No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
A Comparison of Consensus and Voting in Public Decision Making
Abstract
As much as consensus decision making may be in vogue, as much as it may feel like an appropriate and progressive form of civil discourse, it is not without its problems and it may not always be the best avenue to pursue. Policymaking about community problems requires all the creativity we can bring to the task. One of the areas where we might best apply our creativity is in the continual search for improved models of civil discourse and decision making. Consensus-based approaches hold great promise for addressing thorny issues like dispersed public housing, but we need to remember that such methods are relatively new to most of us, and that we are still feeling our way with them. These cautionary comments, however, should not be embraced by public officials as excuses for keeping citizens out of public policy setting. Governments work best ultimately where there is broad consensus for their policies.
... Many collaborative efforts started as attempts to resolve specific conflicts and move beyond the polarized interest politics so prevalent in the natural resources arena. ADR practitioners often emphasize the role of consensus-based decisionmaking ( Jones 1994;Ozawa 1991), a key feature of many collaborative groups. Proponents of collaboration sometimes draw on the ideas of transformative mediators, who see the dispute resolution process as an opportunity to build community capacity and remake the relationships between stakeholders (e.g. ...
... Many collaborative efforts started as attempts to resolve specific conflicts and move beyond the polarized interest politics so prevalent in the natural resources arena. ADR practitioners often emphasize the role of consensus-based decisionmaking (Jones 1994;Ozawa 1991), a key feature of many collaborative groups. ...
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. How does the culture of decision making in the EU affect agents and their bargaining behavior? This article focuses on the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER), a Brussels institution responsible for preparing upcoming ministerial meetings of the Council, and, as such, the heart of “everyday” EU decision making. The members of COREPER, known as the EU permanent representatives, are exemplars of “state agents” given their prominence in articulating, arguing, and defending national interests across the gamut of EU affairs. COREPER is thus a key laboratory to test whether and how state agents become socialized into a Brussels-based culture of EU decision making. COREPER is the main preparatory body for the Council of the European Union, the legislative heart and unabashed defender of national interests in the EU. Composed of senior civil servants and career diplomats, COREPER members meet weekly and have evolved a style of decision making that is rooted in a collective culture with its own informal norms, rules, and discourse.
This paper compares perspectives on the governance of the management models
employed by two of Canada’s largest provincial park systems, from the viewpoint of
non-governmental organization members (NGOs) with an interest in protected areas.
The two models are the parastatal model of Ontario (ON) Provincial Parks and the
public and for-profit combination model of British Columbia (BC) Provincial Parks.
Governance was evaluated using a computerized survey based on the 10 United Nations
Development Program (UNDP) criteria of governance: accountability, consensusorientation,
effectiveness, efficiency, equity, public participation, responsiveness, rule
of law, strategic vision and transparency. As part of a larger project, the survey was
administered to members of NGOs with an interest in either of the two park systems.
This was done in 2008 for British Columbia Parks and in 2009 for Ontario Parks.
Analysis suggested that the 10 governance criteria might form 11 governance factors.
Data suggest statistically significant differences in perception between NGOs in Ontario
and British Columbia Park. Specifically, members of NGOs in Ontario had positive
views and ranked all 11 governance factors closer toward good governance. Members
of NGOs in British Columbia ranked 8 of 11 factors negatively, toward weak governance.
This is the first study of this type where members of NGOs with an interest
in either Ontario or British Columbia Parks voiced their opinion of governance within
a systematic survey framework on the management models of the park systems with
which they are involved. The research demonstrates that members of NGOs in Ontario
have many more positive scores for the governance of the parastatal model than those in
British Columbia have for the public for-profit model. We conclude that this difference
is due to two factors: the management model used and the institutional relationships
between the park systems and the associated NGOs.
This study focused on a cohousing community's use of consensus to make a decision about surfacing a parking area. It revealed that the community's use of consensus decision making allowed the residents to balance three goals: making an appropriate decision, meeting members' needs, and maintaining the community's well-being. Reaching agreement, however, was complicated by members' value differences and discontinuity in their participation. The analysis of this case reveals three qualities characteristic of the enactment of consensus: the role of structured communication within and between group meetings, a tension between maintaining process openness and reaching decision closure, and the expectation that group members will work within the consensus process. The analysis also highlights the importance of timing in the interpretation of conflict in a consensus-oriented group and the role of process change when a group reaches the limits of members' commitment to consensus.
