IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jinter/v15y2004i1p41-60.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Decision Processes and Decision-making in Relation to Sustainable Development and Democracy – Where Do we Stand?

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Söderbaum

    (Mälardalen University, Sweden. E-mail: peter.soderbaum@mdh.se)

Abstract

A number of approaches to decision processes and decision-making have been proposed. These include Cost-Benefit Analysis, Multi-Criteria Approaches, Environmental Impact Assessment, and Positional Analysis (as a form of Systems Approach). While these all claim to be useful in illuminating or solving specific problems related to environment and development, the meta-level question remains – how do we choose among approaches to decision-making? Is there a meta-approach to the choice among approaches? While not claiming to give the final answer, I hope that the question will at least be illuminated here. Each approach is related to criteria such as theory of science, paradigm, ideology, ways of dealing with sustainable development and democracy. This information is summarized in a profile for each method. The profiles are then used to discuss the pros and cons of different methods. It is concluded that CBA does not very well match the criteria suggested while the three other methods, each have something to offer.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Söderbaum, 2004. "Decision Processes and Decision-making in Relation to Sustainable Development and Democracy – Where Do we Stand?," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 15(1), pages 41-60, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jinter:v:15:y:2004:i:1:p:41-60
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://jie.sagepub.com/content/15/1/41.abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Soderbaum, Peter, 2007. "Issues of paradigm, ideology and democracy in sustainability assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 613-626, January.

    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:jinter:v:15:y:2004:i:1:p:41-60. 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: 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.