administrative and political conflict resolution n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Administrative and political conflict resolution PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Administrative and political conflict resolution

Administrative and political conflict resolution

118 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Administrative and political conflict resolution

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Administrative and political conflict resolution 22.04.2013, Riga Agnes Karpati

  2. Introduction Two issues: 1. Public participation 2. Inter-institutional conflict



  5. COMPLEXITY OF PUBLIC POLICY Public policies of various govermental sectors can influence other policies, directly or indirectly. Example: population health Related policies: • Transportation • Income • Education • Child-care • Environment

  6. Complexity Adopting a policy that takes into account all relevant fields and policies is a complex task. • There are many uncertain effects • Often no consensus in the civil society Decision-makers must manuever between different values, views, needs, preferences and interests. Increased attention is paid lately to deliberative processes  critical examination of issues in groups: reasons vs courses of action, exchange information and come to an areement which informs the decision-making

  7. Complexity

  8. Complexity The question is “how do we get into zone P?” More often then not weget there with the help of processes such as mediation or participation.

  9. Methods of public participationDeliberative vs non-deliberative Citizens panels Consensus conference Citizens juries Deliberative polling (Delphi method) Focus groups Surveys Public hearings Open houses Citizen advisory committee Referenda Citizens panels

  10. Citizens panels 1 • consists of statistically representative • sample of residents in a given area • most comprise several thousandcitizens who represent the generalpopulation of an area • panel views are regularly sought • using a survey instrument (e.g. postal, • telephone surveys)

  11. Citizens panels 2 • randomly selected group of 12citizens meet routinely (eg. four timesper year) to consider and discussissues and make decisions • used to guide health resourceallocation decision • panels act as “sounding boards” forgoverning authority

  12. Consensus conference • a group of citizens with variedbackgrounds meets to discuss issuesof a scientific and or technicalnature • consists of 2 stages: 1)meetings withexperts, discussions and work towardconsensus (involves small group ofpeople) 2)conference during which mainobservations and conclusions arepresented to the media and generalpublic

  13. Citizens’ juries • group of 12-20 randomly selectedcitizens, gathered in such a way as torepresent a microcosm of their • community, who meet over severaldays to deliberate on a policyquestion • they are informed about the issue,hear evidence from witnesses andcross-examine them • they then discuss the matter amongstthemselves and reach a decision

  14. Deliberative polling • builds on the opinion poll byincorporating element of deliberation • involves larger numbers than citizensjuries and may involve less time • measures what public would think if itwas informed and engaged aroundan issue

  15. Deliberative processes – engagement of civil society 1. Engagement of the civil society in: • definition of problem, • identification of priorities, • allocation of resources • evaluation of different policy options This approch promotes conciliation, information of public, transparency, legitimacy and accountability in decision making.

  16. Deliberative processes – engagement of civil society example The CPRN’s citizens’ dialogues – Canada Since the late 1990’s the Canadian Policy Research Networks have undertaken a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging public deliberation about various policy issues (e.g. the Ontario 2004-2008 budget strategy, the future of Canadian health care, the use of personal information, Canadian public health priorities). For more information: [FR/EN]

  17. Deliberative method – expert engagement 2. Engagement of experts in: • Production of research • Interpretation of research • Bridging theory and practice This promotes evidence-informed policy making.

  18. Deliberative method – expert engagement example IDEAHealth– KhonKaen, Thailand IDEAHealth was an international dialogue sponsored by the World Health Organization that took place between December 13 and 16, 2006. It allowed decision makers, experts and other stakeholders to share their ideas and experiences and to consider the results of systematic reviews in an attempt to find concrete solutions to problems confronting developing countries. For more information: non-deliberative

  19. Objectives of two deliberative trends October 2009 Author: François-Pierre Gauvin, National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy

  20. Some methods of participatory democracy • Popular/Citizens’ initiatives • Referenda • Public consultation • Surveys • Focus groups • Open houses • Public hearings • Negotiated rulemaking • Consensus-building • Etc.

  21. Citizens’ initiative • It allows electorate to resolve questions where the elected representatives don’t act despite the public desire. Typical provisions in Constitutions. • “The European citizens' initiative allows one million EU citizens to participate directly in the development of EU policies, by calling on the European Commission to make a legislative proposal.” (Commission’s homepage) • Article 11(4) TEU, Article 24(1) TFEU, Regulation No 211/2011

  22. Public consultation In public consultations the agency ‘s goal is to gain information about the concerns of the public, but the final decision is still made by the agency. No consensus or decision by the public is sought. May be dominated by special interestgroups - feed-back obtained from this formatneeds to be treated carefully becauseit may not be representativeof thecommunity

  23. Negotiated rulemaking • In negotiated rulemaking process the agency seeks out the representatives of interests that will be affected and empanel them into an advisory committee that includes senior members of the agency itself. The committee is tasked with deveoping a consensus for the proposed rule. Then the normal legislative process applies.

