Civil society organizations and deliberative policy making: interpreting environmental
controversies in the deliberative system
Author(s): Jennifer Dodge
Source: Policy Sciences , June 2014, Vol. 47, No. 2 (June 2014), pp. 161-185
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44113962
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Policy Sciences
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy Sci (2014) 47:161-185
DOI 10.1007/sl 1077-014-9200-y
Civil society organizations and deliberative policy
making: interpreting environmental controversies
in the deliberative system
Jennifer Dodge
Published online: 5 June 2014
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract This paper argues that while research on deliberative democracy is burgeoning,
there is relatively little attention paid to the contributions of civil society. Based on an
interpretive conceptualization of deliberative democracy, this paper draws attention to the
ways in which civil society organizations employ "storylines" about environmental issues
and deliberative processes to shape deliberative policy making. It asks, how do civil
society organizations promote storylines in the deliberative system to change policy? How
do storylines constitute policy and policy-making processes in the deliberative system? I
answer these questions through an empirical analysis of two environmental controversies
in the USA: environmental justice in New Mexico and coalbed methane development in
Wyoming. Findings indicate that civil society organizations used storylines in both cases to
shift the dynamics of the deliberative system and to advance their own interpretations of
environmental problems and policy-making processes. Specifically, they used storylines
(1) to set the agenda on environmental hazards, (2) to construct the form of public
deliberation, changing the rules of the game, (3) to construct the content of public
deliberation, shaping meanings related to environmental policy, and (4) to couple/align
forums, arenas and courts across the system. These findings suggest that promoting sto-
rylines through accommodation and selection processes can be an important mechanism
for shaping policy meanings and for improving deliberative quality, although these effects
are tempered by discursive and material forms of power, and the competition among
alternative storylines.
Keywords Deliberative democracy • Deliberative system • Civil society
organizations • Environmental policy • Narrative inquiry • Interpretive
policy analysis
J. Dodge (EI)
Rockefeller College, University at Albany, 135 Western Ave., Albany, NY 12222, USA
e-mail: jdodge@albany.edu
Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
162
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
Introduction
Deliberative policy making is becoming prominent among decision-making models as it
proposes a means for addressing normative and empirical questions relevant to policy
analysis (Hajer and Wagenaar 2003). The model typically focuses on forums that bring
citizens with diverse perspectives together to exchange reasons for policy proposals and to
negotiate a decision. Empirical research on deliberative policy making takes different
forms, but most commonly focuses on assessing the skills and willingness of public
officials to design and implement forums (Bingham et al. 2005; Feldman and Khademian
2005; Fischer 2000, 2003; Bryson et al. 2002; Nalbandian 1999; Forester 1993a, b, 1999;
Roberts 1997; Stivers 1994), and/or the design features that make for effective deliberation, capable of fostering reasoned agreements in the presence of conflicting perspectives
and values (Cook et al. 2007; Mendelberg and Karpowitz 2007; Koontz and Johnson 2004;
Nelson and Pettit 2004; Zwart 2003; Fung and Wright 2003; Thomas 2001; Pelletier et al.
1999).
While necessary as features of deliberative policy making, the field emphasizes the
skills of public officials and deliberative design to the neglect of civil society. The focus on
government agents downplays activities of other stakeholders who make claims about
policy and policy making, and who are confronted with strategic decisions about how to
approach deliberation given other avenues of influence (Dodge 2010; Boswell 2013). In
particular, we lack understanding about how civil society organizations shape deliberative
governance.
While some scholars assess civil society organizations in deliberative democracy
(Levine and Nierras 2007; Fischer 2006; Hendriks 2006; Montpetit et al. 2004), there
remains relatively little empirical research in this area. Some evidence indicates that civil
society organizations make unique contributions to deliberative democracy (Fischer 2006;
Dodge 2009, 2010), and confront specific challenges when considering deliberation as an
entry point for influencing policy (Montpetit et al. 2004). While government agents may be
responsible for establishing deliberative forums, civil society organizations work with
citizens to shape them (Dodge 2010), by promoting certain definitions of policy or of
participation, the latter of which Hendriks (2005) calls "participatory storylines." They
may also act cooperatively or confrontationally, but we should not dismiss them as nondeliberative. By analyzing power in the deliberative system in an environmental controversy in New Mexico, for example, Dodge (2009) shows how marginalized groups can use
power to serve deliberatively democratic ends, such as securing a fairer process and getting
issues related to justice on the agenda. This body of work suggests that understanding the
role of civil society organizations in deliberative democracy is critical.
To examine the civil society side of deliberative democracy, I adopt an interpretive
framework that conceptualizes deliberative policy making as a contest over the meaning of
public policy and policy-making processes. An interpretive approach surfaces the contestation over meanings embedded in competing "storylines" about public problems,
solutions, and the appropriate form of deliberation. These are precisely the types of conflicts that call for public deliberation. Thus, an interpretive approach is highly relevant for
understanding these conflicts and for building knowledge in this under-developed empirical area.
A focus on civil society requires viewing deliberative forums within the broader
political landscape. It recognizes that claims making activities are not confined to discrete
forums, but include other spheres. Drawing on Mansbridge (1999), see also Mansbridge
et al. 2012), Hendriks (2006) defines the deliberative system as "a series of arenas where...
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
163
communicative practices that foster
include discrete forums in governmen
society (like public seminars and chur
deliberation in courts, legislatures, n
1999).
Based on this understanding, this article seeks to answer the following questions: How
do civil society organizations promote storylines in the deliberative system to change
policy? How do storylines constitute policy and policy-making processes in the deliberative system? To explore these questions, I present a comparative study of two environmental controversies in the USA: environmental justice in New Mexico, and coalbed
methane development in Wyoming.
Findings indicate that civil society actors used storylines in different ways to shift the
dynamics of the deliberative system, and to advance their own interpretations of environmental problems and policy-making processes. Specifically, they used storylines (1) to
set the agenda on environmental hazards, (2) to construct the form of public deliberation,
changing the rules of the game, (3) to construct the content of public deliberation, shaping
meanings related to environmental policy, and (4) to couple/align forums, arenas, and
courts across the system. These findings suggest that promoting storylines is an important
mechanism for improving deliberative quality and compelling agencies to address environmental hazards, although challenged by discursive forms of power, and the degree of
competition among alternative storylines.
I begin with a discussion of interpretive approaches to policy studies, and their relevance
for studying civil society organizations in deliberative democracy, building a conceptual
framework drawing on framing concepts from social movement literature. I then describe
narrative inquiry as an appropriate methodology for the study. Following a description of the
cases, I present results, focusing on storylines that actors used to shape policy meanings about
environmental controversies and policy making. I end with a discussion about the importance
of civil society actors as claims makers in deliberative policy making.
Interpretive research in policy studies
Interpretive approaches to policy analysis experienced popularity in the 1990s as
researchers began asserting the importance of "problem definition" as a key strategy for
influencing policy (Schneider and Ingram 1997; Rochefort and Cobb 1994; Stone 1989).
