Additional Information
Book Details
Abstract
In a post-Brexit world with populists on the rise, trust in government and politicians is in short supply. People claim to be tired of ‘experts’ and the divide between facts and opinion has been blurred. The art of offering simple solutions to complex problems is tipping the scale away from nuanced, multifaceted answers founded on compromise.
Within this context, governments nonetheless need to make difficult decisions, whether it is developing budgets, aligning priorities, or designing long-term projects. It is often impossible to make everybody happy, and the messy business of weighing trade-offs takes place.
While sometimes these tricky policy dilemmas are relegated to independent commissions or inquiries, or lately to referendums, a better method exists for solving them. This study of almost 50 long-form deliberative processes in Canada and Australia makes the case that adding informed citizen voices to public decision-making leads to more effective policies. By putting the problem to the people, giving them information, time to discuss the options, to find common ground and to decide what they want, public bodies gain the legitimacy to act on hard choices.
Claudia Chwalisz is a Consultant at Populus and a Crook Public Service Fellow at the Crick Centre, The University of Sheffield. She is the author of The Populist Signal: Why Politics and Democracy Need to Change (2015).
Table of Contents
Section Title | Page | Action | Price |
---|---|---|---|
Cover | Cover | ||
THE PEOPLE’ S VERDICT | i | ||
THE PEOPLE’ S VERDICT | iii | ||
Contents | v | ||
Acknowledgements | vii | ||
Foreword | ix | ||
Executive summary | xiii | ||
Introduction | 1 | ||
Long-form deliberations | 4 | ||
The aim of this book | 6 | ||
Theoretical framework and methodology | 9 | ||
Social cordination: How do we do stuff together? | 9 | ||
Inclusive institutions | 12 | ||
Participatory governance | 13 | ||
Methodology | 14 | ||
Beter together | 17 | ||
Case studies: Key figures | 19 | ||
CANADA | 20 | ||
1. Residents’ Panel on the Ontario Condominium Act 2012 | 20 | ||
2. M etrolinx: Residents’ Reference Panel on Regional Transportation Investment 2013 | 25 | ||
3. B ritish Columbia Services Card User Panel 2013 | 29 | ||
4. Canada Mental Health Action Plan Citizens’ Reference Panel 2015 | 33 | ||
5. Toronto Planning Review Panel 2016–18 | 37 | ||
AUSTRALIA | 40 | ||
1. City of Melbourne People’ s Panel 2014 | 41 | ||
2. Infrastructure Victoria 2016: 30-year Plan | 45 | ||
3. VicHealth 2015: We have a problem with obesity. How can we make it easier to eat better? | 48 | ||
4. Citizens’ Jury on a Vibrant and Safe Nightlife for Adelaide 2013 | 51 | ||
5. Citizens’ Juries on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2016 | 54 | ||
Shortcomings of long-form deliberative proceses | 56 | ||
Public consultation and engagement in the UK | 61 | ||
Royal commisions, inquiries and traditional consultations | 61 | ||
Ben there, done that? Past experiments with citizens’ juries in the UK | 64 | ||
Recent experiments with citizens’ juries or citizens’ asemblies in the UK | 68 | ||
Citizens’ Juries on Wind Farm Development in Scotland | 68 | ||
Citizens’ Assemblies on Devolution in Southampton and Sheffield | 70 | ||
Lesons learnt | 73 | ||
Conclusion | 77 | ||
Appendix A | 81 | ||
Appendix B | 89 | ||
References | 95 |