File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Reciprocity as deliberative capacity: Lessons from a citizen's deliberation on carbon pricing mechanisms in Australia

TitleReciprocity as deliberative capacity: Lessons from a citizen's deliberation on carbon pricing mechanisms in Australia
Authors
KeywordsAustralia
Consensus
Deliberative democracy
Emission trading
Public deliberation
Carbon tax
Issue Date2013
Citation
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 2013, v. 31, n. 3, p. 444-459 How to Cite?
AbstractAustralia has seen a deep division in opinion in search of a carbon pricing mechanism. While concepts of carbon taxation and emission trading have comparable public support, climate scepticism is influencing the debates in political and public spheres in downplaying the need for carbon pricing. Public deliberation is a possible engagement option to address the conflict inherent in climate policy preferences. This research explores the way that a deliberative forum involving twenty-four Australians promoted effective communication between participants through which conflict between policy preferences became more tangible. While the forum did not eliminate disagreement in preferences in the choice of carbon pricing mechanisms, participants reached consensus on fundamental principles such as the need for trusted sources of information, trusted governance procedures, and transparent accountability by appropriate institutions. Shared political expectations encouraged dialogue and cooperation in discussions by enhancing reciprocal understanding. Two sceptical participants who originally had strong opinions different from the rest of the group managed to find common ground. Public deliberative forums that are conducive to reciprocal communication are able to provide a mechanism for joint problem-solving processes that are less adversarial and more responsive to the range of people's preferences.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/210103
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 1.664
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.568

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLo, Alex Y.-
dc.contributor.authorAlexander, Kim S.-
dc.contributor.authorProctor, Wendy-
dc.contributor.authorRyan, Anthony-
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-22T06:06:38Z-
dc.date.available2015-05-22T06:06:38Z-
dc.date.issued2013-
dc.identifier.citationEnvironment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 2013, v. 31, n. 3, p. 444-459-
dc.identifier.issn0263-774X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/210103-
dc.description.abstractAustralia has seen a deep division in opinion in search of a carbon pricing mechanism. While concepts of carbon taxation and emission trading have comparable public support, climate scepticism is influencing the debates in political and public spheres in downplaying the need for carbon pricing. Public deliberation is a possible engagement option to address the conflict inherent in climate policy preferences. This research explores the way that a deliberative forum involving twenty-four Australians promoted effective communication between participants through which conflict between policy preferences became more tangible. While the forum did not eliminate disagreement in preferences in the choice of carbon pricing mechanisms, participants reached consensus on fundamental principles such as the need for trusted sources of information, trusted governance procedures, and transparent accountability by appropriate institutions. Shared political expectations encouraged dialogue and cooperation in discussions by enhancing reciprocal understanding. Two sceptical participants who originally had strong opinions different from the rest of the group managed to find common ground. Public deliberative forums that are conducive to reciprocal communication are able to provide a mechanism for joint problem-solving processes that are less adversarial and more responsive to the range of people's preferences.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofEnvironment and Planning C: Government and Policy-
dc.subjectAustralia-
dc.subjectConsensus-
dc.subjectDeliberative democracy-
dc.subjectEmission trading-
dc.subjectPublic deliberation-
dc.subjectCarbon tax-
dc.titleReciprocity as deliberative capacity: Lessons from a citizen's deliberation on carbon pricing mechanisms in Australia-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.natureLink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1068/c11192-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84879312274-
dc.identifier.volume31-
dc.identifier.issue3-
dc.identifier.spage444-
dc.identifier.epage459-
dc.identifier.eissn1472-3425-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats