Top

Policy Sciences

Published in:

01-11-2009

Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management

Author: Carolyn M. Hendriks

Published in: Policy Sciences | Issue 4/2009

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This article explores the complex relationship between democracy and long-term policy design for sustainability. At one extreme, democracy can be framed as problematic for policy planning because of the myopia fostered by some democratic institutions, such as regular elections. Alternatively, democracy can be seen as an ally of long-term policy design to the extent that it can generate public legitimacy and accountability, and potentially foster more equitable and just outcomes. Recent debates on how to ‘manage’ policy transitions to sustainability have been curiously silent on democratic matters, despite their potential implications for democracy. To explore what democracy might mean for transition management this article considers empirically how actors engaged in the Dutch Energy Transition Program make democratic sense of their activities. The analysis finds that in practice transition policies promote implicit narratives or democratic storylines on how reforms should be developed, who should participate in these, and how they should be legitimised and accountable to the public. The dominant narrative, which espouses elite theory and technocracy, privileges epistemic matters over democratic considerations. Other democratic storylines draw on representative democracy and interest group pluralism. The paper considers some possible ways to foster more productive interfaces between the governance structures of transition management, and the polycentric context of contemporary democratic systems.

previous article What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions

next article Empowerment and the challenge of applying transition management to ongoing projects

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

The field of systems innovation and transition management is new and interdisciplinary, and there remains ongoing debate on what exactly constitutes a transition, and how we might identify or stimulate it (see Geels et al. 2004). In its purest sense a ‘transition’ refers to a change from one state to another. A more specific description of a transition has been proposed by Rotmans et al. (2001, p. 16), who define it as: “…a gradual, continuous process of change where the structural character of a society (or complex sub-system of society) transforms.”

I find Mouffe’s (1999, p. 754) differentiation of these concepts especially useful: the political refers to the antagonistic element inherent in human society; politics is the assortment of institutions, practices, discourses involved in ordering and managing society.

Interpretive policy analysis works from the basis that the best way to appreciate and improve policy practice is to study its paradoxes and ambiguities (Stone 2002), and to explore the multiplicity of meanings embedded in language, action and objects (Fischer and Forester 1993; Hajer 1995; Rein and Schön 1993; Yanow 2000).

All interviews were conducted in the Netherlands between February and August 2006 by the author in English and Dutch. They were ‘semi-structured’ in that there was some loose structure based around a protocol with open-ended questions to guide the discussion (Flick 1998, Chap. 8; Punch 1998, p. 176). Three broad themes were explored (1) the interviewee’s policy context, (2) their experience with energy policy in the Netherlands and (3) their impressions and expectations of participatory structures in the Dutch energy sector. Interviewees were selected using snow-ball sampling from a diverse range of organisations and institutions associated with the Dutch energy sector. Key selection criteria for interviewees included their affiliation, association and influence on energy debates in the Netherlands. All interviews were transcribed, and their content analysed for emergent themes, patterns and narratives (see Lindlof 1995).

Legitimacy also incorporates aspects of the authority such as whether a decision or institution is considered trustworthy, fair and non-arbitrary (Beetham 1991).

Some critics of deliberative democracy have questioned why the publicity of deliberation necessarily leads to better (more convincing or correct) decisions (e.g. Estlund 1997).

Empirical research to support these theoretical claims is still in its infancy, with findings to date somewhat ambiguous (see Chambers 2003, p. 318). Some empirical research demonstrates that deliberation results in preference shifts (see Fishkin and Luskin 2000; Luskin et al. 2002; Mayer et al. 1995). However, these studies tend to concentrate on whether shifts occur, rather than the particular policy direction of any shifts. Niemeyer (2004) has shown that as a result of deliberation in a citizens’ jury, participants’ preferences moved away from symbolic claims towards their pre-existing environmental concerns.

While nature cannot directly deliberate, Dryzek (2000, p. 149) argues that our deliberative task is to listen to its signals, for example through monitoring and cumulative assessments.

For more details on the discourse of transition management in Dutch policy, see Smith and Kern (2009).

In polder arrangements stakeholders typically bargain intensely for outcomes, and decisions are based on either reaching a compromise or consensus.

Only a few have publicly questioned the premises of transition management, for example the capacity of states and their partners to steer large socio-technological systems in a complex and globalised world (e.g. van Lente 2006).

EZ Ministry stands for the Ministerie van Economische Zaken.

