182
the tropic forests of Indonesia? Some might argue that such stakeholders are represented by certain civil society organizations. Others might still criticize the representatives are “brived” by the organizer and thus their participation is not considered
as a valid form of stakeholder representation.
In this context, the mutual-gains process could be manipulated in a way that
reinforces power imbalance in policy-making processes between the rich and the
poor. This kind of discussion can easily lead to the debate over the “fair” and “equitable” division of wealth created through collaborative efforts by stakeholders who
have different power in the conventional processes.
These critiques do not completely dismiss the value of mutual-gains policy formulation processes per se. Rather, these are a kind of mild warming for us about the
possible manipulations of processes by a limited number of powerful stakeholders.
Anyone who organizes the policy formulation process is morally obliged to consider the “fair” processes regarding the choice of stakeholders and agenda. If the
subject matter is related to the rights and value questions that cannot be resolved by
focusing on the interests, one may consider taking a different path that primarily
focuses on the deliberative aspects of policy discussions, as discussed below.
11.2.2 New Forms of Governance
Responding to such critiques, a new school of political scientists since the beginning of this century has started to explore a concept called deliberative democracy.
In this framework of policy formulation, participants are asked to engage in a discussion as free citizens without worries about the value creation and other selfinterests. Instead, they engage in discussions based on “reasons” and try to identify
a common set of ideas they can agree with irrespective of their own interests.
The idea for deliberation, drawing on Greek tradition of political debate but
recently revitalized by Gutmann and Thompson (1998), tries to address moral questions that cannot be solved though bargaining over individual interests that is presupposed by the mutual-gains thinking. For instance, one may question what the
“sustainability” means. This is not a matter of discussion of bargaining. It is more
about the public perception and theoretical discussion about what the public accepts
as a norm and common language.
Practitioners, particular in the field of science policy, have explored the application of deliberative discussions. For instance, Danish office of technology assessment has been gathering members of the public by random sampling and asking
them for a deliberation over important scientific issues. Other kinds of deliberative
democracy projects have been experimented in northern European countries, as
well as in some parts of the United States.
M. Matsuura and H. Shiroyama
the tropic forests of Indonesia? Some might argue that such stakeholders are represented by certain civil society organizations. Others might still criticize the representatives are “brived” by the organizer and thus their participation is not considered
as a valid form of stakeholder representation.
In this context, the mutual-gains process could be manipulated in a way that
reinforces power imbalance in policy-making processes between the rich and the
poor. This kind of discussion can easily lead to the debate over the “fair” and “equitable” division of wealth created through collaborative efforts by stakeholders who
have different power in the conventional processes.
These critiques do not completely dismiss the value of mutual-gains policy formulation processes per se. Rather, these are a kind of mild warming for us about the
possible manipulations of processes by a limited number of powerful stakeholders.
Anyone who organizes the policy formulation process is morally obliged to consider the “fair” processes regarding the choice of stakeholders and agenda. If the
subject matter is related to the rights and value questions that cannot be resolved by
focusing on the interests, one may consider taking a different path that primarily
focuses on the deliberative aspects of policy discussions, as discussed below.
11.2.2 New Forms of Governance
Responding to such critiques, a new school of political scientists since the beginning of this century has started to explore a concept called deliberative democracy.
In this framework of policy formulation, participants are asked to engage in a discussion as free citizens without worries about the value creation and other selfinterests. Instead, they engage in discussions based on “reasons” and try to identify
a common set of ideas they can agree with irrespective of their own interests.
The idea for deliberation, drawing on Greek tradition of political debate but
recently revitalized by Gutmann and Thompson (1998), tries to address moral questions that cannot be solved though bargaining over individual interests that is presupposed by the mutual-gains thinking. For instance, one may question what the
“sustainability” means. This is not a matter of discussion of bargaining. It is more
about the public perception and theoretical discussion about what the public accepts
as a norm and common language.
Practitioners, particular in the field of science policy, have explored the application of deliberative discussions. For instance, Danish office of technology assessment has been gathering members of the public by random sampling and asking
them for a deliberation over important scientific issues. Other kinds of deliberative
democracy projects have been experimented in northern European countries, as
well as in some parts of the United States.
M. Matsuura and H. Shiroyama