Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning

Martin Kowarsch (), Jennifer Garard, Pauline Riousset, Dominic Lenzi, Marcel J. Dorsch, Brigitte Knopf, Jan-Albrecht Harrs and Ottmar Edenhofer
Additional contact information
Martin Kowarsch: Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
Jennifer Garard: Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
Pauline Riousset: Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin, Germany
Dominic Lenzi: Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
Marcel J. Dorsch: Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
Brigitte Knopf: Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany
Jan-Albrecht Harrs: Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany

Palgrave Communications, 2016, vol. 2, issue 1, 1-20

Abstract: Abstract Putting the recently adopted global Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Agreement on international climate policy into action will require careful policy choices. Appropriately informing decision-makers about longer-term, wicked policy issues remains a considerable challenge for the scientific community. Typically, these vital policy issues are highly uncertain, value-laden and disputed and affect multiple temporal and spatial scales, governance levels, policy fields and socioeconomic contexts simultaneously. In light of this, science-policy interfaces should help facilitate learning processes and open deliberation among all actors involved about potentially acceptable policy pathways. For this purpose, science-policy interfaces must strive to foster some enabling conditions: (1) “representation” in terms of engaging with diverse stakeholders (including experts) and acknowledging divergent viewpoints; (2) “empowerment” of underrepresented societal groups by co-developing and integrating policy scenarios that reflect their specific knowledge systems and worldviews; (3) “capacity building” regarding methods and skills for integration and synthesis, as well as through the provision of knowledge synthesis about the policy solution space; and (4) “spaces for deliberation”, facilitating direct interaction between different stakeholders, including governments and scientists. We argue that integrated, multi-stakeholder, scientific assessment processes—particularly the collaborative assessments of policy alternatives and their various implications—offer potential advantages in this regard, compared with alternatives for bridging scientific expertise and public policy. This article is part of a collection on scientific advice to governments.

Keywords: science-policy interface; sustainable development; scientific assessment; deliberative democracy; policy learning; pragmatic-enlightened model; public policy analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/palcomms.2016.92 Abstract (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:pal:palcom:v:2:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1057_palcomms.2016.92

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.nature.com/palcomms/about

DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.92

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Palgrave Communications from Palgrave Macmillan
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().