Interactive Policy Development: Undermining or Sustaining Democracy

Public Administration Vol. 83 No. 1, 2005 (179–199)© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,Malden, MA 02148, USA.

INTERACTIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT: UNDERMINING OR SUSTAINING DEMOCRACY?

IGOR MAYER, JURIAN EDELENBOS AND RENÉ MONNIKHOF

The question can be raised whether the principal effect of interactive policy developmentis to shore up a (creaking) democratic system or to destabilize its very foundations.In this article, a framework is presented for assessing the democratic credentials ofinteractive policy development. It is based on four views on how a democracyshould work: instrumental or substantial democracy and direct or indirect demo-cracy. Critics and advocates differ in their confidence that the intended aims can everbe realized. Based on extensive case study material of interactive local policy devel-opment projects collected between 1997 and 2001, the validity of the various argu-ments for or against interactive policy-making is analysed. The analysis indicatesthat whether interactive policy development undermines or sustains democracydepends principally on the extent to which divergences in the expectations ofthe various groups are made explicit and unrealistic or mistaken expectations aredispelled.

INTRODUCTION: UNDER THE SPELL OF INTERACTIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Since the early 1990s, Dutch politicians and civil servants have been underthe spell of interactive policy development. Considerable energy and hopehave been invested in this new method of policy development, with experi-ments particularly common at the local level and for spatial planning andinfrastructure projects – the redevelopment of a town square or the buildingof a road, for example (Edelenbos 1999, 2000; Edelenbos and Monnikhof1998a, 2001). The development towards participatory processes can also bediscerned in countries outside The Netherlands (inter alia DeLeon 1992,1994; Durning 1993; Renn et al. 1995; Peters 1996; Healy 1997; Coenen et al.1998; Fischer 2000; Mason 2000; Dobbs and Moore 2002; Murray and Greer2002). Many definitions and descriptions of interactive policy developmentcan be found in the relevant academic and professional literature (Renn et al.1995; Healy 1997, Verweij and Josling 2003). A general element in those defin-itions is that government develops policy in consultation and co-operationwith stakeholders, either professional organizations or individual citizens.Interactive policy-making however is a multi-faceted phenomenon that can

Igor Mayer is in the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management (TPM) at Delft University ofTechnology. Jurian Edelenbos is in the Centre for Public Management at the Erasmus UniversityRotterdam. René Monnikhof works for the Province of Fryslân.

180 IGOR MAYER, JURIAN EDELENBOS AND RENÉ MONNIKHOF

© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005

be looked at from a number of theoretical perspectives. In order to avoidsemantic discussions about what it is (and is not) we will simply defineinteractive policy-making as ‘the early involvement of individual citizensand organized stakeholders in public policy-making in order to explore pol-icy problems and develop solutions in an open and fair process of debatethat has influence on political decision-making’ (cf. Edelenbos 2000, p. 39).

The plea for interactive policy development has, at first sight, the appear-ance of being a solid one. Policy-makers and administrators are vulnerableto the criticism that their plans and decisions are the products of a predom-inantly inward-looking politico-administrative assessment process. In otherwords, the perception is that decision-making is opaque and excludesimportant stakeholders, especially ‘ordinary’ citizens and non-experts(Fischer 2000). This state of affairs is neither healthy for democracy norconducive to quality of policy (see King 2003; Verweij and Josling 2003).Interactive policy development is seen as instrumental in forcing the policy-making process open – clearly a desirable objective.

Advocates of interactive policy development point out that citizens andpressure groups possess obstructive power. Involving parties with obstruct-ive power in the development of policy at an early stage reduces the risk of apolicy’s implementation being impeded by legal proceedings and othertactics employed by those who oppose it (Renn et al. 1995; Healey 1997). Theinvolvement of citizens and stakeholders may prolong the early phases ofpolicy development, but by securing support, policy implementation isenormously speeded up.

Furthermore, citizens and pressure groups can enrich the policy-makingprocess by providing knowledge, information and other forms of input thatwould otherwise be difficult for ‘deskbound’ policy-makers and administra-tors to have at their disposal (Lopez Cerezo et al. 1996; Fischer 2000; Enserinkand Monnikhof 2003). No one can provide as much local insight to aidplanning for the redevelopment of, say, a town square, as the managers ofbusinesses based around that square, the people who make use of it and thegroups who work to protect the natural and human environment in thearea. Such parties should therefore work together as closely as possible withthe officials and experts behind the project to devise good plans and goodideas.

Although the precise approach taken varies from project to project, inter-active policy development normally involves inviting representatives of allinterested parties and groups at an early stage to provide considered inputto the process of developing policy. In liaison, stakeholders, policy-makersand, where appropriate, external consultants, identify problems and presentsolutions. The process is often supervised by independent process managers,who utilize working methods and group techniques designed to promotecreativity, openness and result-oriented working among the participants(Fiskin 1991; Edelenbos, 1999; Bruijn et al. 2002). Interactive policy develop-ment differs from traditional public consultation procedures mainly in the

INTERACTIVE POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOCRACY 181


fact that stakeholders are involved early enough to influence policy as it isformulated, as opposed to merely being given the opportunity to modifyproposals slightly after they have been developed.

Interactive policy development would therefore appear to be a construct-ive new approach to policy-making in a modern democracy, since: (1) itmakes policy-makers more responsive to the diverse interests and wishes ofdifferent stakeholders and stakeholder-groups; (2) it reduces the felt gapbetween the citizen and the administration; and (3) by introducing othersources of information and insights, it results in better policy with a moresolid basis.

APPLYING THE YARDSTICK OF DEMOCRACY

Numerous experiments in interactive policy development have alreadytaken place in The Netherlands. Among the better-known examples are theInfralab approach used by the Department of Public Works, and the ‘testinggrounds’ projects run by the Dutch Centre for Political Participation (IPP) invarious municipalities around The Netherlands. Recent evaluations, mainlyof local projects, have revealed that Dutch experience with interactive policydevelopment has been mixed (Edelenbos 2000; Edelenbos and Monnikhof1998a, 2001). Experiences from outside Holland also show mixed results(inter alia Renn et al. 1995; Flyvbjerg 1998; Coenen et al. 1998). In some cases,persons and parties involved have expressed unequivocal disappointmentwith the process; citizens find that solutions they have put forward areinsufficiently reflected in the policies ultimately adopted; elected councillorsfeel that their authority is undermined and local government officers arecritical of the quality of the ideas and solutions. On some occasions, theseexperiments seem to have reinforced rather than to have reduced themutual mistrust between citizens and administrators.