For an overview of transition management in the Dutch energy sector, see Loorbach and Kemp (2008) and Kern and Smith (2008). See also http://www.senternovem.nl/EnergyTransition/

Based on interviews with comments of several actors in the Dutch energy sector.

The Environmental Council (VROM-Raad), the General Energy Council (Algemene Energieraad), and the Prime Minister’s Innovation Council (Innovatieplatform).

This expression is taken from an interviewee, 27 July 2006, Amsterdam.

To date, less than 10% of the platform members are women.

There is significant overlap between the term ‘democratic storylines’ and the idea of ‘democratic traditions’, defined by March and Olsen (1989, p. 2) as ‘rich evolving collection of diverse beliefs, processes, and structures that are neither easily characterised in the concise terms nor summarised in a single systematic philosophy or governance’. I prefer to use the term ‘democratic storyline’ because it more accurately describes the narratives associated with a contemporary governance framework such as TMgt.

For more on the analytic use of storylines, see Hendriks (2005), Smith and Kern (2009) and Yanow (2006). For details on narrative forms of enquiry more broadly, see Ginger (2006) and Opsina and Dodge (2005).

Interview with Platform Chair, 27 June 2006, Rotterdam.

Interview with Taskforce member, 7 August 2006, The Hague.

Interview with Civil Servant, Ministry of Economic Affairs, 22 March 2006, The Hague.

Interview with a representative from an environmental organisation, 2 March 2006, Utrecht.

Interview with an employee from Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), 10 July 2006, Amsterdam.

Interview with Dutch MP, 23 June 2006, The Hague.

Interview with a Dutch MP, 11 July 2006, Amsterdam.

Interview with Taskforce member, 20 August 2006, The Hague.

Note stakeholders are defined in this particular report as (EZ 2004, p. 43) ‘the interested parties in a system’.

Interview with a representative from an environmental organisation, 2 March 2006, Utrecht.

Metagovernance refers to the regulation of self-organising networks (see Jessop 1998; Kooiman 1993; Sørensen 2006).

It is worth noting that the kinds of partnerships used in TMgt are likely to differ from conventional forms of networks. In the first instance, actors involved in transition arenas are doing much more than working together around and across existing modernist institutions (e.g. the state), as network scholars describe (Kickert et al. 1997; Rhodes 1997). In addition, they are acting reflexively (in the cognitive sense) by promoting fundamental change, especially at the institutional level (Grin 2006). Second, actors involved in transitions are working in highly technical networks associated with large national sometimes international socio-technological systems.

Interview with a representative from an environmental organisation, 2 March 2006, Utrecht.

Interview with a representative from an environmental group, 23 August 2006, Amsterdam.

Aars, J., & Fimreite, A. L. (2005). Local governance and governance in Norway: Stretched accountability in network policy. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 239–256. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00131.x.

Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D. (1985). Action science, concepts, methods, and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Auel, K. (2006). Multi-level governance, regional policy, and democratic legitimacy in Germany. In A. Benz & Y. Papadopoulous (Eds.), Governance and democracy (pp. 44–62). Oxon: Routledge.

Baber, W. F., & Bartlett, R. V. (2005). Deliberative environmental politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bang, H., & Sørensen, E. (2001). The everyday maker: Building political rather than social capital. In P. Dekker & E. Uslaner (Eds.), Social capital and participation in everyday life (pp. 148–161). London: Routledge.

Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Beetham, D. (1991). The legitimation of power. Bastingstoke: Macmillan.

Beetham, D., & Boyle, K. (1995). Introducing democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bekkers, V., & Edwards, A. (2007). Legitimacy and democracy. In V. Bekkers, G. Dijkstra, A. Edwards, & M. Fenger (Eds.), Governance and the democratic deficit (pp. 35–60). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Benhabib, S. (1996a). Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political (pp. 67–94). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Benhabib, S. (Ed.). (1996b). Democracy and difference: Contesting boundaries of the political. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Berkhout, F., Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2004). Understanding system innovations: A critical literature review and a conceptual synthesis. In B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), Systems innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy (pp. 48–75). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Bevir, M. (2006). Democratic governance: Systems and radical perspectives. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 426–436. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00599.x.

Birch, A. H. (1993). The concepts and theories of modern democracy. London: Routledge.

Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation—pluralism, complexity and democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Carson, L., White, S., Hendriks, C., & Palmer, J. (2002). Community consultation in environmental policy making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3(1), 1–13.