For example, Rochefort and Cobb (1994) argued that we should distinguish between
"objective conditions out there in the world" and the definition of those conditions as a
"problem." This approach highlights the politics of policy making by suggesting that key
actors, whom they call "claims makers," bring problems to light and present them as
needing a solution. A key insight is that these activities do not merely identify a problem,
but advance a particular moral or political orientation through which to view it. In other
words, claim makers' language frames the problem, bringing with it certain understandings
about the problem's nature, thus suggesting certain causes and solutions. For example,
problems can be "medicalized" or framed in terms of "diseases" that need a "cure." This
problem definition constitutes issues such as alcoholism as a medical problem rather than,
say, a moral one, with implications for policy intervention and definitions of policy
"targets" (Schneider and Ingram 1997).
From this view, policy problems are not objectively real, concrete, and unambiguous,
but are social constructions; they do not mirror reality but are interpretations of it (Yanow
^ Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
164
Policy
1996;
Sci
Hoppe
(2014)
47:161-185
2011).
Similarly,
so
description of the "real" problem,
particular discourses. Policy making
of issues from particular perspectiv
are" (Yanow 1996). In other words,
These approaches have expanded
frameworks to study public policy
(Fischer and Gottweis 2012; Fisch
assumptions:
• ... human action is embedded in and intermediated through symbolically rich social,
cultural, and institutional contexts;
• ... human action is constituted by communicative practices;
• ... the policy process is thus also embedded in these contexts and constituted by
communicative practices (Fischer and Gottweis 2012).
Rather than searching for generalizable patterns of causal relationships, causality from
this perspective refers to the constitutive effects of meaning on behavior (Schwartz-Shea
2006). In other words, how issues are framed profoundly shapes what people do. Thus,
interpretive research can be useful for policy (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2006), because it
shows how framing can open and constrain action (Hajer 2009). For example, Hendriks
(2005) has shown that the way "participation" is framed in a deliberative forum shapes
whether it is perceived as legitimate within existing institutions and thus whether citizens
will participate or view outcomes as valid.
These approaches call for in-depth analysis that examine how beliefs about policy come
to be adopted; how power relations undergird argumentative struggles; and how communicative activity constitutes and maintains power relations. It focuses analytical atten-
tion on discursive practices (Hajer 1997, 2009), which involve "the practical
communicative organizing (or dis-organizing) of others attention to relevant and significant issues at hand" (Forester 1993a, b, 5). Storylines are important discursive practices. A
storyline is "a condensed statement summarizing complex narratives, used by people as
'shorthand' in discussions" (Hajer 2009, 61). Storylines, like other discursive strategies,
convey certain assumptions, legitimize certain forms of discussion, emphasize certain
claims over others, or develop a common frame of reference (Hajer 2009; Forester 1999).
From the civil society side, storylines may articulate local knowledge (Corburn 2005), 2
frame policy problems and solutions, critique policy and advance alternatives, and justify
specific inclusions or exclusions in policy making (Hendriks 2005).
Furthermore, storylines are supported and (re)produced by specific social practices
(Hajer 1997, 2009). In environmental justice, for example, a participatory storyline about
direct citizen action is supported through community organizing practices such as "one-on-
1 These approaches are grounded in the "interpretive turn" in the social sciences, which took place in the
late twentieth century. At its heart, interpretive research has an "overarching appreciation for the centrality
of meaning in human life in all its aspects..." (Yanow and Schwartz-Shea 2006, xii, see also Ospina and
Author 2005).
2 Drawing on Geertz (1973, 1992), Yanow (2004) defines local knowledge as "the very mundane, yet expert
understanding of and practical reasoning about local conditions derived from lived experience " (SI 2, italics
original). Coburn (2005) argues that local knowledge "includes information pertaining to local contexts or
settings, including knowledge of specific characteristics, circumstances, events, and relationships, as well as
important understanding of their meaning" (47).
â Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
165
ones"
in which organizers meet with
and incorporate them into policy a
This approach suggests a discursiv
reinforcing forms. First, dominan
acceptable storylines, not through
tance of their terms (Howarth and
here as accepted discourses protec
means to establish the terms of deba
(Fischer 2003; Hajer and Versteeg
coercive means which operate thro
actors may mobilize meaning by u
common framework (Benford and
constitute understandings of policy
An
interpretive
approach
to
delibera
Deliberative democracy emphasize
consensus, or reasoned agreement
Gutman and Thompson 1996). The t
free
from
coercion,
politics,
and
str
willingness to adjust preferences i
requires design features that genera
itation, procedures ensuring fair rep
to the process (Fung 2003; Fung an
Based on the interpretive assumpti
tation across discourses" as a key c
interlocutors may come together t
embedded
in
community,
specific
Which
shape
systems
the
policy
this
citizens
of
meaning
of
the
state,
question,
but
has
meanings
political
From
role
prevail
action
is
the
through
state
in
the
po
negotiate
conceptualization,
and
th
and
a
parti
civil
so
deliberative
civil society organization associated
deliberation in participatory plan
the meanings of deliberative spaces w
were then assisted in analyzing [th
experiences, knowledge, and unders
Such organizations work with consti
for
through
the
deliberative
system,
in
f
While most approaches to deliber
rounding politics, this reasoning ma
the forum, but cut cross-spheres (D
the interaction of storylines in inte
a task requiring concepts to captur
erative forums take place in a broad
of interest-based politics (Hendriks
lobbying, and other strategic activit
^ Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
166
Policy
The
social
processes
First,
Sci
(2014)
movement
relevant
different
about
47:161-185
public
to
actors
and
deliberati
understanding
may
policy.
promote
Benford
an
because successful promotion depe
perspectives (see also Dryzek 2000;
Second, other actors must adopt
process "selection" because it invol
new host context or culture" (627)
storylines, the degree of competit
meanings. It might also depend on
broadly accepted terms, considerabl
new storyline. Selection may be pa
Finally, the meaning across differ
linked. "Coupling" is a feature of
indicates the extent to which rel
(Dodge 2010, 250-25 1).4 It refers to
are felt in others. "Tight coupling"
ization of an issue dominates, erasin
the ability of the system to self-co
dimensions of a problem based on
(Mansbridge et al. 2012). Coupling
problems gain acceptance. "Decoup
part [of the deliberative system] fa
Coupling
requires
effort
by
actors
w
evidence that they should be adop
depend on meaning becoming coup
understandings exhibiting acceptan
These three processes provide the c
society organizations in deliberativ
Methods
The data for this article come from a project about non-profits in deliberative democracy
(Dodge 2010). The project integrated narrative inquiry (Dodge et al. 2005; Clandinin and
Connelley 2000) and interpretive case studies (Stake 1995). Narrative inquiry is suitable for
understanding competing storylines and practices (Lejano and Leong 2012), while case study
methodology adds a comparative logic that facilitates case selection and theory elaboration.
Using theory-based sampling (Miles and Huberman 1994), 2 organizations were
selected from 92 in a national program.5 Selection began with 19 environmental
3 While many deliberative scholars argue that rhetoric is a coercive form of communication, it can be
necessary to convince a skeptical audience. It "can be used to draw attention to previously marginalized
concerns, to reach categories of people traditionally excluded from discussion by couching points in terms
familiar to them, and to force action on a problem or issue" (Dryzek 2000, 67; see also Young 2001).