In other words, looking at the experience in The Netherlands, it appearson closer inspection that, for all the benefits it can bring to a modern democ-racy, there is a downside to interactive policy development. This observa-tion raises questions about the relationship between interactive policydevelopment and democracy. Just how representative and legitimate are theinteractive meetings attended by citizens and community representatives?Does interactive policy development discourage backroom politics or, onthe contrary, encourage it? What is the role of elected administrators in theinteractive processes and how should they deal with the outcomes of suchprocesses? In what ways and with what consequences do the formal proced-ures of the Dutch representative democracy come into contact or, moreseriously, into conflict with the process of interactive policy development?Does interactive policy development increase political participation andinterest within the community or does it further widen the gap betweenpeople and their elected representatives?

The debate on the democratic credentials of interactive policy developmentproves a platform for expressing a diversity of arguments and experiences.



The result is a confused picture that is based on different perceptions ofdemocracy (cf. Williams and Matheney 1995). From different perspectives,interactive policy development has been variously portrayed by commenta-tors as sustaining democracy or as undermining it.

So, again looking at The Netherlands, is the principal effect of interactivepolicy development that of shoring up the creaking Dutch democratic sys-tem or of destabilizing its very foundations? This is the main questionaddressed in this article and to answer it, we believe a context is required inwhich the arguments and conflicting views regarding the (un)democraticnature of interactive policy development can be understood more fully(cf. Williams and Matheney 1995). From the perspective of public managementor public administration, this seems an important and useful objective.When the different arguments and perspectives on the democratic creden-tials of interactive policy-making can be ‘framed’ more systematically, wemay derive from it some guidelines on how to communicate more effect-ively about a specific interactive policy-making project to the various stake-holders involved. It would allow us to examine more closely the pastexperiences, the benefits to be gained and the pitfalls to be avoided. It mayalso help to elicit the different expectations involved, to examine where thepossible conflicts are and to develop arrangements for managing thoseexpectations.

In this article, we present such a context in order to assess the democraticcredentials of interactive policy development. This context is elaborated andillustrated by reference to the possible examples and arguments put forwardboth by advocates and critics in their fragmented ‘debate’ about the implic-ations of interactive policy development for democracy. Underlying thesepositions of advocates and critics, of course, we find rather fundamental dis-courses about whether ordinary citizens can be enlightened; whether theyare willing and able to participate actively in all sorts of political issues;whether they are willing to place collective interests above particular inter-ests, but also whether politicians and policy-makers are really willing to andcapable of responding to societal needs. In order to lend focus to our argu-ment, we will not explore these underlying philosophical discourses moredeeply (see, for example, Williams and Matheny (1995) for an excellent ana-lysis of such discourses and perceptions in environmental disputes). We willfocus here on the main arguments, arranged as a simple dichotomy of advo-cates and critics. We assess the modest amount of independent empiricalresearch data currently available on interactive policy development to seewhether the evidence tends to support one or the other, advocates or critics.We then present some conclusions and make a number of recommendationson the subject of how to move interactive policy development more in linewith democratic principles.

In this paper, interactive policy development and democracy are exam-ined primarily at the local, municipal level. It is on this level that in TheNetherlands most progress has been made in terms of interactive policy



development. Likewise, the municipal level has been the subject of mostresearch and has the greatest actual or potential impact on the working ofthe democratic system in The Netherlands. The Netherlands takes the formof a decentralized unitary state. This means that a hierarchic steering sys-tem, the central government, exists but that many responsibilities and tasksare decentralized to the provincial or local level or to regional functionalbodies, an example being the Dutch water boards. The tasks of these decen-tralized levels and bodies are carried out with a high degree of autonomy,but within the boundaries set by legislation from (central) government(Woltjer 2000).

SETTING THE DEMOCRATIC BASIS

The relationship between interactive policy development and the quality ofthe democratic system is viewed in different ways. Some praise interactivepolicy development as revitalizing democracy – an injection of direct democ-racy into an ailing representative body (DeSario and Langton 1987; Dryzek1990; DeLeon 1992; Fischer 2000). Others regard it as contributing to the(continuing) decay of formal representative democracy – eroding the pri-macy of the elected politicians and fragmenting political decision-making(Pelletier et al. 1999). The divergence between these viewpoints can beexplained on two levels.

First, there are different normative views on how a democracy shouldwork. Divergent theoretical concepts of democracy lead to different notionsabout interactive policy development, each associated with another setof ambitions and expectations; in practical situations these are liable toclash.

Second, the form taken by interactive policy development in practice isnot always consistent with the theoretical constructs. In other words, it canbe ‘a nice idea that doesn’t work out’. Critics and advocates of interactivepolicy development differ in their confidence that the intended aims canever be realized. To decide whether interactive policy development under-mines or sustains Dutch democracy, therefore, it is necessary first to explorethe different standpoints.

Instrumental and substantial democracyFirst, a consideration of the theoretical issues. Normative views of the democ-ratic system and the way it works differ. In particular, one may view democ-racy as either instrumental or substantial. The instrumental view seesdemocracy as essentially a decision-making procedure, with the democraticpolitical system as a machine for resolving issues – an ‘issue machine’ asBraybrooke called it (Braybrooke 1974). Democracy is an efficient means ofreaching decisions that provides good long-term results while protectingthe individual freedom of the citizen. Considerable emphasis is placed on theformal procedures for the election of representatives, who duly translate thepreferences of the electorate into policy. The wishes of the public are



expressed by the leaders of organized groups or by elected representatives,who can be removed following elections. The essence of this view is that itsees democracy as converting the ‘will of the people’ into policy as effect-ively as possible.

Alternatively, in a substantial view, democracy is considered as worth-while in its own right. For advocates of this view, democracy is more of asocial ideal than a decision-making procedure. Since public involvement ingovernment policy is integral to this ideal, active and vocal citizenship is tobe encouraged (Daneke 1983; DeSario and Langton 1987; Fiorino 1989; Lynn1990). The principal differences between the instrumental and substantialvisions of democracy are summarized in table 1 (see also Pateman 1970;Macpherson 1979; Klijn and Koppenjan 2000).

Direct and indirect democracyThere are various ways in which a democratic system can perform thenormative functions outlined above. Again, two basic models are recog-nized: indirect (or representative) democracy and direct (or participative)democracy (Pitkin 1972; Wagschal 1997). Direct democracy generally involvesthe people either assenting or rejecting a project or law themselves; in arepresentative democracy on the other hand the electorate votes for partiesor individuals on the basis of policy packages and programmes. In otherwords, the citizens of a direct democracy vote directly on specific policyproposals, whereas in an indirect democracy decision-making power isdelegated to the citizens’ elected representatives.

In all current democracies, some form of a representative system is used,since the involvement of all individual citizens in every political decisionwould be impractical. Nevertheless, almost all existing democracies alsopossess certain features that may be regarded as manifestations of directdemocracy, such as citizens’ initiatives and referenda in parliamentarysystems.

TABLE 1 Instrumental and substantial view of democracy

Instrumental view Substantial view

View of democracy Decision-making machine Societal idealConcept of freedom Negative freedom (limitation

of the power of the state by legal protection of rights and right to vote)

Positive freedom (personal development of citizens)

Relation between state and civil society

State is the executive organ of society existing above individual parties

State and society are each able to function because of the other (political and social democracy are inseparably linked)

Role of government To guarantee civil rights and to implement the will of the people

To support democratic society (create opportunities for participation)



A framework for interactive policy developmentBy treating the ‘directness’ of a democracy (i.e. whether it is direct or indir-ect) as a condition variable and using the substantial and instrumental viewsof democracy as normative ‘filters’ for the assessment of this condition, onearrives at the framework shown in table 2. An observer might regard eithera direct or indirect democratic procedure as the most suitable vehicle for therealization of a thriving instrumental or substantial form of democracy.Although the different cells in the framework are not mutually exclusive,different observers will nevertheless place the emphasis in different areas.An individual’s view of where the emphasis lies will determine what he orshe sees as the principle role of interactive policy formulation – the fourbasic possibilities being outlined in the four quadrants.

In the upper left quadrant, ‘Giving power to the people’, direct democracyis seen as an important democratic procedure for the realization of instru-mental objectives. A critical aspect of the instrumental vision is the way inwhich the will of the people is translated into policy. This may be by meansof a representative system, but in principle also by means of direct democ-racy. Historically, the main reason for opting for a representative form ofdemocracy has been its assumed greater efficiency in the context of a largesociety: in other words, the impracticality of comprehensive direct decision-making. An instrumental vision of interactive policy development as a formof direct democracy involves power or influence being transferred to ‘thepeople’ by the adoption of interactive policy development as a means ofimplementing the will of the people. This implies a fairly fundamental shiftfrom representative democracy to direct democracy. Such a vision of inter-active policy development assumes the municipal council or parliamentpartially surrendering its primacy to the people. This may take a retrospect-ive form – overrule by corrective referendum – or a prospective form, that is,participative policy development and decision-making.

In the upper right quadrant, ‘Bringing democracy under the people’scontrol’, interactive policy development is viewed essentially as a tool for

TABLE 2 The democratic basis of interactive policy development

Instrumental: decision-making mechanism

Substantial: societal ideal

Direct (participative) democracy

Giving power to the people

Interactive policy development as a means to exercise direct influence on policy content

Bringing democracy under the people’s control

Interactive policy development as a medium for democratic expression

Indirect (representative) democracy

Securing input from the people

Interactive policy development to contribute to optimize policy

Involving the people in democracy

Interactive policy development as a channel for representative democracy



democratic development and the expression of citizens’ views. Interactivepolicy development enables more citizens to participate in the democraticprocess. In addition, those who are not members of the vociferous few canparticipate. Political participation of this kind allows ordinary people todevelop into ‘true citizens’ in a democratic society. Such objectives arerealized by the education of, and deliberation with, large sections of thepopulation.

In the lower left quadrant, ‘Securing input from the people’, power, orpolitical primacy, remains with the existing political institutions of therepresentative democracy. The most important issue here is the extent towhich interactive policy development facilitates these institutions in trans-lating the will of the people into better policy. In this context, better policymeans policy that is more consistent with the will of (the relevant section of)the population. The involvement of more interests, parties, opinions andsources of information in the decision-making process means that theexisting institutions are better placed to make good decisions. A welcomespin-off is that the legitimacy of, and support for, the ultimate decision areincreased, thus enhancing the efficiency of the representative system.

Finally, in the lower right quadrant, ‘Involving the people in democracy’,interactive policy development is seen mainly as providing new channelsfor participation in the representative system. Involvement in interactivepolicy development can lead to the formation of new contacts betweencitizens and politicians, and enables citizens to acquaint themselves withand come to a better understanding of the working of the representativedemocratic system. The participants may also become more active withinthat system. Interactive policy development leads to improved relationsbetween the people and the administration and can prevent or diminish thedevelopment of an undesirable distance between the governed and thegovernors.

Critics versus advocatesCritics and advocates hold divergent views of the practical implications ofthe benefits outlined above. Advocates expect interactive policy develop-ment to make a real difference for the form of democracy they advocate.Critics believe that interactive policy development will in practice be of novalue to, or may even detract from, their preferred type of democracy.Therefore, the critic and the advocate represent the two sides of the democ-ratic dilemma that interactive policy development raises for a representativedemocracy.

We analyse here the arguments put forward by both advocates and critics,by reference to the four views of interactive policy development discussedabove. The various arguments themselves are summarized in table 3. In ouranalysis, available research data and information from experiences withinteractive policy development are introduced wherever possible. We basedthe views of critics and advocates on interactive policy development mainly



on case study material that we derived from a research project into thedevelopment of participatory democracy systems that took place between1997–2001 (Edelenbos and Monnikhof 1998a, 2001). The research project,named the ‘Testing Grounds of Democracy Project’, came about as the resultof an invitation by the Dutch Centre for Political Participation (IPP).Researchers from five universities studied projects in seven differentmunicipalities in which the IPP was involved as a process architect and

TABLE 3 The democratic dilemmas of interactive policy development

Instrumental: decision-making mechanism

Substantial: societal ideal

Direct (participative democracy)

Advocates: Influence argument

Interactive policy development gives citizens more direct influence on political decision-making (i.e. leads to participative decision-making). Combination with referenda and prior council commitment is possible.

