, Conor M.W. & Wilcox, Elizabeth & Burgess, Michael & Lynd, Larry D., 2015. "Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(5), pages 588-596.
    16. Simon Dietz & Alec Morton, 2009. "Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the UK�s Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management," GRI Working Papers 5, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    17. Hermans, Frans & van Apeldoorn, Dirk & Stuiver, Marian & Kok, Kasper, 2013. "Niches and networks: Explaining network evolution through niche formation processes," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 613-623.
    18. Ramana, M.V., 2013. "Shifting strategies and precarious progress: Nuclear waste management in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 196-206.
    19. Tavella, Elena, 2016. "How to make Participatory Technology Assessment in agriculture more “participatory”: The case of genetically modified plants," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 119-126.
    20. Anna Straton & Sue Jackson & Oswald Marinoni & Wendy Proctor & Emma Woodward, 2011. "Exploring and Evaluating Scenarios for a River Catchment in Northern Australia Using Scenario Development, Multi-criteria Analysis and a Deliberative Process as a Tool for Water Planning," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(1), pages 141-164, January.

    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:sae:envira:v:40:y:2008:i:8:p:1881-1900. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.