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.
Purpose
The purpose of the paper is to compare visitor perspectives of the governance of two of Canada's largest park systems: the parastatal model of Ontario Provincial Parks and the public and for‐profit combination model of British Columbia Provincial Parks.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors developed an electronic survey based on the ten UNDP criteria of governance: strategic vision, accountability, transparency, consensus‐orientation, public participation, efficiency, effectiveness, responsiveness, equity, and rule of law. The survey was administered to park visitors for both park systems in the summer of 2008 and spring of 2009 (British Columbia Provincial Parks n =112, Ontario Provincial Parks n =255).
Findings
Researchers determined that the ten governance sections of the survey actually form 11 governance factors. Data suggested statistically significant differences in regards to the visitors' perceptions between the two park systems. Specifically, visitors to Ontario Parks ranked all 11 criteria of governance higher, closer towards good governance, than did visitors to British Columbia Parks ( p <0.001).
Practical implications
These results suggest that the Ontario Parks parastatal model is closer to the ideals of good governance as perceived by the park users, when compared to the British Columbia parks' public and for‐profit combination model. This paper also provides future policy makers with a new understanding of the multiple factors that affect visitors experience and perceptions of protected areas.
Originality/value
This is one of the first studies to investigate visitors' perceptions of two commonly used protected area management models. These research findings contribute to the debate regarding which protected area management model is superior when compared using the UNDP governance criteria.
As government funding is reduced and tourism-based fees are increasingly used to fund protected area operations, two options are often used for management: transfer of tourism services to the private sector or operation of tourism services by a government agency that functions like a corporation. This paper reports stakeholders’ views concerning governance for two prominent, but different, management models for protected areas’ tourism services in Canada. British Columbia Provincial Parks uses profit-making companies to deliver park services; Ontario Provincial Parks uses the parastatal approach, where park staff members provide most services directly. Surveys of five key stakeholder groups (park staff, visitors, contractors working in park, nearby residents and NGOs with an interest in parks) provided higher rankings of perceptions of governance criteria closer to good governance for the Ontario approach, with important differences found between some groups and amongst some criteria in both park systems. This research suggests that the parastatal model is perceived as superior by important stakeholder groups, using the lens of standard governance criteria, compared to the outsourcing model that uses profit-making companies to provide park tourism services. This finding has implications globally where governments seek to shift park funding from government towards tourism fees and charges.
Its monopoly power to formulate policy proposals and set the European Union's (EU's) legislative agenda guarantees the European Commission considerable prominence in EU legislative studies. It is commonly conceptualized as a unitary actor, acting cohesively – often in its own supranational interest – in EU decision-making. Recent theoretical developments and empirical studies, however, cast doubt on this conceptualization. This paper takes up these matters and investigates the decision-making mechanisms and dynamics of the Commission's executive politics. Two case studies show that the formal division of power along portfolios puts formally responsible Commissioners in a privileged position to influence the content of legislative proposals in internal decision-making. This influence, however, is circumscribed by the opposition of other Commissioners. At least in the cases studied here, Commissioners’ position-taking and conflict in internal decision-making follow a national and, to some extent, a sectoral rather than a partisan pattern.
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.
Even the most broadly based public processes cannot guarantee resolution of a community issue. They can, however, help create a culture for conducting public business in a democratic and effective fashion.
Public disputes are difficult to resolve at best and often lead to serious conflict or protracted litigation. This article focuses on: (1) a discussion of the usual decision-making process followed by local city councils when confronted with public issues; (2) an introduction to the use of mediation for the resolution of public disputes: what it is, how to use it, and what its key advantages are; (3) an examination of two areas (redevelopment and halfway house proposals) as examples where mediation might be used to resolve very difficult public issues; and (4) a brief discussion of how to prepare for a mediation session. Its purpose is: (1) to de-mystify this ADR technique for those who have not yet been introduced to mediation at all; (2) to provide some specific guidance for parties and attorneys entering a mediation process; and (3) to advocate for a more widespread use of mediation in local government public disputes. The use of ADR, particularly focused in this article on the mediation option, can help planners, policymakers, and attorneys ensure that they craft the best solutions for complex public disputes.
