Institutionalising deliberative democracy to promote environmental policy making : the role of public hearings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liberal democracy has been accused of failing to deliver an environmentally sustainable future. In response, deliberative democracy has been heralded as the most promising and realistic form of democracy to promote green issues. Yet, used independently, deliberative processes can be inefficient and ineffective when it comes to policy and decision-making. Combining deliberative processes within liberal institutions is the most realistic way of combining the uses of each democratic model and furthering the environmental agenda. The assertion is that public hearings embody the correct hybrid characteristics to enable this coupling. Despite the plethora of research carried out on the potential of deliberative processes to work in conjunction with existing methods of decision-making, the potential of public hearings has been largely overlooked. This research adopts a mixed method approach to help identify where public hearings could be most effectively utilised in the decision-making process. The thesis explores seven case studies which are, the Alpac hearing on the development of a pulp mill held in Alberta, Canada; the Formartine hearing on the development of a golf course, in Aberdeen, Scotland; the British Columbia Citizens' Assembly hearings on electoral reform, in British Columbia, Canada; the Glenmorie hearing on a windfarm proposal in the Highlands in Scotland; the Helensburgh hearing on wind-power, in the west coast of Scotland; the United Nations (UN) hearing on the citizens versus the United Kingdom, in Geneva, and finally; a hearing held by the European Commission on manufacturing industries in Belgium. The research is operationalised through a newly conceptualised normative framework the Democratic Standard Enactment Index (DSEI) whereby a fuzzy set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) is undertaken to highlight the thus far overlooked benefits of public hearings. Through the application of the DSEI and the fsQCA, the research finds that public hearings have the potential to enact some, if not all, of Smith's (2009a) democratic standards (inclusion, popular control, transparency and considered judgement), as well as the ability to fulfil the institutional goods of transferability and efficiency. The research finds that public hearings can facilitate an exchange of ideas and information, within a hitherto overlooked sphere of deliberation - the 'meso' level - which narrows the field of discussion while making it more accessible for wider groups of people, enabling the connection of micro and macro level deliberation. Consequently, public hearings can be considered to provide a unique function in institutionalising deliberative democracy and promoting environmental policy-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.098 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".