Interactive Policy Development: Undermining or Sustaining Democracy?
| Author | Igor Mayer,René Monnikhof,Jurian Edelenbos |
| Date | 01 March 2005 |
| Published date | 01 March 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00443.x |
Public Administration Vol. 83 No. 1, 2005 (179–199)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005, 9600 Garsi ngton Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
INTERACTIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT:
UNDERMINING OR SUSTAINING
DEMOCRACY?
IGOR MAYER, JURIAN EDELENBOS AND RENÉ MONNIKHOF
The question can be raised whether the principal effect of interactive policy development
is to shore up a (creaking) democratic system or to destabilize its very foundations.
In this article, a framework is presented for assessing the democratic credentials of
interactive policy development. It is based on four views on how a democracy
should work: instrumental or substantial democracy and direct or indirect demo-
cracy. Critics and advocates differ in their confidence that the intended aims can ever
be realized. Based on extensive case study material of interactive local policy devel-
opment projects collected between 1997 and 2001, the validity of the various argu-
ments for or against interactive policy-making is analysed. The analysis indicates
that whether interactive policy development undermines or sustains democracy
depends principally on the extent to which divergences in the expectations of
the various groups are made explicit and unrealistic or mistaken expectations are
dispelled.
INTRODUCTION: UNDER THE SPELL OF INTERACTIVE POLICY
DEVELOPMENT
Since the early 1990s, Dutch politicians and civil servants have been under
the spell of interactive policy development. Considerable energy and hope
have been invested in this new method of policy development, with experi-
ments particularly common at the local level and for spatial planning and
infrastructure projects – the redevelopment of a town square or the building
of a road, for example (Edelenbos 1999, 2000; Edelenbos and Monnikhof
1998a, 2001). The development towards participatory processes can also be
discerned in countries outside The Netherlands (inter alia DeLeon 1992,
1994; Durning 1993; Renn et al. 1995; Peters 1996; Healy 1997; Coenen et al.
1998; Fischer 2000; Mason 2000; Dobbs and Moore 2002; Murray and Greer
2002). Many definitions and descriptions of interactive policy development
can be found in the relevant academic and professional literature (Renn et al.
1995; Healy 1997, Verweij and Josling 2003). A general element in those defin-
itions is that government develops policy in consultation and co-operation
with stakeholders, either professional organizations or individual citizens.
Interactive policy-making however is a multi-faceted phenomenon that can
Igor Mayer is in the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management (TPM) at Delft University of
Technology. Jurian Edelenbos is in the Centre for Public Management at the Erasmus University
Rotterdam. René Monnikhof works for the Provinc e of Fryslân.
180 IGOR MAYER, JURIAN EDELENBOS AND RENÉ MONNIKHOF
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005
be looked at from a number of theoretical perspectives. In order to avoid
semantic discussions about what it is (and is not) we will simply define
interactive policy-making as ‘the early involvement of individual citizens
and organized stakeholders in public policy-making in order to explore pol-
icy problems and develop solutions in an open and fair process of debate
that has influence on political decision-making’ (cf. Edelenbos 2000, p. 39).
The plea for interactive policy development has, at first sight, the appear-
ance of being a solid one. Policy-makers and administrators are vulnerable
to the criticism that their plans and decisions are the products of a predom-
inantly inward-looking politico-administrative assessment process. In other
words, the perception is that decision-making is opaque and excludes
important stakeholders, especially ‘ordinary’ citizens and non-experts
(Fischer 2000). This state of affairs is neither healthy for democracy nor
conducive to quality of policy (see King 2003; Verweij and Josling 2003).
Interactive policy development is seen as instrumental in forcing the policy-
making process open – clearly a desirable objective.
Advocates of interactive policy development point out that citizens and
pressure groups possess obstructive power. Involving parties with obstruct-
ive power in the development of policy at an early stage reduces the risk of a
policy’s implementation being impeded by legal proceedings and other
tactics employed by those who oppose it (Renn et al. 1995; Healey 1997). The
involvement of citizens and stakeholders may prolong the early phases of
policy development, but by securing support, policy implementation is
enormously speeded up.
Furthermore, citizens and pressure groups can enrich the policy-making
process by providing knowledge, information and other forms of input that
would otherwise be difficult for ‘deskbound’ policy-makers and administra-
tors to have at their disposal (Lopez Cerezo et al. 1996; Fischer 2000; Enserink
and Monnikhof 2003). No one can provide as much local insight to aid
planning for the redevelopment of, say, a town square, as the managers of
businesses based around that square, the people who make use of it and the
groups who work to protect the natural and human environment in the
area. Such parties should therefore work together as closely as possible with
the officials and experts behind the project to devise good plans and good
ideas.
Although the precise approach taken varies from project to project, inter-
active policy development normally involves inviting representatives of all
interested parties and groups at an early stage to provide considered input
to the process of developing policy. In liaison, stakeholders, policy-makers
and, where appropriate, external consultants, identify problems and present
solutions. The process is often supervised by independent process managers,
who utilize working methods and group techniques designed to promote
creativity, openness and result-oriented working among the participants
(Fiskin 1991; Edelenbos, 1999; Bruijn et al. 2002). Interactive policy develop-
ment differs from traditional public consultation procedures mainly in the
To continue reading
Request your trial