What is good quality public deliberation?
ثبت نشده
چکیده
Deliberative democracy emphasizes a process in which political actors listen to each other with openness and respect, provide reasons and justifications for their opinions, and remain open to changing their points of view about public policy problems. Deliberators should be oriented toward mutual understanding, the goal of coming to some level of agreement, and should want to learn the reasons for why they agree or disagree. They must be driven not only by a search for their personal notion of the best policy, but by a search for the reasons that would warrant them and their fellow citizens in believing a policy to be the best. Deliberation is not just an opportunity to learn things others know or what they think, but to more fully articulate a public justification for actions on matters of common concern. That is, deliberators discuss what we should do as a political community rather than (or in addition to) what I want as an individual.
منابع مشابه
What is good public deliberation?
March-April 2012 When assigned the task of describing and updating essential health benefits for qualified health plans in the Affordable Care Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services turned to the Institute of Medicine for advice. An IOM committee recommended that “structured public deliberative processes be established to identify the values and priorities of those citizens eligible to...
متن کاملTradeoff Negotiation: The Importance of Getting in the Game; Comment on “Swiss-CHAT: Citizens Discuss Priorities for Swiss Health Insurance Coverage”
Swiss-CHAT’s playful approach to public rationing can be considered in terms of deliberative process design as well as in terms of health policy. The process’ forced negotiation of trade-offs exposed unexamined driving questions, and challenged prevalent presumptions about health care demand and about conditions of public reasoning that enable transparent rationing. While the experiment provide...
متن کاملJust Talk: Public Deliberation After 9/11
Critics of public deliberation as conventionally practiced have charged that it is “just talk” in the sense both that it substitutes sociable conversation for practical deliberation and that it substitutes political talk for political action. I argue that both criticisms rest on unnecessarily restrictive models of talk and politics. Drawing on participant observation and interviews with eighty ...
متن کاملHTA – Algorithm or Process?; Comment on “Expanded HTA: Enhancing Fairness and Legitimacy”
Daniels, Porteny and Urrutia et al make a good case for the idea that that public decisions ought to be made not only “in the light of” evidence but also “on the basis of” budget impact, financial protection and equity. Health technology assessment (HTA) should, they say, be accordingly expanded to consider matters additional to safety and cost-effectiveness. They also complain that most HTA re...
متن کاملTips and Strategies for Avoiding Psychological Traps
Each day, law enforcement professionals throughout the nation make thousands of decisions. While many of these judgments require little, if any, conscious deliberation and involve few noteworthy consequences, others carry significant implications for officers, their organizations, and the public. Bad decisions can damage an officer’s career, harm public trust, and expose an agency to costly lit...
متن کامل