Suchergebnisse

AbstractInfrastructure siting has been shown to lead to high contestation across political systems. To counteract this, policymaking has introduced participatory instruments that were recently supplemented by web‐based tools. Drawing on theoretical perspectives on policy conflict, this paper investigates how different conflict intensities reflected in public discourses can shape citizens' perceptions on the potential and limitations of digital participation tools. To this end, we conducted a survey experiment with students who evaluated the potential functions of a web‐based tool considering criteria, such as transparency, efficiency, and inclusion of new expertise. Participants were randomly assigned fictitious project descriptions that used either conflict or concord words. The results show that while users see several positive influences of digital tools on increased transparency and inclusivity in participation processes, this perception is negatively influenced by a supposedly high level of conflict. Furthermore, digital public participation in railroad planning is perceived as contributing to decreasing escalation and strengthening the democratic quality of policy processes. However, digital participation can only develop its strengths if there are accompanying measures and discourses to secure trust. In addition, the tool's potential seems to be higher in less escalated conflict situations and fully escalated situations than in asymmetrically escalated conflicts.

Deliberative Verfahren sind regelmäßiger Bestandteil der Entscheidungsfindung über Neu- und Ausbauprojekte im Schienenfernverkehr. Die subjektiven Einschätzungen aus 29 Interviews mit Verfahrensbeteiligten und viele Hintergrundgespräche und teilnehmende Beobachtungen zeigen, dass der Hauptzweck der Verfahren in der Praxis im Ausgleich von Wissensdifferenzen gesehen wird. Dabei konzentrieren sich die Vorhabenträger vor allem auf die Kommunikation politischer, rechtlicher, technischer, ökonomischer und ökologischer Planungshintergründe. Für lokal Betroffene können die Verfahren die Möglichkeit bieten, subjektives Wissen über soziale Raumstrukturen zu kommunizieren. Die materiellen Effekte deliberativer Verfahren in der Infrastrukturpolitik sind oft gering. Eine wichtige Bedeutung liegt in der Vermeidung von Eskalationsprozessen. Dafür ist zentral, dass die Verfahren vor einer konfliktverschärfenden Personalisierung des Prozesses beginnen und dass sie so strukturiert sind, dass gegenseitiges Vertrauen der Beteiligten gefördert wird.

AbstractThe integration of the social–psychological social identity approach to policy process research has recently generated new insights on policy-making. Empirical applications for established democracies and multilevel settings such as the European Union have identified five general types of social identities that are relevant for the preferences and behavior of policy actors and their stability and change over time. Social identities are based on joint memberships in social groups, such as organizations, demographic/biographical identities, sectors, locations, and informal opportunities for exchange (which may result in programmatic groups and identities). Some of these social groups, above all pluralistic interest associations and political parties, are directly related to the settings of embedded democracies. This article sheds light on the traveling capacity of the Social Identities in the Policy Process (SIPP) perspective by applying it to the Russian political system. An analysis of policy actors' social identities in two federal ministries shows that in autocracies, interest intermediation, legitimacy, and influence on policy processes run through professional and informal groups when competing organizations and democratic institutions are absent. The results indicate that the SIPP perspective is adaptable to policy processes in different contexts but that the importance of identity types varies.

The integration of the social–psychological social identity approach to policy process research has recently generated new insights on policy-making. Empirical applications for established democracies and multilevel settings such as the European Union have identified five general types of social identities that are relevant for the preferences and behavior of policy actors and their stability and change over time. Social identities are based on joint memberships in social groups, such as organizations, demographic/biographical identities, sectors, locations, and informal opportunities for exchange (which may result in programmatic groups and identities). Some of these social groups, above all pluralistic interest associations and political parties, are directly related to the settings of embedded democracies. This article sheds light on the traveling capacity of the Social Identities in the Policy Process (SIPP) perspective by applying it to the Russian political system. An analysis of policy actors' social identities in two federal ministries shows that in autocracies, interest intermediation, legitimacy, and influence on policy processes run through professional and informal groups when competing organizations and democratic institutions are absent. The results indicate that the SIPP perspective is adaptable to policy processes in different contexts but that the importance of identity types varies.

The integration of the social-psychological social identity approach to policy process research has recently generated new insights on policy-making. Empirical applications for established democracies and multilevel settings such as the European Union have identified five general types of social identities that are relevant for the preferences and behavior of policy actors and their stability and change over time. Social identities are based on joint memberships in social groups, such as organizations, demographic/biographical identities, sectors, locations, and informal opportunities for exchange (which may result in programmatic groups and identities). Some of these social groups, above all pluralistic interest associations and political parties, are directly related to the settings of embedded democracies. This article sheds light on the traveling capacity of the Social Identities in the Policy Process (SIPP) perspective by applying it to the Russian political system. An analysis of policy actors' social identities in two federal ministries shows that in autocracies, interest intermediation, legitimacy, and influence on policy processes run through professional and informal groups when competing organizations and democratic institutions are absent. The results indicate that the SIPP perspective is adaptable to policy processes in different contexts but that the importance of identity types varies.