4 In institutional theory, coupling refers to "the creation and maintenance of gaps between formal policies
and organizational practices" (Beekun and Glick 2001; Meyer and Rowan 1977).
Leadership for a Changing World was sponsored by the Ford Foundation and implemented in partnership
with the Advocacy Institute and the Research Center for Leadership in Action at The Wagner School/New
â Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
167
organizations; these were narrowe
engaged in policy advocacy and par
shape environmental policy. The fina
for theoretical elaboration across ca
mental issues (environmental justice
tion versus reformation), and organiz
were also located in states with diffe
graphics (New Mexico is a majority
white populations while Wyoming i
urban populations. With the assistan
of analysis one policy controversy
nization played a significant role.
Data collection and analysis focus
qualitative research (Miles and Hub
making (e.g., "environmental injust
practices that support them (such a
spheres of the deliberative system
I conducted 36 semi-structured in
organization, government officials,
in each campaign (identified
organizations practiced deliberation
participants have been changed to p
organizational and public meetings
nizational and policy documents, an
All data were analyzed using a na
2005) that distills the organizations
government agents, tribal representa
analysis of competition across storyl
to retain the cases' contextual chara
uments resulted in detailed Analyti
storied accounts (Clandinin and Co
accounts were shared with member
article presents the results that an
organizations promote storylines in
storylines constitute policy and polic
episodes
Storylines
In
the
of
policy
mid-2000s,
two
and
participat
environmental
1980s, in Wyoming (and other Wes
companies to produce coalbed meth
began experiencing the environment
Footnote 5 continued
York University. Each cohort of nominees underwent a rigorous selection process, so that out of about 1,350
nominees per year only 1 7-20 were selected.
6 This technique involves re-writing transcripts to uncover the structure and meaning of participants'
stories.
â Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
168
Policy
Table
1
Sci
Data
(2014)
47:161-185
collection
by
method
Method Number of observations
The Network Powder River Total
In-depth narrative interviews 18 18 36
Observations
Documents
16
69
12
359
controversy
the
28
428
emerge
controversy
esca
of
forums
created
considerable
media
injustices
had
environment
state
EJ
as
Civil
urged
by
society
se
to
actors
Council
grassroots
va
the
groups
Resource
a
exist
departm
legislation,
working
b
a
he
organiz
but
also
other
resid
tion
(of
coal,
coalbe
agriculture,
and
tra
personal
impacts
of
state
and
region.7
In
campaign
by
creatin
and
all
water
rights
conservation
and
r
campaign,
Powder
R
ronmental
hazards
Similarly,
the
Sout
environmental
organizations
border
jus
and
states
in
in
M
Reflecting
the
Netw
well
as
multi-racia
esma,
unpublished
environmental
justi
Environmental
Jus
7
Powder
Wyoming
the
River's
and
Rocky
the
part
Sierr
Mountain
Accountability
E
Project.
The
EJ
Working
Group
Mora
County,
Colonias
Coalition
for
a
Safe
Env
Organizing
Project
a
Environmental Law Center and the Southwest Research & Information Center.
Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Sci
Table
Forums,
2
(2014)
47:161-185
arenas,
and
169
courts
(and
t
Powder River Basin Resource Council a Southwest Network for Environmental
Depa
Disc
To
m
CBM
und
Elimination System .b r
- , ~ w . „i i ^ tt/ EJ Policy Committee, 2004
Governor - , s Coalbed ~ Methane w . Natural „i i Gas ^ Water tt/ Jo ^ u recomm
Use Task Force, 2006 on listening sessions testimony; , o
ofCmleZŪp'Sn, qUant,ty mPaC,S policy for the state
_ , ^ _ , _ „ EJ Task Force
Governor _ , s Committee ^ Task _ , _ Force on Split „ ^ , », . , ,
Estate 2004 Created ^ , », by executive . order , to , assist
_ ? „ agencies in implementing EJ policy across
To _ draft „ split estate legislation that would {£e sme
regulate coalbed methane development on
"split estates. " Working groups on solid waste regulations
and management plans, 2005
To revise solid waste regulations
Arenas
WY legislative sessions 2003, 2004 and 2005 NM legislative sessions, 2005, 2006, 2007
To decide on split estate legislation To consider EJ legislation
Inte
To
c
adm
deve
2005 and 2006 court cases in Montana
To assess water quality standards in Montana
that would have a bearing on coalbed methane
gas development in Wyoming
Environmental Quality Council, 2005
To develop policy to regulate water quantity as
a means to regulate water quality.
a Several forums are excluded for simplicity: federal legislative hearings on energy policy, watershed
permitting groups that set basin-wide water quality standards, and three interagency forums in Wyoming
b NPDES is the water discharge-permitting program under the Clean Water Act
injustices stemming from racism in New Mexico through public policy. The group
implemented an EJ campaign to promote several storylines about environmental racism
(see Table 3).
Civil society organization and deliberative policy making
The following analysis shows how these organizations promoted policy and participatory
storylines through accommodation and coupling processes, and how others selected them
Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
170
Policy
Table
3
Sci
Policy
(2014)
and
47:161-185
participatory
storylin
Powder River Basin Resource Council Southwest Network for Environmental and
Economic Justice
Policy CBM threatens existing agricultural uses of New Mexico has a history of racism in
storylines natural resources, especially water, and environmental decision making.
thus the livelihoods of ranchers and other Solid waste decisions reflect racism in
agriculturalists environmental decision making that has
This is a landowner's right issues - CBM resulted in the "over-concentration
production had negative economic and polluting facilities in low-income
environmental impacts for landowners that communities of color and native o
are unique compared to conventional oil who thus bear a "disproportionate
and gas development, and thus should be burden" for environmental hazards
regulated differently No policy in the state explicitly mandates
equal protection of New Mexico's citizens
of color and native origin from
environmental hazards, but that this kind
of policy is necessary given the history of
racist practices and policies in New
Mexico
Participatory Landowners downstream from CBM Low-income people, people of color and
storylines development are heavily impacted but native people have a right to selfhave few rights as legitimate stakeholders determination and sovereignty, and full
in shaping environmental decisions participation in environmental decision
Landowners should be recognized as making
stakeholders in making decisions about
CBM development
These storylines are related to broader environmental discourses and movements
or not. It reveals that these organizations impacted deliberative democracy in four ways
(see Table 4). They (1) set the agenda on environmental hazards, (2) constructed the form
of public deliberation, changing the rules of the game, (3) constructed the content of public
deliberation, shaping meanings related to environmental policy, and (4) coupled forums,
arenas, and courts across the system. By examining these dimensions, we gain a deeper
understanding of how these organizations enhanced deliberative quality and compelled
agencies to take responsibility for environmental hazards, or failed to do so.
Setting the agenda on environmental hazards
Both organizations used storylines to get issues on the agenda in their states (Stone 1989).
While the Network engaged in discursive politics, Powder River also used coercive
strategies.
