A Comparison of Consensus and Voting in Public Decision Making

Jones, Bernie

doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1994.tb00015.x

Cited by 7 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…rule of choice in groups committed to cooperative activity (Gastil, 1993;Wood, 1984). A fuller understanding of consensus is important, given both that "consensus is a disarmingly complex concept" (VanLear & Mabry, 1999, p. 30) and that our society's emphasis on competition leads to diminished familiarity with and comfort in using a cooperative decision-making approach such as consensus (Jones, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups

Renz

2006

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the meanings of consensus and a block of consensus for 47 residents of one forming and three formed cohousing communities. Interviews revealed that the groups in this study constructed the meaning of consensus in their communities over time. Residents' metaphors for consensus revealed a multilayered and often contradictory understanding of consensus as a process that was capable of leading to a decision no member had previously envisioned, to increased member insight, and to firmer relationships within the group. Descriptions of a consensus block revealed themes related to the motives for blocking and to the pivotal role blocking has in improving the group's thinking, stopping its progress, transforming its energy, isolating members, or building community.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups

Renz

2006

Small Group Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Perceived Implications of an Outsourcing Model on Governance within British Columbia Provincial Parks in Canada: A Quantitative Study

Eagles

Havitz

McCutcheon

et al. 2010

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Good governance is of paramount importance to the success of parks and protected areas. This research utilized a questionnaire for 10 principles of governance to evaluate the outsourcing model used by British Columbia Provincial Parks, where profit-making corporations provide all front country visitor services. A total of 246 respondents representing five stakeholder groups evaluated the model according to each principle, using an online survey. Principal component analysis resulted in two of the 10 principles (equity and effectiveness) each being split into two categories, leading to 12 governance principles. Five of the 12 criteria received scores towards good governance: effectiveness outcome; equity general; strategic vision; responsiveness; and effectiveness process. One criterion, public participation, was on the neutral point. Six criteria received scores below neutral, more towards weak governance: transparency; rule of law; accountability; efficiency; consensus orientation; and, equity finance. The five stakeholder groups differed significantly on 10 of the 12 principles (P < .05). The 2 exceptions were for efficiency and effectiveness process. Seven of the 12 criteria followed a pattern wherein government employees and contractors reported positive scores, visitors and representatives of NGOs reported more negative scores, and nearby residents reported mid-range scores. Three criteria had government employees and contractors reporting the most positive scores, residents and visitors the most negative scores, and NGO respondents reporting mid-range scores. This research found evidence that perceptions of governance related to this outsourcing model differed significantly amongst various constituent groups.

show abstract

The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision Making in the European Union

Lewis¹

2007

International Institutions and Socialization in Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the European Union's Committee of Permanent Representatives, or COREPER, a group composed of the EU permanent representatives (permreps) and responsible for preparing upcoming ministerial meetings of the Council. As the heart of everyday decision making in the EU, COREPER is a key laboratory to test whether and how national officials become socialized into a Brusselsbased collective culture and what difference this makes for EU negotiations. The key scope conditions for COREPER socialization are high issue density/intensity and insulation from domestic politics. COREPER also displays a range of socialization mechanisms, including strategic calculation, role playing, and normative suasion. Based on extensive interview data and a detailed case study of negotiations for a controversial EU citizenship directive, this article documents a socialization pathway in COREPER marked by adherence to a set of norm-guided rules and principled beliefs in collectively legitimating arguments and making decisions. COREPER socialization does not indicate a pattern of national identities being replaced or subsumed; rather, the evidence points to a socialization process based on a "logic of appropriateness" and an expanded conception of the self. Not many international institutional environments can match the density or robustness of collective decision-making norms found in the European Union (EU).' But there are surprisingly few empirical studies of how these collective norms operate in the EU. There is an even greater shortfall of research on the effects of this institutional environment on the basic actor properties of the national officials who participate in this system.2 How does the culture of decision making in the EU affect agents and their bargaining behavior? This article focuses on the Com-For feedback on earlier versions, I am grateful to the project participants and especially Jeffrey Checkel, Matthew Evangelista, Iain Johnston, and Michael Zuirn. I thank the editors and two anonymous reviewers for comments that greatly improved the final product.

show abstract

A Comparison of Consensus and Voting in Public Decision Making

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups

The Meaning of Consensus and Blocking for Cohousing Groups

The Perceived Implications of an Outsourcing Model on Governance within British Columbia Provincial Parks in Canada: A Quantitative Study

The Janus Face of Brussels: Socialization and Everyday Decision Making in the European Union

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About