Advocates: Education argument

Interactive policy development makes people more enthusiastic about democracy and educates ‘ordinary’ citizens to participate in deliberation processes (debate) within an open society. Even the politically inert can become active citizens.

Critics: Sham and manipulation argument

Interactive policy development is a sham; the real decisions are taken elsewhere. Legitimacy of interactive policy development is compromised by participants’ lack of real representative credentials.

Critics: Disinterest and deterrence argument

The requirements for participation in interactive policy development are generally too high for ‘ordinary’ citizens. The existence of structural inequality, and the confrontation with it, is rather intimidating to citizens.

Indirect (representative democracy)

Advocates: Support and enrichment argument

Citizens and pressure groups may have obstructive power, but they also have relevant knowledge. Interactive policy development leads to greater support and enriches policy.

Advocates: Cleavage-closing argument

Interactive policy development strengthens representative democracy. New channels of communication are opened between political institutions and society. Interest in and understanding of politics are promoted; recruitment of members and candidates is facilitated.

Critics: ‘Democracy of the loudmouths’

Interactive policy development leads to the concentration of power in the hands of those who oppose development (nimbys), shout loudest and have the time to campaign. Ordinary citizens contribute very little. Good solutions may even perish in the process.

Critics: Political primacy argument

Interactive policy development weakens representative democracy. It erodes the power of democratically elected political institutes (local councils, Parliament), which are sidelined by alliances of the populace and pressure groups.



manager. We aimed for a diversity of various projects as far as type, size,complexity of issues and chosen forms of participatory policy-making wereconcerned, in order to be able to obtain rich exploratory material. Weresearched a number of elements simultaneously, for example: (1) the suit-ability of the problem selected for a interactive process; (2) the influence ofexisting institutions on the process; and (3) the degree of participation(using an adaptation of the participation ladder of Arnstein 1971). We alsolooked into the outcomes of the participatory processes and tried to discernhow and in how far stakeholder input survived in these outcomes duringand after the participatory process (Monnikhof and Edelenbos 2001).

We carried out three measurements at three different times in the inter-active process: (1) at the beginning of the process; (2) during the process;and (3) after the process had ended. Before, after and in between these meas-urements, we followed the course of the processes through observation andthe analysis of documents such as reports and correspondence. During theinteractive process, we held additional ‘update’ interviews with key personsin the process: process managers and civil servants, for example. For thethird measurement we again carried out interviews with the stakeholders inthe process.

In order to focus our discussion and because it has been discussed atlength elsewhere (Edelenbos 2000; Edelenbos and Monnikhof 1998a, 2001;Monnikhof and Bots 2000) we will not present and discuss the empiricalmaterial in great detail here but instead use it eclectically to clarify and illus-trate the main arguments for and against interactive policy-making.

DIRECT INSTRUMENTAL DEMOCRACY: INFLUENCE TO THE PEOPLE?

The assessment of interactive policy development as a vehicle of directdemocracy involves its judgement against strict criteria. In this context,interactive policy development is expected to find direct and materialexpression in political decision-making. In effect, it is a mild form of partici-pative political decision-making. This implies that the interactive processmust meet high standards in terms of its democratic legitimacy: it has to beopen, fair and representative.

AdvocatesAdvocates assume that any new procedures, role patterns and work formsassociated with interactive policy development – more active councillors,for example – can easily be accommodated in the existing representativeinstitutions. Direct democracy and indirect democracy are not mutuallyexclusive, but can be complementary; this in turn may lead to a completelynew form of democracy: the hybrid democracy (Edelenbos and Monnikhof1998b). In such a democracy, citizens participate on a large scale not onlyin the formulation of policy principles, but also in the specification ofpolicy.



In The Netherlands, various municipalities are currently experimentingwith new democratic institutions, such as the Right to Initiate and a right to‘shadow council members’. In the city of Utrecht, for example, residents cansubmit their own plans for improvements to their streets, neighbourhoodsor districts directly to the municipal council. However, this Right to Initiateis not entirely unconditional. Proposals can be made only by residents of thecity who are registered to vote and must be supported by at least 25 suchindividuals from the same street or neighbourhood. A shadow partyinvolves ordinary citizens sitting on a council committee. Another examplecomes from the town of Waalre, where non-councillors have been appointedto council committees since 1999. A similar system is in use in the munici-pality of Ruurlo.

Furthermore, interactive policy development sometimes involves givingcitizens a form of decision-making power through prior commitment by therepresentative institutions. In Leerdam, where plans for the renovation of asquare were to be developed on an interactive basis, the consultation groupwas promised by the relevant alderman that the plans would be presentedto the council unamended, provided that the plan stayed within the speci-fied parameters. The council reserved its formal decision-making authority,but undertook to modify the plans only if and where a strong case could bemade for such modifications. In practice, the working group’s unanimouslysupported plan was adopted by the council without amendment.

CriticsThe critical view of interactive policy development as a form of direct democ-racy is based on two perceived problems: manipulation and non-representa-tiveness. Some critics suggest that interactive policy development is usedmerely as a non-committal means of securing support for initiators’ ownpolicies. Interactive policy development is separate from the real exercise ofpower. It is a sham – a talking shop designed to give citizens the idea thatthey can express their opinions and air their views. Officials, administratorsand politicians only take up the ideas emerging from interactive policydevelopment if they suit them. Municipal administrators, it is alleged, typ-ically use interactive policy development as a last means of getting a policyadopted by a sceptical municipal council. Critics also point to the opportun-ity for those who initiate the debate to manipulate it through their controlover the timing, the subject matter, the formulation of issues and so on.

The second reason for pessimism is irreconcilable with the first and con-cerns the issue of the participants not being genuinely representative. It isargued that the actual participants in interactive policy development are akind of interactive elite made up of well-educated, white individuals withmuch time on their hands and especially of those who are against the pro-posals being discussed. Critics who worry about the representativeness ofthe participants believe that the emphasis on interactive policy developmentcripples political decision-making, since the process does not deliver results



that reflect the will of the people any better than the results of representativedecision-making. Even if participation were widened, the structural differ-ences and inequalities between citizens in terms of knowledge, skills, status,social class, and so on, would mean that some people were more able toinfluence opinion and decision-making than others. And this would oncemore call into question the representativeness of the results. Such criticstherefore regard the extensive use of interactive policy development to be ofa questionable nature, harbouring the risk of undermining representativedemocracy.