Powder River shaped the public agenda in several instances. First, it had tried, under the
"pro- industry" Governor Geringer, to challenge administrative decisions made by the
Bureau of Land Management; to convince the environmental department's Water Quality
Division to maintain and strengthen water quality standards in coalbed methane (CBM)
water discharge permits; and to convince the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
remove the division's authority to administer these permits. After these failed attempts, and
after democratic Governor Freudenthal was elected, Powder River began promoting its
storylines through accommodation processes to urge agency and state representatives to
create forums to address CBM development. For example, in 2002, it invited the new
^ Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Table
4
Sci
(2014)47:161-185
Summary
of
171
findings
Contribution The network Powder River
Set the agenda The EJ Working Group urged the
secretary to create forums to hear 2003
testimony on EJ issues and to create the 2
policy based on that testimony to crea
environmental effects of CBM
development
Construct the form of The Network promoted its Powder River promoted its
public deliberation participatory storylines and participatory storylines to hold
convinced its interlocutors to create government officials accountable to
a "bottom-up" space in the listening a fairer process. They shifted the
sessions that prioritized its practice of deliberation but only
constituents' perspectives marginally
Construct the content of The Network promoted its policy Powder River promoted policy
public deliberation storylines to shape framing of storylines about the unique impacts
environmental issues in forums. Its of CBM development and
convinced interlocutors to adopt EJ "downstream effects" and shifted
language, and EJ defined the the perspective of some of its
purpose of forums. However, many interlocutors by drawing on
began to interpret EJ as dominant scientific and economic
"participation of" and arguments. Powder River's ideas
"communication with" affected were resisted in practice. Members
communities, removing "racial attributed resistance to the economic
discrimination." Plus, the agency narrative and the economic power of
chose a definition of EJ that avoided the industry. Even as they framed
"racial injustice." While the their concerns in scientific language,
Network made considerable policy "money spoke louder than science"
gains, it had to accept a moderate
version of EJ
Couple/align forums, The Network convinced the Powder River supported its
arenas and courts environment department to tightly counterparts in a court case in
across the deliberative couple EJ forums. When "racial Montana to maintain high water
system discrimination" was removed it quality standards that would also
disseminated its ideas in other impact Wyoming and shared its
spheres. It did not win legislation but lessons with tribal communities who
"educated" legislators about EJ, and were deciding whether or not to
codified EJ in the public record, allow CBM development. These
which motivated the EJ Policy efforts advanced Powder River's
Committee to write its EJ executive storylines in venues where they were
order. Finally, the Network more likely to get traction thus
developed a definition of EJ to building momentum toward
promote in the public sphere selection of their storylines
governor to hear members' concerns about the impact on their property, as one long-ter
member explains:
"We met at Powder River, and we were 12 landowners, and each of us gave our story
in a nutshell.... And I said, 4 You know. I have worked with your administration. I've
tried to work within the rules, but your DEQ [Department of Environmental Quality]
and your state engineer give a permit to these companies to come basically and
destroy my property. You are permitting them and it's regulatory takings, they are
taking my property for their benefit so they can get a little case [money]."
Ö Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
172
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
This regulatory taking storyline pr
with the destruction of private pro
Powder River's efforts compelled the
Task Force, with the governor's back
appointed four industry representa
mental academic, and two attorneys
advisory group included the environ
Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
Second, because Powder River competed against powerful economic interests and a powerful storyline about economic growth (discussed below), recommendations from the 2003
water task force were not implemented. Therefore, it petitioned the Environmental Quality
Council - which oversees the environment department - to change water quality regulations.
This pressure compelled the legislature to create the 2006 Coalbed Natural Gas Water Use Task
Force to address unresolved issues. According to an organizer, the new task force
"...came about also because of the continual push [to address water issues]. [From]
the first [2003 water task force...], there was a whole bunch of recommendations
about how to address the water problems.... And we still weren't seeing those
managed or handled properly.... And so then we came in with our petition to change
the rules to try to address them.... And so then they [the state legislature] drafted
legislation to say, 'all right, we got a big problem with the water.'"
The legislature appointed four state representatives and four state senators to the task force, and
the Governor appointed three representatives of industry, three agriculturalists, and represen-
tative of "the public at large" (not from Powder River).9 The storyline started to shift, as others
began acknowledging the unique water management problems with CBM development.
Finally, Powder River collaborated with the Landowners Association of Wyoming
(LAW) to encourage the legislature to address CBM development on split estates.10 The
legislature considered but failed to pass legislation in 2003 and 2004. Afterward, LAW
floated the idea of a referendum to address CBM development. This seemed to pressure the
state legislature, which created the 2004 Select Committee on Split Estate Legislation to
address issues such as landowners' rights to negotiate with gas companies and standards
for reclaiming land after development. The legislature appointed three state representatives
and three state senators, and the governor appointed two agriculturalists (one a Powder
River member), two representatives from industry, and one member-at-large.
Like Powder River, the Network also sought to set the agenda in New Mexico to
address environmental injustices. In 2003, the EJ Working Group had analyzed the
political aspirations of the incoming Governor and his appointees and realized that the
secretary and deputy secretary of the environment department would likely favor EJ
policy.11 The EJ Working Group met with the secretary to ask him to create a forum to
address EJ. It promoted a participatory storyline, by which, according to the Network's
9 Stacking this task force with legislators suggests an attempt to control the process rather than allow the
Environmental Quality Council to decide on Powder River's proposed regulations.
10 On split estates, ownership over the surface land and subsurface minerals is split between two parties.
Often the state or federal government owns subsurface minerals and private landowners own the surface
land.
1 1 The secretary had been deputy secretary under an EJ supporter and in an interview claimed to want to
make EJ a priority. The deputy secretary had worked at the Navajo EPA and Tribal Council, and according
to the Network's executive director, "was very aware of the environmental justice issues from a reservation
standpoint and... the people of color perspective."
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Sci
(2014)47:161-185
173
executive director, the EJ Workin
ment... had an open door policy to
had not been happening with grassr
of
attempts
the
reflected
the
to
hearing
a
thwart
officer
state-wide
executive
department
public
refused
hear
pattern.
director,
hadn't
partici
to
been
the
Its
EJ
living
of New Mexico" from environmental hazards.
These storylines provided a rationale for creating forums to address pending environmental hazards. With the backing of the governor, who wanted to develop an environment-
friendly platform in his run for the US presidency, the secretary and deputy secretary
created the EJ Planning Committee to design state-wide EJ Listening Sessions and
appointed 13 members that included representatives from the Environmental Protection
Agency; the EJ Working Group; tribal communities; industry representatives; and city and
state governments (ATRI 2004). Later, the Network would urge the secretary to create the
EJ Policy Committee to analyze the testimony from the Listening Sessions and design EJ
policy, which included many of these same participants.
In these cases, the organizations contributed to environmental agenda setting. While
typically agenda setting focuses on setting the legislative agenda (Kingdon 201 1), in these
cases, it related to creating deliberative forums (Hendriks 2011; Pralle 2006) to address
environmental hazards in agencies.
Constructing the form of public deliberation in forums
These organizations also shaped the form of the deliberative forums they helped to initiate,
contributing to changing the rules of the game. Both used opposing storylines (Lejano and
Leong 2012) that contrasted their own notions of participation with agency practices,
justifying more openness.
In Powder River's case, forums were implemented in ways far removed from their own
democratic practices. For example, during the 2003 Water Permitting Task Force meetings,
agency and industry representatives and attorneys would deliver a dizzying array of
technical presentations (Surdam et al. 2003, 26). While there were discussions about the
"essential problems" with permitting, and meeting participants interviewed constituents to
inform the discussion, public comment sessions were only tacked on to the end.
