Policy Design for Legitimacy: Expert Knowledge, Citizens, Time and Inclusion in the United Kingdom’s Biotechnology Sector

Abstract

More than ever, policy designers need to take legitimacy defi cits seriously. To do so, they increasingly involve citizens in policy design processes and draw from a wider range of expertise. Where should they stop in terms of inclusiveness to citizens and expertise and for how long should they allow citizens and experts to be persuasive? These are the questions addressed in this article. Policy design legitimacy, the article argues, can be related to variations in designers and politicians ' inclination to resort to output-oriented (expertise-based) versus input-oriented (citizen-centred) design processes. Input-oriented processes have a higher potential in terms of legitimacy defi cit reduction than output-oriented processes, but they take longer, notably because they require the involvement of large numbers of people. In contrast, output-oriented processes have a slightly lower legitimacy potential, but can produce it faster. These propositions are illustrated by two policy design narratives drawn from the United Kingdom ' s biotechnology sector.experience has shown that the utilitarian perspective is wholly inadequate in several policy sectors. Despite advanced scientifi c knowledge, policy designs failed to prevent catastrophes in sectors as diversifi ed as food safety, space discovery, air travel security and environmental protection ( Jasanoff 2003 ). These circumstances have shaken the utilitarian perspective as well as citizen ' s confi dence in politicians ' capacity to govern. As a result, any policy design justifi ed solely in terms of effi ciency risks appearing inadequate; politicians increasingly seek policy designs for legitimacy.This article focuses on the contribution of design to more legitimate policies. I argue that politicians, and the people they mandate to design policy, can resort to outputoriented (knowledge-centered) and input-oriented (citizen-centered) processes to create legitimacy-inspiring policy designs. Policy designers also have some control over the duration of these processes and over their inclusiveness to actors and citizens. Inputoriented processes, I argue in this paper, can produce more legitimacy than outputoriented processes, but they take longer, especially when they involve large numbers of people. In contrast, output-oriented processes have a lower potential in terms of legitimacy, but can produce it faster. In other words, politicians and policy designers face the challenge of having to make adequate choices in terms of processes in a time-constrained policy-making environment. This paper seeks to shed light on this challenge. The legitimacy of policy designs and its relationship to input-and output-oriented processes, their duration and their inclusiveness are illustrated by a study of biotechnology policy in the United Kingdom in two areas: assisted reproductive technology (ART) and genetically modifi ed organisms (GMO) in the agri-food sector. The article is divided into three main sections. First, I present a discursive understanding of policy design legitimacy....

The Role of Emotion in Enabling and Conditioning Public Deliberation Outcomes: A Sociological Investigation

“…Deliberation is seen as a forum for the creation of public agreements (Elster ), where ideally ‘no force except that of the better argument is exercised’ (Habermas , p. 108). Arguments reflect a host of ‘political rationalities’ (Behagel and Arts ) which mainly address legitimacy deficits around policy‐making (Montpetit ) while doing little to counter power deficits – reducing participation to predefined agendas and leaving underlying ‘network‐like fields of power’ unchallenged (Eriksson ). Hence, critical discussions of deliberative democracy tend to focus on the way rationality excludes or co‐opts lay and non‐expert perspectives.…”

Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology

“…In Switzerland and in the Netherlands the delivery of PTA results was in a tight race with the parliamentary decision-making procedures that in the end was lost in both cases -which incidentally points to an issue frequently raised against PTAs, namely that they are time-consuming (Abels and Bora, 2004: 53;Montpetit, 2008). Moreover in both the Netherlands and Canada it is unclear how influential the PTA results were for actual XTP policy-making.…”

Successful and Unsuccessful Participatory Arrangements: Why Is There a Participatory Movement at the Local Level?

“…This approach to the participatory movement leads us to the more specific study of the underlying patterns of logic that induce public authorities to develop new participatory tools (Montpetit, 2008). And this means looking at three characteristics that allow us to distinguish the meanings of policy tools, and especially participatory tools: (1) goal(s): the problem or problems that the instrument is trying to solve; (2) target population(s): the population(s) targeted by the instrument; and (3) implementation structures: the actors responsible for implementing the instrument.…”