The interactive mechanism for devising a new town plan in the munici-pality of De Bilt is used as an example of the fact that interactive policydevelopment can be a sham. The introduction of interactive policy develop-ment was motivated primarily by the municipal executive’s increasing frus-tration at the council’s repeated rejection of its proposed plans. Theinteractive process was nothing but a last-resort attempt to get the council togo along with the plan. It was principally in the early stages of the inter-active policy development process – the so-called opinion-forming phase –that citizens were given the opportunity to put forward their ideas aboutproblems, starting-points and solutions. At the end of the interactive policyprocess, however, the proposal that was to go before the council was formu-lated internally by officials (with the help of external consultants). Althougha sounding board group had the opportunity to comment on parts of thedraft proposal, fairly concrete feedback from the interactive process wastranslated into abstract proposals; seven activities were prioritized, of whichsix entailed the development of further plans.

The interactive development of a zoning plan in Doetinchem, which didresult in a plan that reflected participants’ input to a considerable extent,illustrates the problems of non-representativeness. Roughly three-quartersof the (around 40) participants in the interactive process were male andeducated to university or higher educational level; two-thirds were olderthan 40 and all were white. Furthermore, the workshops were dominated byparticipants with a special interest in ecology or the environment. Existingand prospective residents of the area were underrepresented, as were resi-dents of adjacent districts; those who did participate tended to be verballyoverruled by the zealous ecologists and environmentalists, who were there-fore able to exercise a disproportionate influence over the process and itsoutcome. The plan consequently provides for a lot of open spaces, but a highresidential density; it is open to question whether this accurately reflects thewishes of all stakeholders.

SUBSTANTIAL DIRECT DEMOCRACY: CITIZENSHIP OR APATHY?

Another possible contribution of interactive policy development as a mani-festation of direct democracy is the reinforcement of democracy as an openand deliberative form of society. Hence, interactive policy development shouldbe assessed primarily on the basis of its ability to promote democratic



development and public expression in an open society. In this context, theemphasis is on wide and active participation in the interactive process bycitizens, especially those who have not previously been particularly active inthis sphere.

AdvocatesAdvocates claim that interactive policy development leads to more andricher forms of political communication than traditional vehicles for polit-ical participation such as membership of political parties and involvementin elections. It facilitates the mobilization of broad social groupings and theirinvolvement in important issues that affect them. Through participation indemocratic deliberations, individual members of society become active citi-zens. This leads to a better appreciation of the balance that has to be struckbetween shared and private interests and of the views of others. Interactivepolicy development could also bring about an increase in ‘social capital’(Putnam 2000). It can activate groups that would otherwise be excluded,reduce social alienation and promote a sense of community. The adoption ofinteractive processes can result in the establishment of new practices andinstitutions, which accommodate the citizen’s involvement in his or herenvironment. Advocates take the view that people have an interest in polit-ics and are capable of democratic deliberation, irrespective of their educa-tional background and socio-economic status. Every citizen has a latentdesire for social and political participation and this simply needs to beawakened.

Many interactive processes originate from a belief that active citizenshipshould be encouraged in (local) society. One of the stated objectives of theDutch Centre for Political Participation (IPP), a body which has set up andsupervised numerous interactive processes in Dutch municipalities, is tobring about a greater level of active democratic participation within a multi-cultural society through interactive policy development. Through its pro-motion of interactive processes, the IPP strives to activate as many otherwisepolitically inactive citizens as possible.

CriticsThe gravest doubts of critics focus on whether the average person is reallyvery eager to participate in the decision-making process. Critics point outthat the great apparatus of government is maintained by society for the verypurpose of taking care of public matters. Most people have better things todo than spend their evenings in dusty council chambers wading throughofficial jargon and contending with policy details.

The very lack of political and deliberative skills and interest that inter-active involvement is supposed to nurture means that people in marginalizedgroups are unlikely to participate readily in the interactive policy develop-ment process. Furthermore, when politically inexperienced and less edu-cated citizens do decide to participate, negative experiences in their



confrontation with more articulate and more knowledgeable fellow partici-pants or with experts – the feeling of losing face – will have a discouragingeffect. Critics therefore regard interactive policy development as ‘a toy’ for atechnocratic or other type of elite. They do not believe that it will contributeto the invigoration of democracy or to the emergence of a new, more activebreed of citizen.

As an example of the above discouraging effect, at an interactive policymeeting in Doetinchem, one of the participants – a Dutch housewife whoseeducation years extended to high school but not beyond – said that she didnot understand the explanation of the financial implications of the variousproposals. She subsequently called the local government officer who wasacting as project leader for clarification. The response she received was inher view unfriendly and patronizing, so she withdrew from the processaltogether.

INSTRUMENTAL INDIRECT DEMOCRACY: A TOOL FOR BETTER POLICY?

The instrumental view of interactive policy development focuses not on therevival or modification of the representative political system, but on itsreinforcement. Interactive policy development simply enables officials,administrators and politicians to fulfil their functions more effectively(Baxter et al. 1999; Tunstall et al. 1999). By drawing upon the knowledge,opinions and skills of the citizenry, policy-makers can achieve better results –policy can be ‘enriched’ (Lopez Cerezo et al 1996). Using interactivemechanisms in this way, it should be possible to secure wider support forthe policies that ultimately emerge.

In comparison with participative democracy, representative democracyrequires less strict standards to the representativeness and equality of theparticipants, as well as to the openness of the process. Instead, the selectionof people to participate in the interactive policy process depends more onstrategic considerations – who can obstruct the process? – and on qualityconsiderations – who can make a valuable contribution?

AdvocatesInteractive policy development compensates for and corrects certain short-comings in policy development processes in a representative democracy.Because interactive policy development is an official and technical processrather than a politico-democratic process, interactive policy developmentand political decision-making procedures can be mutually reconciled with-out undue difficulty. Interactive policy development has a number of poten-tial benefits, including: better problem structuring, more solution creativity,better estimation of the political feasibility of different options, the forma-tion of compromise and consensus, and so on. The consultation processreduces resistance and increases support; it causes the policy-makingsystem to work more smoothly and efficiently. It has even been assumed by



some that – irrespective of whether or not the end result of the process isindeed improved policy content – it will enjoy more support because citizensfeel they are being taken seriously and are more familiar with the reasoningbehind the direction ultimately chosen by their elected representatives.