A similar pattern was observed in the 2004 split estate task force, chaired by a house
representative. A Powder River member and participant recalled the first meeting this way:
"The first chairman of that committee dispensed with any Robert's Rules [of
Order].... He was against a split-estate law and he let industry representatives... talk
all morning long. Then in the afternoon he gave people three minutes to testify,
landowners. It was so obvious what he was doing.... I didn't know what to do, we
were just steamrolled."
Unlike the Network, Powder River was not invited to participate in designing forums, and
therefore had to work hard to establish inclusive practices. One member described her
reaction to the 2004 task force:
"So I did call [Powder River's lead organizer] that night and I ended up writing
letters to [the co-chairs] and the other members of the committee who were
Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
W
up
t
174
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
legislators... about, 'What's going
we discussing any of this? W
and not talking to anybody else?'
aren't
This member implicitly juxtaposed
of a fair process (e.g., Robert's Rul
was more inclusive, although "he s
going to take place."
Even though she was able to inf
persisted and influenced the delibe
bill - which became law - that add
Powder River's perspective.12
The Network also shaped the rule
participated in the EJ Planning Com
legitimize a bottom-up approach to
influenced four features of the fo
outreach (Dodge 2009). While each
The EJ Working Group promoted
department
contrasted
that
to
its
create
view
government
you're
going
to
Journal
the
not
a
matter
really
had
bottom-up
EJ
or
the
the
will
"put
Sania
Fe
out
a
par
New
notic
groundwork
endeavor."
Group
pr
environ
community
sending
be
outreach
agents
[get]
of
to
Working
the
to
an
with
Initially,
considered
befo
the
a
e
wea
department hired a consultant
- identified by the EJ Work
region
identify
Key
and
local priorities.
interlocutors selected
in
2004,
Listening
to gather
the
the
environment
Netw
depar
Sessions across the state. T
the perspectives of the EJ
These storylines opposed the image
justifying a bottom-up, open delib
bringing in the voices of affected
covered in deliberations.
12 Powder River wanted the loss of land value included in surface use agreements, which it got. They
wanted companies to post bonds of up to $100,000 to cover reclamation costs in the absence of a surface use
agreement (to return land to its original condition), but they only got up to $2000. They wanted 180 days
notice before development would begin but only got 30. They also wanted landowners to have equal
negotiating rights, e.g., to give or deny permission for companies to enter their land, but they did not.
Companies are now required to submit a plan of development to inform landowners, although implementation is uncertain.
^ Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Sci
(2014)
Constructing
As
these
47:161-185
the
content
organizations
175
of
shaped
public
the
d
rul
deliberation. Powder River framed
development and advocated for lan
environmental problems as systema
Early in its campaign, Powder Riv
Management (BLM), which had lea
opment. Engaging in accommodation
CBM recognized as an "experiment
mental
impacts that should be evalua
There were powerful competing s
developed "the supplemental theory
not to allow development) can be m
mented" with project level analysi
consider unique features of CBM. Re
undue
burden for industry. While ch
simultaneously acknowledged its un
by Powder River.
Pennaco won its case, but Powder R
compelling BLM to do additional a
CBM development was appropriate
resisting environmental protection i
Industry representatives and govern
Powder River of using a stall strat
have delayed CBM development rath
cursive perspective, it also forced
whether Powder River had influenc
water discharge, the... downstream
effective, in bringing forward exa
understand CBM development and i
more like they did traditional, or
uniqueness is widely acknowledged.
Powder River also advanced a story
selection of its policy storyline, a P
Permitting
Task
Force
thought
that
t
some very good recommendations
downstream landowners." However
improving permit reporting to the E
than permit enforcement and comp
Exemplifying considerable compet
ernor, according to one Powder Riv
revenues:
"Because a lot of times they [government agents] hear the [coalbe
company... at their bedside every night just telling this story... [t
13 Environmental groups thought these cases put into question the validity of BLM's
across the Powder River Basin. Industry representatives argued that these cases onl
handful of parcels that were allowed in the appeal, and did not apply to the basin a
Ö Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
176
Policy
methane
nation
speak
Sci
gas
is
(2014)
47:161-185
development
struggling,
loud
and
clear
is]
we
how
going
[in
it's
happy and... pick up the
That's the way I feel."
to
Wyom
going
pieces
t
lat
From the landowners' perspective,
reflecting a coercive form of discu
system. So while Powder River enh
getting an important issue on the ag
policy in practice.
While the Network had a considera
of environmental policy. Environme
in a governor's executive order - wh
across the state, among other acco
Mexico policy was an important c
partially selected.
For example, in the EJ Planning Co
the EJ Working Group promoted its
department adopted a definition to f
language. It states that EJ is:
"...the
fair
ethnicity,
treatment
culture,
implementation
seeks
to
ensure
and
and
meaningf
income
or
edu
enforcement
that
no
of
population
the negative human health and en
ronmental hazards" (ATRI 2004, 9
This
definition
involvement,
education,
includes
and
but
implies
EJ
conce
inequalitie
neglects
mention
inequalities. For EJ activists, howev
remedies (Schlosberg 1999). Represe
Planning Committee also began int
with" affected communities, omittin
This neutralization would persist in
example, the EJ Policy Committee
signed the in 2005 (State of New M
environmental and health hazards, r
impact environmental quality and p
this task; calls for meaningful parti
environment department. Howeve
repeated in solid waste regulations. A
in there... I've spoken to different
it's a major step." However, she not
high water...."
Industry representatives simultane
the Association for Commerce and In
Mexico
-
prepared
a
â Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
statement
o
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
177
committees to secure support for
legislation. ACI claimed that regula
and local governmental regulatory
consistency in the administrative d
a weaker threat to the Network tha
environment's deputy secretary, the
In response to these influences, the
own context to justify the develop
the EJ Policy Committee met, the
showed momentum toward EJ polic
"...testimony
the
context
regulations.
regarding
of
the
impact
environmental
Therefore,
the
pro
Secretar
impact
of an additional landfill o
or hazard to public health
Mexico 2005).
nuisance
New
The Network's executive director ar
3 years [of work] that the EJ Wor
another example, the Network refer
Environmental
Justice
to
define
me
communities, which often means
ethnicity, religion, income, or edu
mental Policy Act14 to promote the
facility in any community, reflect
mental hazards.
The Network also crafted an EJ definition for New Mexico, drawing on testimony from
the Listening Sessions that retained cultural and historical rootedness, and connection to EJ
experiences. This statement asserted that EJ:
"...aims to end disproportionate and negative environmental consequences, such as
increased health risks in poor and working class communities of color, hazardous
jobs, unsustainable depletion of natural resources, and the destruction of sacred
place. ...seeks to make business, academia, industry and government accountable to
the people and that they recognize and remedy environmental injustices resulting
from irresponsible planning, development and inherently racist policies. ...affords
equitable access of natural resources to sustain community, livelihood and culture, to
the extent it is sustainable - not detrimental to the environment - and is respectful of
Mother Earth. ...means that communities have the right to meaningful participation
and fair treatment in making, carrying out, and enforcing environmental laws"
(Espinosa and Gauna 2004, 17).
