Quality of Consensus and Deliberative Democracy in Environmental Policy Making —Three Case Studies of Stakeholder Participation Processes in Finland

Show simple item record

dc.contributor Helsingin yliopisto, valtiotieteellinen tiedekunta, Politiikan ja talouden tutkimuksen laitos, Yleinen valtio-oppi fi
dc.contributor.author Bärlund, Hanna-Maria fi
dc.date.accessioned 2012-05-14T12:00:53Z
dc.date.available 2012-05-14T12:00:53Z
dc.date.issued 2012-05-14
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10138/33338
dc.description Endast sammandrag. Inbundna avhandlingar kan sökas i Helka-databasen (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Elektroniska kopior av avhandlingar finns antingen öppet på nätet eller endast tillgängliga i bibliotekets avhandlingsterminaler. sv
dc.description Only abstract. Paper copies of master’s theses are listed in the Helka database (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Electronic copies of master’s theses are either available as open access or only on thesis terminals in the Helsinki University Library. en
dc.description Vain tiivistelmä. Sidottujen gradujen saatavuuden voit tarkistaa Helka-tietokannasta (http://www.helsinki.fi/helka). Digitaaliset gradut voivat olla luettavissa avoimesti verkossa tai rajoitetusti kirjaston opinnäytekioskeilla. fi
dc.description.abstract Since the beginning of the 1990s the emphasis of participatory democracy has become stronger in Finnish policy- and decision-making. This development involves various stakeholders participating in negotiations, or more specifically deliberations, around current issues in order to reach consensus and enable a continuance in the policy process. According to research, the more consensual a democracy is the more favourable are the policy outcomes towards environmental issues. The three case studies investigated, ie. the Forest Biodiversity Programme for Southern Finland, the Working Group on Renewable Energy, and the Natura 2000 Network of European Union nature protection areas, support this notion. The case studies are focused on how the key players involved have conceived the decision-making process in terms of achieved goals and degree of agreement as well as on the specific issue context as a backdrop to the development of policy. The cases displayed significant differences of outcomes depending on the achieved level of consensus and deliberation. The outcomes are analysed within the theoretical frameworks of Arend Lijphart's 'consensus vs majoritarian model of democracy' and Martin Jänicke's 'consensual capacity for ecological modernisation'. Further, applying Joshua Cohen's theory of deliberative democracy and his suggestions for achieving "ideal deliberation", the results suggest that the connection between consensus democracy and more effective environmental conservation policy is not that clear-cut. Nevertheless, consensus democracy provides a promising point of departure for overcoming the main disputes between the stakeholders, and common starting points and general goals to be agreed on, which is crucial in order for any progress in environmental conservation to take place. fi
dc.language.iso en fi
dc.subject.other concensus
dc.subject.other deliberative democracy
dc.subject.other environmental policy
dc.subject.other environmental conservation
dc.subject.other stakeholders
dc.title Quality of Consensus and Deliberative Democracy in Environmental Policy Making —Three Case Studies of Stakeholder Participation Processes in Finland fi
dc.type Thesis fi
dc.subject.ysa konsensus
dc.subject.ysa ympäristönsuojelu
dc.subject.ysa ympäristöpolitiikka
dc.subject.ysa demokratia
dc.subject.ysa neuvottelut
dc.type.ontasot Pro gradu -työ fi
dc.type.dcmitype text fi
dc.subject.discipline Yleinen valtio-oppi: Politiikan tutkimus fi

Files in this item

Files Size Format View

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record