In many interactive policy development processes, the emphasis is onproviding better information to the administration through consultationwith citizens via other channels. When the municipalities of De Bilt andDoetinchem carried out interactive policy development projects, they madeuse of written questionnaires and telephone surveys to provide greaterinsight into what the population wanted.

At conferences, workshops and, in The Netherlands, what are called‘studios’, politicians, administrators and officials can exchange ideas withcitizens and the representatives of special interest groups. Citizens andspecial interest groups can draw attention to the things that matter most tothem, while the responsible administrators can in turn explain their viewsand considerations both to citizens and to special interest groups. This pro-cedure enables administrators to make better-informed decisions; citizenson the other hand are able to see how politicians arrive at their decisions.The assumption is that this increases understanding of the decision-makingprocess and support for its outcome.

CriticsBecause of the limited degree of representativeness of the participants,critical commentators believe that the instrumental use of interactive policydevelopment entails great risk. Not only do participants tend to be atypicalin socio-economic terms – education, ethnic origin, and so on – but, moresignificantly, so are their views and political orientation; it is sceptical oppo-nents or direct stakeholders who are the most likely groups to take theopportunity to participate.

The nature of group dynamics is such that some participants are able tooverrule others by virtue of their superior skills or greater assertiveness,leading to formation of a ‘democracy of the loudmouths’ (Hartman 2000).Under such circumstances, there is a danger that the silent majority isignored. Group dynamics can also lead to a narrowing of horizons or pres-sures that result in technically preferable solutions being rejected in favourof watered-down compromises. In other words, one cannot depend on inter-active policy development to deliver enriched solutions at all.

When the results of interactive policy development do not stand up tocritical assessment, the political decision-makers cannot but amend or rejectthem. Consequently, the process entails political risk, as this will reaffirmthe picture of politicians, at the end of the day, turning a deaf ear andignoring the outcome. Once mobilized, the community will in that case turnupon those who sought its support. Critics are therefore doubtful that theinteractive process will prove to be an effective means of securing support,unless there is a guarantee that interactively developed policies will



ultimately be adopted. Furthermore, winning the support of a select groupof participants is no guarantee for gaining more support beyond this selectgroup.

Some of the workshops held in De Bilt were dominated by small numbersof assertive participants. This manifestation of ‘the democracy of the loud-mouths’ led to the rejection of a solution to the town’s rail problems that wasperfectly acceptable to many participants, in favour of an alternativepreferred by a particularly vocal group.

Several hundred local people took part in the debate in De Bilt, anunusually high number. The project also attracted a great deal of publicity.However, when at the end of the process plans for the redevelopment of abusiness park (one of the issues covered) were published, those livingnearby the site reacted with shock and anger. The entire process had takenplace without attracting their attention, and their support for the resultingplans was far from assured.

SUBSTANTIAL INDIRECT DEMOCRACY: CLOSING OR WIDENING THE CLEAVAGE?

Finally, interactive policy development can be seen as a new bridge betweenthe politically disinclined and the existing representative system. Interactivepolicy development is a medium for the recruitment to the existing systemof ‘new talent’ – people who go on to become party members or even standfor election. Even if participants do not wish to become politically active,one-off involvement in an interactive process increases knowledge andunderstanding of the political system.

AdvocatesInteractive policy development can reduce the observed cleavage betweenthe electorate and the elected. Interactive policy development can kindleinterest in the political process by involving ordinary people in decisions onconcrete day-to-day issues. Participation in interactive processes opens upnew channels for communication with political institutions. Newly acquiredinsight into the political system can be used to gain access to that system asand when necessary or to increase the political effectiveness of communitycampaigns.

An illustration of this can be taken from the municipality of Bladel, whichis experimenting with ‘council guests’. Citizens are invited by a councillor tobe his or her guest and have a look behind the scenes of municipal politics.One of the aims of the project is to promote public interest in and under-standing of local democratic institutions and to encourage people to attendcouncil and committee meetings more often. Guests are invited to see how aparticular issue is dealt with, following the process from start to finish.Residents who take up the offer are sent a copy of the relevant agenda,accompanied by explanatory notes on each issue. Before the meeting, theguests attend a presentation explaining the local political system. The



meeting is followed up by an evaluative discussion. The same guests arealso invited to attend the next council meeting.

Some municipalities are experimenting with giving non-council membersthe right to address the council. This gives them the opportunity to ventcriticism or pose questions about municipal policy during or prior to councilor committee meetings. In the city of Appingedam, for example, committeemeetings include time for public input. When an issue affecting one or morelocal residents or an institution within the community is on the agenda, therelevant parties are informed beforehand by telephone. In the municipalityof Driebergen-Rijsenburg, residents have the opportunity to put questionsto the members of council committees prior to committee meetings. Thesequestions may relate to items on that evening’s agenda, or to general policy.Because they are open, everyone has the opportunity to learn from thesequestion-and-answer sessions.

CriticsCritics see interactive policy development as a threat to the primacy ofelected politicians. The process diminishes the role of politicians and blurs(legal) powers and responsibilities. The rise of ‘people power’ marginalizesor places pressure on the municipal council. There is also a shift in poweraway from elected representatives towards unelected officials, who theninteract directly with the public. At the same time it becomes more difficultto balance private interests against the common interest.

Some commentators have expressed an inverse critical view, suggestingthat those who initiate interactive policy-making – often local governmentofficers, backed by their superiors – are in a position to manipulate the pro-cess. Others foresee a boomerang effect, with citizens participating in aninteractive process, only to find that their views are not listened to or thatthey are outmaneuvered in political games. Rather than closing the cleavagebetween the governed and the governors, interactive policy developmentactually exacerbates the problems. There is also a risk of expecting too muchin terms of interactive policy development’s recruitment potential. Theprocess is unlikely to appeal to people outside the groups from which newtalent is ordinarily recruited.