This definition sharply contrasts with the one codified in the executive order and solid
waste regulations (ATRI 2004, 97). The effort enhanced deliberative quality not by
responding directly to the sanitization of EJ language in policy, but by influencing its
conceptualization in broader public discourse beyond the immediate context.
14 NEPA, one of the first environmental laws in the US, requires federal agencies to assess environmental
impacts of proposed federal projects and document them in Environmental Impact Statements. NEPA
analysis must include provisions for public input and assess EJ impacts.
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
178
Policy
Coupling
Sci
(2014)
forums,
47:161-185
arenas,
and
courts
These two organizations operated
described coupling as a systematic
spheres logically and practically. Pow
state-sponsored forums had no logic
from one to the next (for examp
coupling made it easy for environm
In contrast, the Network's forums
practical continuity: the EJ Planni
Sessions, and its members joined t
testimony and draft policy. The Ne
ronment secretary to create the pol
The executive director argued that p
in the listening sessions, [and that
going to take place here." This sug
storylines that provide a rationale f
across these forums created a context for EJ discourse to take hold in the deliberative
system.
Coupling can also mean "group think writ large" (Mansbridge et al. 2012). In this
sense, the two organizations' experiences also differed. In Wyoming, the deliberative
system for CBM development was tightly coupled; economic arguments dominated
"drowning out" alternatives, as one member put it. In response, Powder River actively
sought to promote its storyline in spheres outside the immediate context to gain leverage.
For example, it participated in a court case in Wyoming where three oil and gas companies
sued the Environmental Protection Agency for approving new water quality standards in
Montana. These standards would impact development in Wyoming because, when CBM
produced water flows into Montana, Wyoming operators have to maintain Montana's
standards. Because Montana's standards have been historically stronger than Wyoming's,
Powder River's intervention in this case served to strengthen its own arguments, not simply
by shaping policy in Montana, but by supporting precedent-setting regulations in another
location that justified its own storyline about landowner rights and natural resource use.
In another example, Powder River stepped outside the deliberative process to shame
public officials in the media for allowing certain discourses to dominate. When the 2006
water task force was revisiting permitting processes for CBM, it held a public meeting
attended by many Powder River members. One member later wrote an opinion editorial
reflecting on this meeting:
"...we had hoped that this task force would be taking a good hard look at how the
state and the energy industry plan to improve their stewardship of a precious
Wyoming resource: Water.
The early signs made us worry.
Task force members spent most of their first morning on the job hearing about all the
money coalbed methane brings into the state. John Corra, Wyoming's top environmental regulator, went so far as to ask for even more information from the Revenue
Department.
...The committee is supposed to issue a report reviewing water management
options... [not] CBM's contribution to the state treasury..." (Rogers 2006).
â Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
He
Sci
opened
(2014)
the
47:161-185
article
179
saying,
"We
all
out every other conversation...?" T
whether or not staff at the environ
CBM water discharges. This enhanc
agency practices.
The Network also actively promot
Mexico to enhance deliberative qua
department did outreach for the li
extensive networks to do its own
members to ensure that their testi
discussing
this
"was
impacts and policy recomm
really critical for us beca
their
vantage point, they could see st
organizations, they prepared talkin
tributed them to constituents.
Supporting Fischer's findings (2006), outreach enabled members of the public to make
sense of environmental issues on their own terms and in coordinated ways that would
translate into government contexts. This reflected a discursive form of "power with" because
participants were able to align their storylines about policy in preparation for formal forums
and to show unity, and the process linked (coupled) storylines in civil society to the state.
Finally, the Network generated critical ideas - namely its definition of EJ described
above - that could be fed back into broader public discourse outside formal forums, courts,
or arenas. This work was generative. As the EJ Working Group developed its definition, its
members were in contact with national networks that were watching closely what was
happening in New Mexico. Importantly, circulating this definition allowed it to inform
future political action in other places. These activities show that coupling storylines across
spheres of the deliberative system requires active effort.
In sum, civil society organizations played an important role shaping deliberative policy
making in these cases. Both promoted storylines to convince government agencies to create
and design deliberative forums to be more inclusive of citizens who had experienced
environmental hazards. Both also promoted storylines about policy to encourage government agencies to address EJ and CBM, respectively. The Network convinced interlocutors
to adopt EJ language and won considerable policy gains. But its interlocutors began to
interpret EJ as "participation of' and "communication with" affected communities,
removing "racial discrimination." Plus, the Network had to accept moderate versions of EJ
in policy. Powder River promoted storylines about the unique impacts of CBM development and landowner rights. While it shifted the perspective of some interlocutors in
forums, and won significant court cases, its storylines were resisted in practice. It also won
legislative policy but many lamented it as too weak to be meaningful. Members attributed
this resistance to the narrative and economic power of the gas industry. While Powder
River shifted the debate, its members are largely left addressing CBM effects in individual
court cases against major corporations.
Despite these challenges, or maybe because of them, both organizations promoted
storylines in other venues. Powder River supported its counterparts in Montana, and disseminated lessons from the Wyoming experience with other communities. The Network
wrote an EJ definition and promoted it throughout its US networks to inform future
political action. These activities reflect an active, dynamic engagement of actors in the
deliberative system and point toward important dimensions of civil society organizations in
these dynamics.
£) Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
180
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
Discussion and conclusion
By drawing on an interpretive perspective of deliberative policy making, this research
advances two areas of debate in deliberative democracy theory and practice.
First, it supports research that locates deliberative forums in their surrounding political
context. Two contextual conditions noted by Hendriks (201 1) seem relevant to these cases:
the extent to which powerful interest advocates with insider status will actively resist or
support deliberative forums (84), and the level of broader discursive conflict (193). In a case
of recycling policy in Australia, Hendriks shows the relationship of these two contextual
factors to actual deliberative processes. She finds that the prospect of public deliberation was
"an especially threatening proposition to those who... managed successfully without it. It
[had the potential to] expose weak arguments, the misuse of power and issue capture" (84). In
this context, powerful interests, went "to great lengths to undermine public deliberation"
(84), resulting in 'wasted' deliberation" (85). Furthermore, there had been "a continuous tug
of war between competing groups" (76) that contributed to the difficulty participants had in
making a switch from contestation in the public sphere to deliberation.
These dynamics played out in the two cases presented in this paper. In Powder River,
the state government is widely acknowledged as captured by the gas industry (Duffy 2005),
which used its influence to interrupt public deliberation. Given the elevated discursive
context in which the public hotly contested the value of coalbed methane development,
deliberative forums also competed with other access points in the deliberative system and
were easily overruled. The water quality task forces could be described as "wasted
deliberation" because they did not result in changed policy even though problems with
water management were widely acknowledged. The split estate task force more successfully incorporated landowners concerns but in ways many landowners viewed as weak. So
while not "wasted" the deliberative forum did not reach its full potential as a mediator of
competing interests.