Chambers, S. (2003). Deliberative democracy theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 6, 307–326. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538.

Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Eds.), The good polity: Normative analysis of the state (pp. 17–34). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Cohen, J. (1997). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 407–437). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Cottrell, F. (1955). Energy and society. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs?. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

de Rynck, F., & Voets, J. (2006). Democracy in area-based networks: The case of ghent. American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 58–78. doi:10.1177/0275074005282585.

Denters, B., van Heffen, O., Huisman, J., & Klok, P.-J. (Eds.). (2003). The rise of interactive governance and quasi-markets. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Dietz, F., Brouwer, H., & Wetterings, R. (2008). Energy transition experiments in the Netherlands. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. R. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy (pp. 217–244). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Dobson, A. (1996). Representative democracy and the environment. In W. L. Lafferty & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects (pp. 124–139). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. The Public Interest, 28(1), 38–50.

Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Rational ecology: Environment and political economy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dryzek, J. S. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 651–669. doi:10.1177/0090591701029005003.

Dryzek, J. S. (2007). Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and communication. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 262–273). London: Palgrave.

Eckersley, R. (2000). Deliberative democracy, ecological representation and risk: Towards a democracy of the affected. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 117–132). London: Routledge.

Esmark, A. (2007). Democratic accountability and network governance—problems and potentials. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 274–296). London: Palgrave.

Estlund, D. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority. In J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds.), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics (pp. 173–204). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

ETF. (2006). More with energy: Opportunities for the Netherlands [Meer Met Energie: Kansen Voor Nederland]. The Hague: Energy Transition Taskforce Force.

Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1993). The elite connection: Problems and potentials of western democracy. New York: Basic Books.

EZ. (2004). Innovation in energy policy [Innovatie in Het Energiebeleid]. The Hague: Ministerie voor Economische Zaken.

Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment. Durham: Duke University.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy—discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2000). The quest for deliberative democracy. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association (pp. 17–27). London: Routledge.

Flick, U. (1998). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (Eds.). (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovation in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.

Geels, F. W., Elzen, B., & Green, K. (2004). General introduction: Systems innovation and transitions to sustainability. In B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), Systems innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy (pp. 1–16). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Gerlach, L. (1978). Energy wars and social change. In S. Abbott & J. van Willingen (Eds.), Predicting social change (pp. 76–94). Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Ginger, C. (2006). Interpretive content analysis: Stories and arguments in analytic documents. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn (pp. 331–348). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Grin, J. (2006). Reflexive modernization as a governance issue—or designing and shaping re-Structuration. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 57–81). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Gunderson, A. (1995). The environmental promise of deliberation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Hajer, M. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Heilbroner, R. L. (1974). An enquiry into the human prospect. New York: Harper & Row.

Hendriks, C. M. (2002). Institutions of deliberative democratic processes and interest groups: Roles, tensions and incentives. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 64–75. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.00259.

Hendriks, C. M. (2005). Participatory storylines and their impact on deliberative forums. Policy Sciences, 38(4), 1–20. doi:10.1007/s11077-005-0870-3.

Hendriks, C. M. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: The democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transitions. Public Administration, 86(4), 1009–1031.

Hendriks, C. M., & Grin, J. (2007). Contextualizing reflexive governance: The politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 333–350. doi:10.1080/15239080701622790.

Hilgartner, S. (2000). Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Hirst, P. Q. (1995). Can secondary associations enhance democratic governance? In E. O. Wright (Ed.), Associations and democracy: The real utopias project (Vol. 1, pp. 101–113). London: Verso.

Holden, M. (2006). Reflections on how political scientists (and others) might think about energy policy. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 872–889). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hunold, C. (2001). Corporatism, pluralism, and democracy: Toward a deliberative theory of bureaucratic accountability. Governance: An International Journal of Policy Administration, 14(2), 151–167.

Jasanoff, S. (Ed.). (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. London: Routledge.

Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risk of failure. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: A reflexive governance approach. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 103–130). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36(11), 4093–4103. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.018.

Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage.

Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance: New government-society interactions. London: Sage.

Lafferty, W. L., & Meadowcroft, J. (1996a). Democracy and the environment: Congruence and conflict–preliminary reflections. In W. L. Lafferty & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects (pp. 1–17). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Lafferty, W. M., & Meadowcroft, J. (Eds.). (1996b). Democracy and the environment: Problems and prospects. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Lasswell, H. (1951). The policy orientation. In H. Lasswell & D. Lerner (Eds.), The policy sciences (pp. 1–15). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Lasswell, H. (1965). The world revolution of our times: A framework for basic policy research. In H. Lasswell & D. Lerner (Eds.), World revolutional elites: Studies in coercive ideological movements. Cambridge: MIT Press. p Chp. 2.

Latour, B. (2005). From Realpolitik to Dingpolitik. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public—atmospheres of democracy (pp. 4–31). Karlsruhe & Cambridge, MA: ZKM & MIT Press.

Lindlof, T. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Linz, J. J. (1998). Democracy’s time constraint. International Political Science Review, 19(1), 19–37. doi:10.1177/019251298019001002.

Loorbach, D., & Kemp, R. (2008). Transition management for the Dutch energy transition: Multilevel governance aspects. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. R. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy (pp. 243–264). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2005). Managing transitions for sustainable development. In X. Olsthoorn & A. Wieczorek (Eds.), Understanding industrial transformation views from different disciplines (pp. 187–206). Leusden: Springer.

Lovins, A. B., & Lovins, L. H. (1982). Brittle power: Energy strategy for national security. Andover, Ma: Brick House Publishing Company.

Luskin, R. C., Fishkin, J. S., & Jowell, R. (2002). Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 32(3), 455–487. doi:10.1017/S0007123402000194.

Majone, G. (1996). Temporal consistency and policy credibility: Why democracies need non-majoritarian institutions. European University Institute, Working Paper RSC, 96/57.

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.

Marcussen, M., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Democratic network governance in Europe. London: Palgrave.

Marres, N. (2005). Issues spark a public into being: A key but often forgotten point of the Lippman and Dewey debate. In B. Latour & P. Weibel (Eds.), Making things public—atmospheres of democracy (pp. 208–217). Karlsruhe & Cambridge, MA: ZKM & MIT Press.

Mayer, I., de Vries, J., & Geurts, J. (1995). An evaluation of the effects of participation in a consensus conference. In S. Joss & D. John (Eds.), Public participation in science: The role of consensus conferences in Europe (pp. 109–124). London: Science Museum.

Meadowcroft, J. (2005). Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state. New Political Economy, 10(4), 479–498. doi:10.1080/13563460500344419.

Meadowcroft, J. (2007). Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 299–314. doi:10.1080/15239080701631544.

Miller, D. (1992). Deliberative democracy and social choice. Political Studies, 40(Special Issue), 54–67. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1992.tb01812.x.

Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agnostic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.

Niemeyer, S. (2004). Deliberation in the wilderness: Displacing symbolic politics. Environmental Politics, 13(2), 347–372. doi:10.1080/0964401042000209612.

Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action—public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ophuls, W. (1977). Ecology and the politics of scarcity: A prologue to the political theory of the steady state. San Francisco: Freeman.

Opsina, S. M., & Dodge, J. (2005). It’s about time: Catching method up to meaning—the usefulness of narrative inquiry in public administration research. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 143–157.

Orr, D. W. (1979). U.S. energy policy and the political economy of participation. The Journal of Politics, 41(4), 1027–1056. doi:10.2307/2129732.

Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), 180–196. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00419.

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Pekkarinen, J., Pohjola, M., & Rowthorn, B. (1992). Social corporatism: A superior economic system?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perelman, L. J. (1980). Speculations on the transition to sustainable energy. Ethics, 90(3), 392–416. doi:10.1086/292170.

Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Pierre, J. (Ed.). (2001). Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Punch, K. F. (1998). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.

Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. London: Oxford University Press.

Rehfeld, A. (2006). Towards a general theory of political representation. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 1–21. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00365.x.

Rein, M., & Schön, D. A. (1993). Reframing policy discourse. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 145–166). Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity, and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham: Duke University.

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31. doi:10.1108/14636680110803003.

Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2008). Transition management: Reflexive governance of societal complexity through searching, learning and experimenting. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. R. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy (pp. 15–46). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Saward, M. (2001). Making democratic connections: Political equality, deliberation and direct democracy. Acta Politica, 36(Winter), 361–379.

Scharpf, F. (1999). Governing in Europe: effective and democratic?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmitter, P., & Lehmbruch, G. (Eds.). (1979). Trends towards corporate intermediation. California: Sage, Beverley Hills.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Kansas: University of Kansas.

Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.

Scruggs, L. A. (1999). Institutions and environmental performance in seventeen western democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 1–31. doi:10.1017/S0007123499000010.

Senternovem. (2005). Gespreksverslag Betreft Transitietraining Energietransite. Competentie Centrum Transities. 4 Oct 2005. http://www.senternovem.nl/mmfiles/051004%20Transitietraining%20definitief_tcm24-178888.pdf. Accessed 26 June 2007.

Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). Caution! Transitions ahead: politics, practice and sustainable transition management. Environment & Planning A, 39, 763–770. doi:10.1068/a39310.

Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., & Smith, M. (2005). The public governance of collaborative spaces: Discourse, design and democracy. Public Administration, 83(3), 573–596. doi:10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00463.x.

Skocpol, T. (1999). Associations without members. The American Prospect, 45(July–August), 66–73.

Smith, G. (2003). Deliberative democracy and the environment. New York: Routledge.

Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 78–98. doi:10.1080/09644010802624835.

Sørensen, E. (2002). Democratic theory and network governance. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 24(4), 693–720.

Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114. doi:10.1177/0275074005282584.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2003). Network politics, political capital, and democracy. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(6), 609–634. doi:10.1081/PAD-120019238.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of network governance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x.

Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theoretical approaches to democratic network governance. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance (pp. 233–246). London: Palgrave.

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–37. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.

Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox and political reason: The art of political decision making, Revised Edition. New York: WW Norton & Company.

Taiclet, A.-F. (2006). Governance, expertise and competitive politics: The case of territorial development in France. In A. Benz & Y. Papadopoulous (Eds.), Governance and democracy (pp. 63–80). Oxon: Routledge.

Truman, D. B. (1951). The governmental process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Urbinati, N. (2005). Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

van de Kerkhof, M., & Weiczorek, A. (2005). Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards sustainability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(6), 733–747. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.002.

van Lente, H. (2006). De Blinde Vlekken van Transities. Het Financieele Dagblad, 14 March 2006.

van Tatenhove, J., Arts, B., & Leroy, P. (Eds.). (2000). Political modernisation and the environment. The renewal of environmental policy arrangements. Dordecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

van Vliet, B., Chappells, H., & Shove, E. (2005). Infrastructures of consumption: Environmental innovation in the utility industries. London: Earthscan.

Vollenbroek, F. (2002). Sustainable development and the challenge of innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10, 215–223. doi:10.1016/S0959-6526(01)00048-8.

Voß, J.-P., Bauknecht, D., & Kemp, R. (Eds.). (2006). Reflexive governance for sustainable development. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Voß, J.-P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nölting, B. (2007). Steering for sustainable development: A typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3–4), 193–212. doi:10.1080/15239080701622881.

Voß, J.-P., Smith, A., & Grin, J. (forthcoming). Designing long term policies: Reflexivity and political robustness. Policy Sciences (special issue).

VROM. (2001). Een Wereld En Een Wil. Nationaal Milieubeleidsplan. Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu, The Hague.

VROM. (2006). Beleid Met Burgers (Policy with Citizens), Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu, The Hague. Accessed April 7, 2009, from http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id=16572.

VROM & AER. (2004). Energietransitie: Klimaat Voor Nieuwe Kansen, Joint advice from the VROMraad and the Algemene Energieraad (AER). The Hague.

Warren, M. E. (2002). What can democratic participation mean today? Political Theory, 30(5), 677–701. doi:10.1177/0090591702030005003.

Wätli, S., Kübler, D., & Papadopoulos, Y. (2004). How democratic is “governance”? Lessons from Swiss drug policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 17(1), 83–113.

Willems, U., & von Winter, T. (Eds.). (2000). Politische Repräsentation Schwacher Interessen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Wolsink, M. (2007). Planning of renewables schemes: Deliberative and fair decision-making on landscape issues instead of reproachful accusations of non-cooperation. Energy Policy, 35(5), 2692–2704. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.002.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Yanow, D. (2006). Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In F. Fischer, G. Miller, & M. Sidney (Eds.), The handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods (pp. 405–415). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Title: Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management
Author: Carolyn M. Hendriks
Publication date: 01-11-2009
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Policy Sciences / Issue 4/2009
Print ISSN: 0032-2687
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0891
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9095-1

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 4/2009

What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions

Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management

Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector

Empowerment and the challenge of applying transition management to ongoing projects

Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands

Designed to travel? Transition management encounters environmental and innovation policy histories in Finland

Premium Partner