When the municipality of Gouda considered introducing interactivepolicy development, councillors expressed concern about the erosion oftheir political primacy. Some expressed particular objections to the lack ofclarity in terms of political responsibility. Who should be held to account for(failing) government policy if that policy has not been formulated byofficials and endorsed by elected representatives, but framed and in somecases even implemented by the people themselves? The Gouda councillorsbelieved that they themselves would always be held accountable.

In the city of De Bilt, the interim results of the interactive policy-makingprocess were due to be presented to the public a few months before the 1998municipal council elections. The intention was that council members would



speak on the suggestions at the presentation, identifying those that wereregarded as promising and those that were not. In addition, the council wasto indicate what use was to be made of the final results of the process. How-ever, with the elections approaching, the councillors agreed among them-selves not to express any opinion, which elicited considerable criticism fromthe hundreds of members of the public who came expecting to hear fromtheir elected representatives.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

So, focusing on The Netherlands, does interactive policy developmentundermine or sustain democracy? The answer depends largely on theassessment criteria one chooses to apply. In this article, we have consideredwhich different yardsticks are available for finding an answer. Using theempirical results and experiences, it seems we should be able to say whichview – of the advocates or the critics – is justified. In practice, however, thisis much easier said than done. While a great deal has been written aboutinteractive policy development, very little scientific empirical research hasbeen conducted. Furthermore, the available study findings and other evid-ence tend to be contradictory. We must also note that the findings are basedon a relatively limited number of Dutch cases on a local level with specificinstitutional and cultural characteristics. This may limit the generability ofthe conclusions, for instance to interactive policy-making in other countries.So, does this contribution leave us where we were at the outset of ourreview? We do not believe this to be the case. By making the various visionsof democracy and interactive policy development explicit, it is possible tomanage the divergent and conflicting expectations and opinions concerningthe interactive process. Democratic interactive policy development in ourview is a matter of expectations management. The dangers to democracyarise mainly where these expectations remain non-specific or are manipu-lated.

The arguments of advocates and critics we have placed in the fourquadrants of table 2, above, will always play a part in any interactive policy-making. Thus, citizens will judge an interactive process in which theyparticipate primarily by the degree of direct or indirect influence they areable to exercise. Some participants will be satisfied if they are at least takenseriously and if they perceive the process to be honest and fair. Others willrequire the outcome of the interactive process to be reflected, directly andwithout modification, in the policies ultimately adopted.

For those who subscribe to the direct democracy vision, the main problemwith interactive policy development is its inability to empower the varioussections of society equally. Advocates of the citizenship principle, such asthe Dutch Centre for Political Participation (IPP), need to recognize that,however idealistic their objectives may be, unrealistic expectations aresometimes created. For the time being, it appears that interactive policydevelopment is an insufficiently powerful tool to reach and mobilize broad



population groups such as the ethnic minorities, young people and olderpeople. It may be that more can be achieved by other institutional reforms(referenda, elected mayors, and so on) and social reforms (neighbourhoodprojects), possibly in combination with interactive policy development.However, this case also presents a dilemma. Empowering the public in rela-tion to issues of direct personal relevance such as the renovation of a localplayground may have the effect of appealing to and mobilizing certainotherwise inactive groups, but in the wider context it will be seen as some-thing relatively trivial. On the other hand, major issues, ranging from urbanor infrastructure development to genetic screening, tend to be highly complexand abstract, deterring involvement by ordinary citizens and non-experts(Mayer 1997).

For their part, officials are inclined to see the interactive policy process asa potential means of enriching policy; there is a limit to what a deskboundcivil servant or local government worker can achieve without input fromoutside. The introduction of interactive policy-making, however, fundamen-tally changes the official’s role from technical expert to process manager,and suddenly brings him or her into direct contact with the public, withwhom important policy decisions must then be discussed. This means thatofficials tend to take the lead in interactive processes, partly because admin-istrators do not have the time to become involved and partly becauseadministrators are cautious not to fall into a political quagmire. Relationsbetween politicians and unelected officials can consequently becomestrained, with power shifting away from the elected bodies towards civilservants and local officials. Clear rules can and should be developed toprevent problems in this area.

Administrators welcome interactive policy development especially if it isa means of closing cleavage and a way of increasing support. As a result,interactive policy development is liable to be perceived as window dressing,or as a political gimmick, however genuine and well intended it may be.If interactive policy development is introduced as an easy, cosmetic remedyfor deep-rooted problems within the nation’s political system, it is likely toprove counterproductive for representative democracy, further erodingsupport and aggravating political apathy.

In our view, public administrators and politicians who are about toengage in an interactive policy-making project can use the various positionsin the frame to reflect on the possible benefits and pitfalls of interactivepolicy-making in their specific situation. Whether interactive policy devel-opment undermines or sustains democracy depends principally on theextent to which divergences in the expectations of the various groups aremade explicit, appropriate arrangements are made between these groups,the limits of their expectations are honestly and transparently defined, andunrealistic or mistaken expectations are dispelled. Initiators of interactivepolicy-making should spend time reflecting on how they will manage theconflicting expectations: for example, by establishing a ‘contract’ or



‘agreement’ on the process among all the participants. Such a contract couldbe used to stipulate the rules of engagement. To a large extent, democracyconsists of the definition of honest, fair and transparent rules; interactivepolicy development simply conforms to this model.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This article is a revised, adapted and translated version of I. Mayer,J. Edelenbos and R. Monnikhof, ‘Stormram of stut? Democratische dilemma’svan interactieve beleidsontwikkeling’, in J. Holsteyn and C. Mudde (eds).2002 (in Dutch). Nederland, Democratie in Verval? (The Netherlands, Democracyin Decline?). Meppel: Uitgeverij Boom, pp. 83–104.

REFERENCES

Arnstein, S. 1971. ‘Eight Rungs on the Ladder of Citizen Participation’, in S. Edgar and B. Passett (eds), CitizenParticipation: Effecting Community Change. New York: Praeger, pp. 69–91.

Baxter, J., J. Eyles and S. Elliot. 1999. ‘From Siting Principles to Siting Practices: a Case Study of Discordamong Trust, Equity and Community Participation’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42,4, 501–25.

Braybrooke, D. 1974. Traffic Congestion Goes Through the Issue-machine. London and Boston: Routledge andKegan Paul.

Bruijn, J. de., E. ten Heuvelhof and R. In’t Veld. 2002. Process Management, Why Project Management Fails inComplex Decision Making Processes. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Coenen, F., D. Huitema and L. O’Toole, Jr (eds). 1998. Participation and the Quality of Environmental DecisionMaking. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Daneke, G.A., M.W. Garcia and J. Delli Priscoli (eds). 1983. Public Involvement and Social Impact Assessment.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

DeLeon, P. 1992. ‘The Democratization of the Policy Sciences’, Public Administration Review, 52, 2, 125–29.DeLeon, P. 1994. ‘Democracy and the Policy Sciences: Aspirations and Operations’, Policy Studies Journal, 22,

200–12.DeSario, J. and S. Langton. 1987. ‘Toward a Metapolicy for Social Planning’, in J. DeSario and S. Langton

(eds), Citizen Participation in Public Decision Making. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 205–21.Dobbs, L. and C. Moore. 2002. ‘Engaging Communities in Area-based Regeneration: the Role of Participatory

Evaluation’, Policy Studies, 23, 3, 157–71.Dryzek, J. 1990. Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Durning, D. 1993. ‘Participatory Policy Analysis in a Social Service Agency: a Case Study’, Journal of Policy

Analysis and Management, 12, 2, 297–322.Edelenbos, J. 1999. ‘Design and Management of Participatory Public Policy Making’, Public Management

Review, 1, 4, 569–78.Edelenbos, J. 2000. Process in Shape (PhD thesis in original Dutch). Utrecht: Lemma.Edelenbos, J. and R. Monnikhof (eds). 1998a. Tension in Interaction (in Dutch). Amsterdam: Instituut voor

Publiek en Politiek.Edelenbos, J. and R. Monnikhof. 1998b. ‘Towards a Hybrid Democracy?’ in J. Edelenbos and R. Monnikhof

(eds), Tension in Interaction (in Dutch). Amsterdam: Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek.Edelenbos, J. and R. Monnikhof (eds). 2001. Local Interactive Policy Development (in Dutch). Utrecht: Lemma.Enserink, B. and R. Monnikhof. 2003. ‘Information Management for Public Participation in Co-design

Processes: Evaluation of a Dutch Example’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 3,315–44.

Fiorino, D. 1989. ‘Environmental Risk and Democratic Process: a Critical Review’, Columbia Journal of Environ-mental Law, 14, 2, 501–47.



Fischer, F. 2000. Citizens, Experts and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

Fishkin, J. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Flyvbjerg, B. 1998. Power & Rationality. Democracy in Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Hartman, I. 2000. Democracy of the Loudmouths (in Dutch). Amsterdam: Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek.Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. London: Macmillan.King, L.A. 2003. ‘Deliberation, Legitimacy and Multilateral Democracy’, Governance, 16, 1, 23–50.Klijn, E. and J. Koppenjan. 2000. ‘Politicians and Interactive Decision-making: Institutional Spoilsport or

Playmakers’, Public Administration, 78, 2, 365–87.Lopez Cerezo, J., M. Garcia, I. Arzoz and N. Ursua. 1996. ‘Lay Knowledge and Public Participation in Techno-

logical and Environmental Policy’, Society for Philosophy & Technology, 2, 1, 1–14.Lynn, F.M. 1990. ‘Public Participation in Risk Management Decisions: the Right to Define, the Right to Know,

and the Right to Act’, Risk Issues in Health and Safety, 1, 2, 95–101.MacPherson, C. 1979. The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Mason, M. 2000. ‘Evaluating Participative Capacity Building in Environmental Policy: Provincial Fish Protec-

tion and Parks Management in British Columbia, Canada’, Policy Studies, 21, 2, 77–98.Mayer, I. 1997. Debating Technologies. A Methodological Contribution to the Design and Evaluation of Participatory

Policy Analysis. Tilburg: TUP.Monnikhof, R. and P. Bots. 2000. ‘On the Application of MCDA in Interactive Spatial Planning Processes:

Lessons Learnt from Two Stories from the Swamp’, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 9, 1–3, 28–44.Monnikhof, R. and J. Edelenbos. 2001. ‘Into the Fog? Stakeholder Input in Participatory Impact Assessment’,

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 19, 1, 29–39.Murray, M. and J. Greer. 2002. ‘Participatory Planning as Dialogue: the Northern Ireland Regional Strategic

Framework and its Public Examination Process’, Policy Studies, 23, 3, 191–209.Pateman, C. 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pelletier, D., V. Kraak, C. McCullum et al. 1999. ‘The Shaping of Collective Values Through Deliberative

Democracy: an Empirical Study from New York’s North Country’, Policy Sciences, 32, 3, 103–31.Peters, G. 1996. The Future of Governing, Four Emerging Models. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Pitkin, H. 1972. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon &

Schuster.Renn, O., T. Webler and P. Wiedemann. 1995. Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation. Evaluating

Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Tunstall, S., S. Tapsell and S. Eden. 1999. ‘How Stable are Public Responses to Changing Local Environments?

a “Before” and “After” Case Study of River Restoration’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Manage-ment, 42, 4, 527–47.

Verweij, M. and T. Josling. 2003. ‘Special Issue: Deliberately Democratizing Multilateral Organization’,Governance, 16, 1, 1–21.

Wagschal, U. 1997. ‘Direct Democracy and Public Policymaking’, Journal of Public Policy, 20, 3, 223–45.Williams, B. and A. Matheney. 1995. Democracy, Dialogue, and Environmental Disputes. The Contested Languages

of Social Regulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Woltjer, J. 2000. Consensus Planning: the Relevance of Communicative Planning Theory in Dutch Infrastructure

Development. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Date received 18 July 2003. Date accepted 26 January 2004.

� Teaching resources� Previews of forthcoming

highlights� Cumulative index� Robert “Bob”

Struddlebakker'sacademia on yourdoorstep

� Full author guidelines

Plus…Join the debatePost your contributions on the new bulletin boardfor the discipline

comment, critique, contributeFull table of contents and abstracts available atwww.blackwell-synergy.com/links/toc/ponl

politicsSurveys, Debates and Controversies in Politics

Cutting edge political science in short article formatw

ww

.pol

itics

jour

nal.c

om

Edited by Charles Lees and Paul Taggart

Interactive Policy Development: Undermining or Sustaining Democracy

Documents

Transcript of Interactive Policy Development: Undermining or Sustaining Democracy