Democratic Values and the Policy Sciences

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Theory: The policy sciences and democracy are increasingly viewed as inseparable in both theory and practice. Argument: The "policy sciences of democracy" are disturbingly vague as to precisely what is meant by "democracy": is it an indirect, Madisonian democracy, one of representation and factions, or is it a more participatory, deTocquevillean democracy dependent upon general civic participation? Conclusions: The policy sciences, as originally prescribed by Lasswell to include a strong and active democratic strain, have been altered to emphasize an unrepresentative expertise, thus distancing themselves from their initial articulation. Many of the presently perceived shortcomings of the policy sciences can be traced to its proponent's ascription to a removed rather than a direct form of democracy. Implications: The policy sciences must therefore recast their theory and methodology in a more participatory vein in order to recapture their early promise of improved governance through the policy sciences of democracy."Democracy is the name we give the people whenever we need them."

Readiness and willingness of the public to participate in integrated water management: some insights from the Levant

“…Consequently, from a bottom-up perspective (grounded in an exploratory medium-scale survey of the wider public) the reasons for participating in environmental debate are not related to the pursuit of power over the decision nor to 'define a common solution' nor to 'resolve conflict'. These findings challenge the normative justification of participation from academics and experts based on empowerment (Eidsvik, 1978;Wilcox, 1994;Deleon, 1995;UNDP, 1997;Fischhoff, 1998;Parenteau, 1988;Beierle & Cayford, 2002;ADB, 2003;Kessler, 2004;Ridder et al, 2005). Indeed, the results emphasise the aspiration for an open and direct communication.…”

When peer-reviewed publications are not enough! Delivering science for natural resource management

“…This view is reflected in the National Forest Management Act of 1976, which requires public input in any management action and planning on National Forests. Democratic theorists debate what the appropriate role of the public in policymaking is (Fischer, 1993;DeLeon, 1995;Steelman and Ascher, 1997;Steelman, 2001). Some theorists suggest that an expert-driven decision model, which prevails in federal land management agencies, protects against decisions based purely on values or emotions made by uniformed publics (Steel and Weber, 2001;Munnichs, 2004;Sekloca, 2010).…”

Previewing Policy Sciences: Multiple Lenses and Segmented Visions

“…Post‐positivists frequently link their theories with normative democratic values (deLeon 1995). Fischer (2003) states that “citizen or participant interaction in the interpretive processes of knowledge construction is an essential aspect of postempiricist research” (207).…”