Udo Pesch

The Publicness of Public Administration

Public administration theory has always struggled to find a clear-cut understanding of the publicness of public administration. There are at least five different approaches to distinguish public from private organizations. A closer examination shows that these five approaches are based on two conceptual versions of the publicness of public administration. The first conceptual version derives its understanding of publicness from “public goods,” whereas the second conceptual version involves the publicness of the “public interest.” These two versions are derived from two contravening ontological descriptions of publicness that have been developed in modern political theory. Both of these ontological descriptions have to be acknowledged as constitutive for understanding the publicness of public administration: Public administration can be seen as the empirical manifestation of the confrontation of these two meanings, which implies that “public administration” is constituted by an inconsistent conceptual framework.

Responsible innovation as an endorsement of public values: the need for interdisciplinary research

This article has a theoretical and a practical objective. The theoretical objective is to conceptualize responsible innovation as the adequate and timely inclusion of public values relevant to technological development. Technological innovations always occur in a specific institutional context, closely connected to stakeholder dynamics. Hence, an ideal approach to responsible innovation requires interdisciplinary research that incorporates: (i) the ethics of technology, to investigate the role of values in design; (ii) institutional theory, to understand the parts played by institutions in realizing values; and (iii) policy, planning and science, technology and society literature, to focus on stakeholder engagement. The practical objective is to explain how this approach can be operationalized. Since values emerge and evolve during the development and implementation of technologies, we take public debate to be the empirical source for extracting public values. Several salient questions need to be addresse...

Contested Technologies and Design for Values: The Case of Shale Gas

Abstract The introduction of new energy technologies may lead to public resistance and contestation. It is often argued that this phenomenon is caused by an inadequate inclusion of relevant public values in the design of technology. In this paper we examine the applicability of the value sensitive design (VSD) approach. While VSD was primarily introduced for incorporating values in technological design, our focus in this paper is expanded towards the design of the institutions surrounding these technologies, as well as the design of stakeholder participation. One important methodological challenge of VSD is to identify the relevant values related to new technological developments. In this paper, we argue that the public debate can form a rich source from which to retrieve the values at stake. To demonstrate this, we have examined the arguments used in the public debate regarding the exploration and exploitation of shale gas in the Netherlands. We identified two important sets of the underlying values, namely substantive and procedural values. This paper concludes with two key findings. Firstly, contrary to what is often suggested in the literature, both proponents and opponents seem to endorse the same values. Secondly, contestation seems to arise in the precise operationalization of these values among the different stakeholders. In other words, contestation in the Dutch shale gas debate does not arise from inter-value conflict but rather from intra-value conflicts. This multi-interpretability should be incorporated in VSD processes.

A boundary organization and its changing environment: the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the MNP

In this paper we address the way boundary organizations can accommodate tensions in the science – politics interface. Literature on boundary organizations suggests that this type of organization can provide stability in science – politics interaction, but how these organizations function over a longer period of time is not a point of theoretical or empirical attention. We study a boundary organization, the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), by analyzing the ideas that guided the foundation of the MNP and by analyzing two cases in which the MNP advised Dutch policy makers. In both cases the MNP had to adjust its boundary orientation because of changes in its institutional context. These findings show that the dynamics involved in boundary organizations should be included in academic research. We conclude by discussing two conceptual frameworks that may help to capture these dynamics: the notion of ‘learning organizations’ and a typology of roles of experts in politics.

An Emotional Deliberation Approach to Risk

Emotions are often met with suspicion in political debates about risky technologies, because they are seen as contrary to rational decision making. However, recent emotion research rejects such a dichotomous view of reason and emotion, by seeing emotions as an important source of moral insight. Moral emotions such as compassion and feelings of responsibility and justice can play an important role in judging ethical aspects of technological risks, such as justice, fairness, and autonomy. This article discusses how this idea can be integrated into approaches for political decision making about risk. The article starts with an analysis of the dichotomous view of reason and emotion in risk theory, in approaches to participatory risk assessment as well as in relevant approaches to political philosophy. This article then presents alternative approaches in political philosophy and political theory that do explicitly endorse the importance of emotions. Based on these insights, a procedural approach for policy making is presented, in which emotional responses to technological risks, and the ethical concerns that lie behind them, are taken seriously. This approach allows for morally better political decisions about risky technologies and a better understanding between experts and laypeople.

Responsible Innovation in Energy Projects: Values in the Design of Technologies, Institutions and Stakeholder Interactions

Projects that deal with unconventional ways to produce, store, or transport energy often give rise to resistance by local communities. The value-laden basis of such resistance is often ignored by decision makers. This chapter operationalizes the concept of Responsible Innovation by using and adapting the approach of value sensitive design. This approach holds that the variety of stakeholders’ values might be taken as a point of departure for the (re)design of a technological system in such a way that divergent values can be accommodated. The scope of value sensitive design can be extended beyond the technology, however. Values are also embedded in the institutional context and in the processes of interaction between stakeholders. Hence, the prevention of controversies over conflicting values may be pursued by redesigning the institutional context, and by taking the dynamics of stakeholder interaction explicitly into account.

How stakeholder interactions can reduce space for moral considerations in decision making: A contested CCS project in the Netherlands

We analyse the dynamics of a decision-making process on a contested carbon capture and storage project in The Netherlands by investigating the interactions between the involved stakeholders and how these reinforced, or were shaped by, a meta-frame. Our analysis suggests that from the start of the project, the interactions between stakeholders were shaped by, and reinforced, a goal-rational meta-frame. This frame, and the respective interactions, did not function well in aligning project proponents and the local community. For the latter group, issues were at stake that could not be addressed within the goalrational frame, such as moral considerations of procedural and distributive justice. Yet it was a very powerful frame that remained dominant and kept being reproduced throughout the process. Our analysis suggests that policy processes on projects like this should create interactions that leave open the opportunity for divergent, latent frames to become articulated. We identify three challenges for policy and planning of low-carbon technologies concerning the need for frame reflexivity in planning and decision making, the articulation of divergent stakeholder views and the design of stakeholder interactions.

Sustainable development and institutional boundaries

The boundaries between the institutional domains of state, market, and science, appear to obstruct the effective management of sustainability problems: public and private interests, as well as supply and demand of knowledge, are often not aligned in cases of sustainable development. This suggests that in order to pursue sustainability, we have to establish effective modes of transcending boundaries between institutional domains. Then again, transcending institutional boundaries might lead to other problems, because if we look at the origins of these institutional domains, it appears that they have been designed to solve certain societal problems, while allowing to hold actors accountable for their actions and decisions. Mixing up institutional domains might lead to conflicting accountability claims. Given potential accountability issues, the pursuit of sustainability should besides targeting effectiveness, also take account of issues of legitimacy. This article concludes that only in case of practices that have a local, a contextual, and a conditional character, forms of transcending institutional boundaries that are both effective and legitimate may be found.

Engineers and Active Responsibility.

AbstractKnowing that technologies are inherently value-laden and systemically interwoven with society, the question is how individual engineers can take up the challenge of accepting the responsibility for their work? This paper will argue that engineers have no institutional structure at the level of society that allows them to recognize, reflect upon, and actively integrate the value-laden character of their designs. Instead, engineers have to tap on the different institutional realms of market, science, and state, making their work a ‘hybrid’ activity combining elements from the different institutional realms. To deal with this institutional hybridity, engineers develop routines and heuristics in their professional network, which do not allow societal values to be expressed in a satisfactory manner. To allow forms of ‘active’ responsibility, there have to be so-called ‘accountability forums’ that guide moral reflections of individual actors. The paper will subsequently look at the methodologies of value-sensitive design (VSD) and constructive technology assessment (CTA) and explore whether and how these methodologies allow engineers to integrate societal values into the design technological artifacts and systems. As VSD and CTA are methodologies that look at the process of technological design, whereas the focus of this paper is on the designer, they can only be used indirectly, namely as frameworks which help to identify the contours of a framework for active responsibility of engineers.

Publicness, Privateness, and the Management of Pollution

The way pollution is managed in Western countries is based on the preservation of the taboo character of waste, which is conceived to be privately produced and seen as a threat to public health. Public authorities have been given the responsibility to isolate waste and hide it from public eyes. However, this dominant approach is challenged by the emergence of new forms of pollution. New conceptual and policy frameworks to manage environmental degradation have to be developed. The prevailing institutional structures, however, obstruct the successful societal uptake of alternative frameworks.