Neighboring governments must increasingly resolve planning and development conflicts that cross their boundaries. The alternative dispute resolution literature advises that mature conflict settlement requires convening an ad hoc group of all affected parties assisted by a third party mediator. This article makes the case for building broader conflict management approaches based on continuing institutional arrangements, involving forums and techniques keyed to the intensity of disagreement. This allows directly responsible government officials to resolve intergovernmental conflicts without always involving a neutral third party, procedural certainty for conflict management practice, and the development of a cadre of officials experienced in negotiation, who can minimize adversarial and positional bargaining. The approach is based on experience from four intergovernmental growth management cases.
Consensual groups are playing a growing role in planning. This article looks at the group processes that have played key roles in state growth management programs in Florida, Vermont, and New Jersey. The groups have been involved in problem framing, policy development, policy oversight and review, negotiations among competing interests, and developing procedures for accomplishing complex new tasks. The group processes have succeeded in developing shared meaning, coordinating among agencies and levels of government, and often in reaching consensus among players. But they have been only partially successful, at this stage. The next challenge is to redesign planning and decision making institutions to incorporate group processes in a way that makes effective use of what they accomplish.
This article describes the author’s experience with introducing dispute resolution techniques into the local government approval process and the cooperation achieved as a result. Conflict often accompanies the regulatory review process. These techniques make the project review process less costly, less contentious, and more creative. Land use negotiation transforms project review goals and procedures in a way that reduces conflict and reorients participants toward the creation of “wanted” land uses. This experience suggests that conflicts bet ween private developers and public officials are substantially procedural. Hence, by supplementing traditional review procedures with dispute resolution techniques, local officials can gain substantial cooperation from private developers and have greater influence over private development solutions.
Using mediation to resolve land use disputes
- Netter E. M.
Netter, E. M. 1992. Using mediation to resolve land use disputes. Zoning and Planning Law Report 15 (4):25-32.
Public participation and consensus building
- Connor D. M.
Connor, D. M. 1992. Public participation and consensus building. Constructive Citizen Participation 20 (2):
Building united judgement --A handbook for consensus decision making The social construction of reality A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City
- References Avery
- B Auvine
- B Streibel
- L Weiss
REFERENCES Avery, M., B. Auvine, B. Streibel, and L. Weiss. 1981. Building united judgement --A handbook for consensus decision making. Madison, Wis.: The Center for Con-flict Resolution. Berger, EL. and T Luckmann, 1967. The social construction of reality." A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Gender-responsible leadership: Detecting bias, implementing interventions
- Van Nostrand
Van Nostrand, C. 1993. Gender-responsible leadership: Detecting bias, implementing interventions. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Negotiation Journal April 1994 171
Building forums for cooperative resolution of community dis-putes New approaches to citizen participation: Building consent
- W R Potapchuk
Potapchuk, W. R. 1988. Building forums for cooperative resolution of community dis-putes. National Civic Review 77 (4):342-349. @BULLET 1991). New approaches to citizen participation: Building consent. National Civic Review 80 (2): 158-168.
Reaching consensus in land-use negotiations. Planning Advisory Ser-vice Report Number 417
- W Fulton
Fulton, W. 1989. Reaching consensus in land-use negotiations. Planning Advisory Ser-vice Report Number 417. Chicago: American Planning Association.
Mediation roundtables as a means of alternate environmental dispute resolution: The recent Northwest Territories and Hawaiian experience . Paper presented at the 6th Canadian Institute of Resources Law Conference on Natural Resources Law
- M P Robinson
A consensus and community-building approach to community development training.Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Community Development Society
- R Seebaren
Mediation roundtables as a means of alternate environmental dispute resolution: The recent Northwest Territories and Hawaiian experience.Paper presented at the 6th Canadian Institute of Resources Law Conference on Natural Resources Law Calgary Alberta Canada
- M P Robinson