In the Network's case, industry representatives exited the deliberative process. While
they also had other points of access in the deliberative system (mostly due to a history of
cooperation with government agencies), they did not have the power to override the
deliberative process initiated by the environment department. Plus, EJ fell under the radar
in broader public discourse (as evidenced by the lack of media coverage) and so did not
face the kind of public opposition that Powder River experienced. In other words, deliberative forums were shielded to a large extent from contentious public discourse. These
conditions isolated forums from potential challengers and enabled the adoption of EJ
policy.
While these two contextual factors - resistance to deliberative forums and conten-
tiousness of public discourse - are important, an analysis of storylines adds to our
understanding of how context matters: the discursive context - the presence of competing
storylines in the deliberative system - will shape how participants perceive the accept-
ability of storylines promoted by civil society actors (and others), influencing whether or
not they will be selected and acted upon. In other words, storylines may have a greater
chance of being viewed as legitimate if they fit within existing notions of participation or
policy (Hendriks 2005). This rings true to some extent in both cases. For example,
members of the Network who participated in deliberative forums fully acknowledged that
the environment department had an obligation to consider the perspectives and interests of
all affected parties in making decisions. However, both cases also suggest that civil society
organizations can influence notions of participation and policy, opening new possibilities
They can thus shape the context in which they seek to affect policy.
^ Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Both
Sci
(2014)
Powder
47:161-185
River
and
181
the
Networ
moted alternatives (Dryzek 2000), he
deliberation and new "discursive hor
so
required persistent work, dialog
slowly and were constantly r
Second, my findings suggest that c
participants" in deliberative democ
shifted
erative
These
quality,
even
findings
"macro"
theories
when
support
of
acting
con
research
deliberation,
t
and
From the "micro" view, civil societ
procedural norms of deliberation (G
instead using coercion to advance n
view, civil society organizations ma
course in the public sphere (Dryzek
local knowledge (Fischer 2006), for
In practice , civil society actors in
between both "micro" and "macro"
tion of storylines that could affect f
Strategic activities interacted wi
society organizations sought the cr
and shaped the rules of the game t
Sometimes this required visiting el
working with them privately to cr
communities a chance. On the othe
threat of exit or protest at times, an
Powder River, harsh critique in the
"strategic deliberation," which.
"...recognizes
mutual
that
public
understanding.
deliberatio
It...
takes pl
and communicative action.... It is
particular ends; but it is 'deliberati
process based on the ideals of com
She rightly indicates that strategi
mutually exclusive. But I depart w
impartiality' (citing Elster 1995), w
impartial
terms.
We
should
not
striv
Should EJ activists who are mora
facilities in their neighborhoods problems from chemical exposure
deliberation is not a normative ide
outrage,
as activists are encouraged
deliberation looks like" (214).
Therefore, in these cases, deliber
describe the contribution of these
erative forums from the perspecti
injustices. They may show willingn
under
conditions
of
impartiality.
Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Rath
182
Policy
action
if
claims
efforts
Sci
47:161-185
deliberative
about
to
discourse
(2014)
rules
simultaneously
to
shut
environmental
bring
them
hazar
promote
attention
to
s
injus
goes - on the contrary, confrontati
the functionality of conflict in de
I
do
not
They
mean
may
be
to
argue
that
exclusive
civil
so
(Schwade
(Eliasoph 1998), or promote hatred
more, they may have limited capac
(Sirianni 2009). But some civil soc
character of deliberative forums an
the particular type of communicat
losberg 1995) and that is essential
This article contributes to a growin
deliberative democracy by examini
tion and coupling processes, and ho
public deliberation. The practical im
role civil society organizations play
on the agenda, shaping deliberative
reveal new dimensions of problem
could do well to develop skills neede
capacity to mobilize and prepare
deliberative quality. These contribut
example, to do effective outreach, a
all interest groups are equally repre
is a promising avenue to pursue.
Acknowledgments
I
gratefully
acknowled
Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice and the Powder River Basin Resource Council
for their contribution to this research. They brought to interviews a deep knowledge of their respective social
change efforts. This research was supported by the Research and Documentation component of Leadership
for a Changing World (LCW), a program sponsored by the Ford Foundation; I recognize the contributions of
my colleagues at the Research Center for Leadership in Action, and our co-researchers and partners in this
program who shaped my understanding of social change work. An earlier version of this article was
presented at the American Political Science Association conference, September 2013. My thanks to John
Dryzek, Stephen Elstub, Selen Ercan, Frank Fischer, and Ricardo Fabrino Mendonça for their comments and
conversation.
References
Alliance for Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). (2004). Final report: A report on environmental
justice in New Mexico. Santa Fe: New Mexico Environment Department.
Baber, W. F., & Bartlett, R. V. (2007). Problematic participants in deliberative democracy: Experts, social
movements, and environmental justice. International Journal of Public Administration, 30 , 5-22.
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and
assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26 , 61 1-639.
15 Confrontational action can be justifiable when activists seek to bring attention to issue of justice and
fairness (Fung 2005; Young 2001), enhance overall deliberative quality (Mansbridge et al. 2012), respond to
unfair procedural conditions (Hendriks 201 1; Estlund, 2001), or provide "a kind of expressive force... that
can aid understanding in a conflict" (Hendriks 201 1, 30, citing Mansbridge 1999).
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Sci
Bingham,
(2014)
L.
stakeholder
B.,
and
47:161-185
Nabatchi,
citizen
T.,
183
&
O'Leary
participation
in
th
547-558.
Bleizeffer, D. (2003). Some violations linger, despite notification. Cheyenne Star Tribune, p. 9.
Boswell, J. (2013). Why and how narrative matters in deliberative systems. Political Studies, 6/(3),
620-636.
Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The
case of problem formulation for the African American men project of Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568-584.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). (2003). Final environmental impact statement and proposed plan
amendment for the Powder River Basin oil and gas project: ( WY-070-02-065)/U.S . Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office and Buffalo Field Office: [Cheyenne,
Wyo.ļ: Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office; [Buffalo. Wyo.ļ: Bureau of Land
Management, Buffalo Field Office, [20031.
Chambers, S., & Kopstein, J. (2001). Bad civil society. Political Theory, 29(6), 837-865.
Clandinin, D., & Connelly, F. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, R. (1975). Conflict sociology : Toward an explanatory science. American Press.
Cook, F. L., Delli Carpini, M. X., & Jacobs, L. R. (2007). Who deliberates? Discursive participation in
America. In S. W. Rosenburg (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Cordova, T., Bravo, J. T., Gauna, J., Moore, R., & Solis, R. (2000). Building networks to tackle global
restructuring: The environmental and economic justice movement. In J. J. Betancur & D. C. Gills
(Eds.), The collaborative city: Opportunities and struggles for Blacks and Latinos in U.S. cities (pp.
177-196). New York and London: Garland Publishing.
Dodge, J. (2009). Environmental justice and deliberative democracy: How social change organizations
respond to power in the deliberative system. Policy and Society, 28(3), 225-239.
Dodge, J. (2010). Tensions in deliberative practice: A view from civil society. Critical Policy Studies, 4{ 4),
384-404.
Dodge, J., Ospina, S. M., & Foldy, E. G. (2005). Integrating rigor and relevance in public administration
scholarship: The contribution of narrative inquiry. Public Administration Review, 65(3), 286-300.
Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations (Vol. 1). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Duffy, R. J. (2005). Political mobilization, venue change, and the coal bed methane conflict in Montana and
Wyoming. Natural Resources Journal, 45(Spring), 409-440.
Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Elster, J. (1995). Local justice in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Espinosa, J. M., & Gauna, E. (2004). Environmental justice background report for the New Mexico Environment Department. Santa Fe: University of New Mexico and ATR Institute.
Feldman, M. S. (2005). Management and public management. The Academy of Management Journal , 6, 958.
Feldman, M. S., & Khademian, A. M. (2005). Principles for public management practice: From dichotomies
to interdependence. In R. Hodges (Ed.), Governance and the Public Sector (pp. 140-162), Corporate
Governance in the New Global Economy series. An Elgar Reference Collection. Cheltenham,
Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: democracy
and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fischer, F. (2006). Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: The cultural politics of discursive space. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19-40.
Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The Argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning/edited by Frank
Fischer and John Forester. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative
practice/edited by Frank Fischer and Herbert Gottweis. Durham: Duke University Press.
^ Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
184
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
Forester,
J. (1993a). Critical
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
theory,
publi
Forester,
J. (1993b). Learning from practice
and Regional Planning, Cornell Universit
Forester, J. F. (1999). The deliberative pra
bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Fung, A. (2003). Survey article: Recipes f
consequences. Journal of Political Philo
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (Eds.). (2003). D
participatory governance. New York: Ve
Gutman,
A.,
&
Thompson,
Harvard University Press.
Gutman, A., & Thompson, D.
D.
F.
(1996).
(2004).
Dem
Why
Press.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and no
(W. Rehg Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press
Hajer, M. A. (1997). The politics of enviro
process. Oxford: Oxford University Pres
Hajer, M. A. (2009). Authoritative govern
Hajer. Oxford, New York: Oxford Unive
Hajer, M., & Versteeg, W. (2005). A decade
challenges, perspectives. Journal of Env
Hajer,
M.
A.,
&
Wagenaar,
H.
(2003).
Del
network society/edited by Maarten Haje
University Press.
Hendriks, C. M. (2005). Participatory storyl
38( 1), 1-20.
Hendriks, C. M. (2006). Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society's dual role in deliberative
democracy. Political Studies, 54(3), 486-508.
Hendriks, C. M. (2011). The politics of public deliberation: Citizen engagement and interest advocacy.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hoppe, R. (2011). The governance of problems: Puzzling, powering and participation. Bristol, UK: The
Policy Press.
Howarth, D., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2000). Introducing discourse theory and political analysis. In S. D. H. Y. &
A. J. Norval (Eds.), Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change
(pp. 1-23). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Kingdon, J. W. (201 1). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. New York: Longman.
Koontz, T. M., & Johnson, E. M. (2004). One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder
participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences, 2, 185.
Lejano, R. P., & Leong, C. (2012). A hermeneutic approach to explaining and understanding public controversies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4 , 793.
Levine, P., & Nierras, R. M. (2007). Activists' views of deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1),
1-14.
Macedo, S., Alex-Assensoh, Y., Berry, J. M., Brintnall, M., Campbell, D. E., Fraga, L. R., et al. (2005).
Democracy at risk. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy
and disagreement, 7,21 1-239.
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Christiano, T., Fung, A., Parkinson, J., et al. (2012). Deliberative
system: Theories of institutional design. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems:
Deliberative democracy at the large scale (pp. 1-26). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mendelberg, T., & Karpowitz, C. (2007). How people deliberate about justice: Groups, gender, and decision
rules. In S. W. Rosenberg (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy (pp. 101-129). New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Montpetit, E., Scala, F., & Fortier, I. (2004). The paradox of deliberative democracy: The National Action
Committee on the Status of Women and Canada's policy on reproductive technology. Policy sciences,
57(2), 137-157.
Nalbandian, J. (1999). Facilitating community, enabling democracy: New roles for local government
managers. Public Administration Review , 3, 187.
â Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Policy
Sci
(2014)
47:161-185
185
Nelson, A., & Pettit, C. (2004). Effective c
forest management case study. Australi
Niemi, J. I. (2005). Jurgen Habermas' s theo
between communicative and strategic ac
Norval, A. (2008). Aversive democracy; Inh
Cambridge University Press.
Pelletier, D., Kraak, V., McCullum, C., Uu
through deliberative democracy: an empir
2, 103.
Powder River Basin Resource Council (PRBRC). (2005). 2005 Annual report. Sheridan: Powder River
Basin Resource Council.
Pralle, S. B. (2006). Branching out, digging in: Environmental advocacy and agenda setting. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Roberts, N. (1997). Public deliberation: An alternative approach to crafting policy and setting direction.
Public Administration Review , 2, 124.
Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (1994). The politics of problem definition : Shaping the policy agenda/
edited by David A. Rochefort and Roger W. Cobb. Lawrence, Kan: University Press of Kansas.
Rogers, T. (2006). Keeping CBM task force on task. Casper Star Tribune.
Schlosberg, D. (1995). Comunicative action in practice: Inter-subjectivity and new social movements.
Political Studies , 43, 291-31 1.
Schlosberg, D. (1999). Environmental justice and the new pluralism : The challenge of difference for
environmentalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of
Kansas.
Schwadel, P. (2002). Testing the promise of the churches: Income inequality in the opportunity to learn civic
skills in Christian congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(3): 565-575.
Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Judging quality: Evaluative entena epistemic communities. In D. Yanow & P.
Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive
turn (pp. 89-1 14). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.
Sirianni, C. (2009). Investing in democracy: Engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Brookings
Institution Press.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stivers, C. (1994). The listening bureaucrat: Responsiveness in public administration. Public Administration
Review, 54( 4), 364-369.
Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stones and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2),
281-300.
Surdam, R., Clayton, T., Fox, K., Hulme, D., Lind, K., Palma, J., et al. (2003). Permitting task force report:
Review and evaluation of the national pollutant discharge elimination system permitting process.
Wyoming: Department of Environmental Quality.
Thomas, C. (2001). Habitat conservation planning: Certainly empowered, somewhat deliberative, questionably democratic. Politics & Society, 29(1), 105-130.
Torpe, L. (2003). Democracy and associations in Denmark: Changing relationships between individuals and
associations. Nonprofit and voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 , 329-343.
WDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality) (2005a). Soil survey handbook: 618-Soil properties and qualities. Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, http://deq.state.wy.us/
wqd/wypdes_permitting/WYPDES_cbm/Pages/CBM_Watershed_Permitting/Bibliography/
BibliographyDownloads/NRCS%20Soil%20Survey%20Handbook.pdf.
WDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality) (2005b). Water Quality Rules and Regulations:
Chapter 8. Wyoming: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/
wqdrules/Chapter_08.pdf.
Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington:
Georgetown University Press.
Yanow, D. (2004). Translating local knowledge at organizational peripheries*. British Journal of Management, /5(S1), S9-S25.
Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the
interpretive turn. ME Sharpe Inc.
Young, I. M. (2001). Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 670-690.
Zwart, I. (2003). A greener alternative? Deliberative democracy meets local government. Environmental
Politics , /2(2), 23.
Ô Springer
This content downloaded from
52.221.81.25 on Mon, 18 Apr 2022 13:02:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms