Administrative and political
conflict resolution
11.04.2013, Riga
Agnes Kasper
LECTURE OUTLINE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC POLICY
COMPLEXITY OF RULEMAKING
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
METHODS
VALUE DECISIONS
MEDIATION SESSION MANAGEMENT EXERCISE
The spoon, the cup and the bucket
During a visit to a mental asylum, a visitor asked
the director how to determine whether or not
a patient should be institutionalised. “Well,”
said the director, “we fill up a bathtub, then
we offer a teaspoon, a teacup and a bucket to
the patient, and ask him to empty the
bathtub.”
???
The plug...
PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS
Problem identification
Policy
evaluation
Policy
implementation
Policy
formulation
Policy adoption
COMPLEXITY OF PUBLIC POLICY
Public policies of various govermental sectors can
influence other policies, directly or indirectly.
Example: population health
Related policies:
• Transportation
• Income
• Education
• Child-care
• Environment
Complexity
Adopting a policy that takes into account all relevant
fields and policies is a complex task.
- There are many uncertain effects
- Often no consensus in the civil society
Decision-makers must manuever between different
values, views, needs, preferences and interests.
Increased attention is paid lately to deliberative processes
 critical examination of issues in groups: reasons vs
courses of action, exchange information and come to
an areement which informs the decision-making
Case study – Jaitapur protest
• What is the surface of the conflict and what are the
underlying problems?
• What conflict classifications can you apply? (Resources,
values, interests, relationships, identity, etc.)
• Who are the parties and what motivate them?
• How the conflict could have been avoided?
• What positive and negative aspects of the conflict can
you identify?
• How can the conflict be “won” (and what)? Who will
loose (and what)?
• Can both parties win?
Complexity
Complexity
The question is “how do we get into zone P?”
More often then not we get there with the help
of processes such as mediation or
participation.
Methods of public participation
Deliberative vs non-deliberative
Citizens panels
Consensus conference
Citizens juries
Deliberative polling
(Delphi method)
Focus groups
Surveys
Public hearings
Open houses
Citizen advisory committee
Referenda
Citizens panels
Citizens panels 1
• consists of statistically representative
• sample of residents in a given area
• most comprise several thousand citizens who
represent the general population of an area
• panel views are regularly sought
• using a survey instrument (e.g. postal,
• telephone surveys)
Citizens panels 2
• randomly selected group of 12 citizens meet
routinely (eg. four times per year) to consider
and discuss issues and make decisions
• used to guide health resource allocation
decision
• panels act as “sounding boards” for governing
authority
Consensus conference
• a group of citizens with varied backgrounds
meets to discuss issues of a scientific and or
technical nature
• consists of 2 stages: 1)meetings with experts,
discussions and work toward consensus
(involves small group of people) 2)conference
during which main observations and
conclusions are presented to the media and
general public
Citizens’ juries
• group of 12-20 randomly selected citizens,
gathered in such a way as to represent a
microcosm of their
• community, who meet over several days to
deliberate on a policy question
• they are informed about the issue, hear evidence
from witnesses and cross-examine them
• they then discuss the matter amongst themselves
and reach a decision
Deliberative polling
• builds on the opinion poll by incorporating
element of deliberation
• involves larger numbers than citizens juries
and may involve less time
• measures what public would think if it was
informed and engaged around an issue
Deliberative processes – engagement
of civil society
1. Engagement of the civil society in:
- definition of problem,
- identification of priorities,
- allocation of resources
- evaluation of different policy options
This approch promotes conciliation, information
of public, transparency, legitimacy and
accountability in decision making.
Deliberative processes – engagement
of civil society example
The CPRN’s citizens’ dialogues – Canada
Since the late 1990’s the Canadian Policy Research
Networks have undertaken a number of initiatives
aimed at encouraging public deliberation about various
policy issues (e.g. the Ontario 2004-2008 budget
strategy, the future of Canadian health care, the use of
personal information, Canadian public health priorities).
For more information: www.cprn.org [FR/EN]
Deliberative method – expert
engagement
2. Engagement of experts in:
- Production of research
- Interpretation of research
- Bridging theory and practice
This promotes evidence-informed policy making.
Deliberative method – expert
engagement example
IDEAHealth – Khon Kaen, Thailand
IDEAHealth was an international dialogue sponsored by
the World Health Organization that took place between
December 13 and 16, 2006. It allowed decision makers,
experts and other stakeholders to share their ideas and
experiences and to consider the results of systematic
reviews in an attempt to find concrete solutions to
problems confronting developing countries. For more
information: www.who.int/rpc/meetings/ideahealth/ens
non-deliberative
Objectives of two deliberative trends
October 2009
Author: François-Pierre Gauvin, National
Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy
Some methods of participatory
democracy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Popular/Citizens’ initiatives
Referenda
Public consultation
Surveys
Focus groups
Open houses
Public hearings
Negotiated rulemaking
Consensus-building
Etc.
Citizens’ initiative
• It allows electorate to resolve questions where
the elected representatives don’t act despite the
public desire. Typical provisions in Constitutions.
• “The European citizens' initiative allows one
million EU citizens to participate directly in the
development of EU policies, by calling on the
European Commission to make a legislative
proposal.” (Commission’s homepage)
• Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU, Regulation
No 211/2011
Public consultation
In public consultations the agency ‘s goal is to
gain information about the concerns of the
public, but the final decision is still made by
the agency. No consensus or decision by the
public is sought.
May be dominated by special interest groups feed-back obtained from this format needs to
be treated carefully because it may not be
representative of the community
Negotiated rulemaking
• In negotiated rulemaking process the agency
seeks out the representatives of interests that
will be affected and empanel them into an
advisory committee that includes senior
members of the agency itself. The committee
is tasked with deveoping a consensus for the
proposed rule. Then the normal legislative
process applies.
Consensus building
• Consensus building is used to settle conflicts
that involve multiple parties and complicated
issues. The approach seeks to transform
Adversarial confrontations into a cooperative
search for information and solutions that
meet all parties' interests and needs.(Burgess
& Spangler, 2003)
Consensus building
• Consensus building (also known as collaborative
problem solving or collaboration) is a conflict
resolution process used mainly to settle complex,
multiparty disputes. Since the 1980s, it has become
widely used in the environmental and public policy
arena in the United States, but is useful whenever
multiple parties are involved in a complex dispute or
conflict.
• The process allows various stakeholders (parties with
an interest in the problem or issue) to work together to
develop a mutually acceptable solution.
(Burgess & Spangler, 2003)
Consensus building
• Like a town meeting, consensus building is based on
the principles of local participation and ownership of
decisions.
• Ideally, the consensus reached will meet all of the
relevant interests of stakeholders, who thereby come
to a unanimous agreement.
• While everyone may not get everything they initially
wanted, "consensus has been reached when everyone
agrees they can live with whatever is proposed after
every effort has been made to meet the interests of all
stake holding parties.“
(Burgess & Spangler, 2003)
Workshop exercise
VALUES
● It is 2014, and there is now scientific
consensus that secondary smoking is a
significant cause of cancer.
● You are all the staff of a regulatory agency that
has to act once it is known that a
substance causes cancer.
● Where do you stand? Please line up at the
most appropriate place on the line.
Workshop exercise
VALUES
WHY?
Workhop exercise
VALUES
• The instructions made clear that the science
was conclusive: secondary smoking causes
cancer.
• There was not a disagreement on a technical
basis, the disagreement was about values.
Workshop exercise
Consider the figure
Workshop exercise
Consider the figure
Workshop exercise
Communication
1. You will be paired with another participant.
2. On the following grid, write what you would say if you were the
facilitator – using the model below – to handle the seven
circumstances that are listed on the grid.
I feel (ownership) + feeling word + behavioral description
Example: I feel worried about the passivity of the majority of the group.
3. Then compare notes with your partner, discussing how best to send
your concerns without creating defensiveness, putting anybody
down, or seeming unduly controlling.
Situation
1. Group has drifted off the agreed-upon topic
Your message: ...............................................
Situation
2. People are not able to complete their
comments because of interruptions
Your message: ...............................................
Situation
3. Too many people talking at once
Your message: ...............................................
Situation
4. Comments are exceeding agreed-upon time
limits
Your message: ...............................................
Situation
5. Participant’s comments are insulting to other
participants – “name-calling”
Your message: ...............................................
Situation
6. Group needs to be reminded of agenda time
limits
Your message: ...............................................
Situation
7. You want to propose the use of a technique,
for example, brainstorming
Your message: ...............................................
The end
Thank you for your attention!
Questions???
Sources
• A Review of Public Participation and Consultation
Methods, Abelson J, Forest P-G, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E
and Gauvin F-P. Deliberations about Deliberation: Issues in
the Design and Evaluation of Public Consultation Processes,
McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and
Policy Analysis Research Working Paper 01-04, June 2001.
• Consensus building, Heidi Burgess and Brad Spangler,
2003.www.beyonintractability.com
• Deeliberative process, François-Pierre Gauvin, National
Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy
• Participation, Consensus Building and Conflict management
training course, Jerome Delli Priscoli, Unesco, 2003.
• www.europa.eu