Published by De Gruyter Oldenbourg

Volume 19 Issue 1

Issue of Analyse & Kritik

Contents
Journal Overview

Publicly Available May 14, 2016

Unerwünschte Projekte, Kompensation und Akzeptanz

Bruno S. Frey

Page range: 3-14

More Download PDF

Abstract

Democracies find it difficult, and sometimes impossible to get through projects desired by a large share of the population because these are strongly opposed by local residents (NIMBY: Not In My BackYard). As a solution for these conflicts, economists proposed offering (monetary) compensation to the citizens of the host community. Experiences with many different projects and countries reveal, however, that monetary payments are incapable of solving the NIMBY-problem. A monetary offer to accept an otherwise undesired project undermines civic virtue. This crowding-out effect is empirically demonstrated using the search for a nuclear repository in Switzerland. A satisfactory strategy to overcome the NIMBY-problem takes into account the procedure, the time sequence, as well as the type of compensation offered.

Publicly Available May 14, 2016

Diskurs – die Protektion der Kommunikation

Iris Bohnet

Page range: 15-32

More Download PDF

Abstract

The goal of discourse-based decision-making is to free negotiations from self-interested, strategic interactions. In this paper it is argued that the absence of interests may lead to both efficiency losses and redistribution between participants of the discourse and outsiders. The latter effect is the stronger, the more personal relationships between discourse participants become. Therefore, it is essential to validate the recommendations arrived at in discourses in democratic decision-making processes that are driven by competition between different points of views and interests.

Publicly Available May 14, 2016

Kompensationen in alternativen. Konfliktregelungsverfahren

Katharina Holzinger

Page range: 33-63

More Download PDF

Abstract

In many cases collectively desirable projects can be carried out only after considerable social conflict because the unequal distribution of burden and benefit from such projects leads to local Opposition. From an economic perspective this problem can (and should) be resolved by compensating those who are negatively affected. Using a fictitious example, the author demonstrates that compensation packages will ( a) increase the collective welfare, (b) have a positive redistributive effect, and ( c) contribute to unblocking negotiation standstills that result from local veto. In actual practice, however, compensation offers will often be rejected by those affected. In order to increase the acceptability of compensation, it is important that all the possibilities to limit and restitute damage be explored before consideration is given to acceptable forms of substitution or compensation. The search for adequate means of substitution and compensation requires the inclusion of all parties affected. Therefore alternative dispute resolution provides an ideal framework for such a process.

Publicly Available May 14, 2016

Regulatory Policy and the Consensus Trap: An Agency Perspective

Daniel J. Fiorino

Page range: 64-76

More Download PDF

Abstract

Regulatory agencies in the United States have relied increasingly on consensus-based decision processes to build public support for their policies. If they are well-designed and managed effectively, consensus-based processes may increase support for an agency’s policies and enhance its institutional legitimacy. But poorly-designed processes may lead to a consensus trap, in which an agency commits to making decisions based on a consensus the participants will never be able to achieve. Two recent initiatives of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - negotiated rule making and the Common Sense Initiative - suggest factors that may be associated with more and less sucessful consensus-based processes.

Publicly Available May 14, 2016

Rationalisierungseffekte durch Diskurse

Beobachtungen aus einer Technikfolgenabschätzung

Rainer Döbert

Page range: 77-107

More Download PDF

Abstract

With steadily accumulating knowledge and increasing differentiation of access to knowledge democracies face the troublesome problem of technocracy. A solution was sought in widened participation without giving up the claim that ‚rationality’ would have a better chance of being realized. New ‚constructivist’ theories renounce this claim on the basis of equally valid ‚rationalities’. This paper tries to refute this view by specifying the concept of rationality and by analysing discourse mechanisms furthering rationality. This is clone by reconstructing some lines of argumentation of a technology assessment of transgenic herbicide-resistant crops. Conclusions arise which are difficult to reject because there is a binding form of rationality at work. But rational argumentation does not guarantee consensus in politicized debates.

Publicly Available May 14, 2016

Öffentlichkeit als Kontrolle technologischer Innovation

Aspekte langfristiger Planung

René von Schomberg

Page range: 108-125

More Download PDF

Abstract

In convential democratic decison making, a contradiction has evolved between the demands of long term planning and democratic participation. In this article I will analyse, in how far new modes of decison making, such as national ethics committees, consensus conferences and participatory policy making on the basis of a precautionary principle, has been succesfull in coping with this contradiction. I will conclude that only participatory policy making could meet the objective of sustainability as the case of agricultural biotechnology illustrates.

About this journal

ANALYSE & KRITIK

is devoted to the fundamental issues of empirical and normative social theory
is directed at social scientists and social philosophers who combine commitment to political and moral enlightenment with argumentative rigour and conceptual clarity
develops social theorizing in connection with analytical philosophy and philosophy of science
promotes the dialogue between Anglo-American and Continental traditions in the social sciences and ethics
publishes articles in English