  24. Consensus building • Consensus building is used to settle conflicts that involve multiple parties and complicatedissues. The approach seeks to transform Adversarialconfrontations into a cooperative searchfor information and solutions that meet all parties' interests and needs.(Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

  25. Consensus building • Consensus building (also known as collaborativeproblem solving or collaboration) is a conflictresolutionprocess used mainly to settle complex,multiparty disputes. Since the 1980s, it hasbecome widely used in the environmental andpublic policy arena in the United States, but isuseful whenever multiple parties are involved in acomplex dispute or conflict. • The process allowsvarious stakeholders (parties with an interest in the problem or issue) to work together to develop a mutually acceptable solution. (Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

  26. Consensus building • Like a town meeting, consensus building is based on the principles of local participation andownership of decisions. • Ideally, the consensus reached will meet all of the relevant interests ofstakeholders, who thereby come to a unanimous agreement. • While everyone may not geteverything they initially wanted, "consensus has been reached when everyone agrees they canlive with whatever is proposed after every effort has been made to meet the interests of allstake holding parties.“ (Burgess & Spangler, 2003)

  27. Power struggle between EP and Commission - The EP on the way of becoming real legislative brach.... - Example issue – comitology - What is comitology?

  28. Comitology In the EU, as in all legislatures, once the decision-makingprocess enters the implementation stage,the executive – i.e. the European Commission – canreceive delegated powers to execute the actsadopted in co-decision. Committees of MemberStates' representatives control the Commission inthe exercise of delegated competences and theyr were collectively referred to as 'comitology'.

  29. Comitology Processused to be dominated by the Commission and Member States. Comitology - 2000 implementing acts every year Ground for contention among the institutions, in particular, the European Parliamentdemanded a greater role in the process. Regulation of politically sensitive issues such as GMO’s, etc.

  30. Comitology Lisbon Treaty reformed the system, giving the EP greater powers and equal footing with the Council. After a 20 years struggle the EP now has genuine legislative powers and has a say in comitology process, which is considered a great success for the EP.

  31. Comitology Delegated acts refer to “non-legislative acts ofgeneral application” whose aim is to “supplementor amend” laws in their “non-essential elements”. The EP and the Council confer delegatedpowers on the Commission for the adoption ofimplementation measures that are likely to addfurther content to the act agreed throughco-decision. The legislators must also definethe precise terms of this delegation, i.e. objectives,scope, and duration.

  32. Inter-institutional conflict in the EU Central driving force of the European integration, bargaining process among EU institutions to influence the policy making process, alter the outcomes (legislative act) and improve the external perceptions abot capabilities. Institutions attempt to legitimize, popularize and increase their influence, which has an affect on member states interest representation.

  33. Inter-institutional conflict in the EU EP is a relative newcomer, and after decades and through gradual extension of legislative rights it has gained greater influence. This has been through active bargaining and struggle, but also through an additional agreement that concerns the future negotiation processes between institutions. The framework agreement concerns: • In particular, these provisions concern: • the political responsibility of the Commission; • the establishment of regular and effective political dialogue; • the implementation of legislative procedures.

  34. Relations between EP and Commission INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENTS • Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission

  35. Inter-institutional agreement – selected issues “To better reflect the new ‘special partnership’ between Parliament and the Commission, the two Institutions agree on the following measures to strengthen the political responsibility and legitimacy of the Commission, extend constructive dialogue, improve the flow of information between the two Institutions and improve cooperation on procedures and planning. “

  36. Inter-institutional agreement They also agree on specific provisions: — on Commission meetings with national experts, — on the forwarding of confidential information to Parliament, — on the negotiation and conclusion of international agreements, and — on the timetable for the Commission Work Programme.

  37. Constructive dialogue and flow of information • The Commission guarantees that it will apply the basic principle of equal treatment for Parliament and the Council, especially as regards access to meetings and the provision of contributions or other information, in particular on legislative and budgetary matters. • Within its competences, the Commission shall take measures to better involve Parliament in such a way as to take Parliament’s views into account as far as possible in the area of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.

  38. Constructive dialogue and flow of information A number of arrangements are made to implement the ‘special partnership’ between Parliament and the Commission, as follows: • — the President of the Commission will at Parliament’s request meet the Conference of Presidents at least twice a year to discuss issues of common interest, • — the President of the Commission will have a regular dialogue with the President of Parliament on key horizontal issues and major legislative proposals. This dialogue should also include invitations to the President of Parliament to attend meetings of the College of Commissioners, • Etc...

  39. Constructive dialogue and flow of information • The Commission shall not make public any legislative proposal or any significant initiative or decision before notifying Parliament thereof in writing. • On the basis of the Commission Work Programme, the two Institutions shall identify in advance, by common agreement, key initiatives to be presented in plenary. In principle, the Commission will present these initiatives first in plenary and only afterwards to the public.

  40. Constructive dialogue and flow of information • The Commission shall inform Parliament of the list of its expert groups set up in order to assist the Commission in the exercise of its right of initiative. That list shall be updated on a regular basis and made public. • Within this framework, the Commission shall, in an appropriate manner, inform the competent parliamentary committee, at the specific and reasoned request of its chair, on the activities and composition of such groups.

  41. Constructive dialogue and flow of information • The two Institutions shall hold, through the appropriate mechanisms, a constructive dialogue on questions concerning important administrative matters, notably on issues having direct implications for Parliament’s own administration.

  42. Workshop exercise VALUES ● It is 2013, and there is now scientific consensus that secondary smoking is a significant cause of cancer. ● You are all the staff of a regulatory agency that has to act once it is known that a substance causes cancer. ● Where do you stand? Please line up at the most appropriate place on the line.

  43. Workshop exerciseVALUES WHY?

  44. Workhop exerciseVALUES • The instructions made clear that the science was conclusive: secondary smokingcauses cancer. • There was not a disagreement on a technical basis, the disagreement was aboutvalues.

  45. Workshop exerciseConsider the figure

  46. Workshop exerciseConsider the figure

  47. Workshop exerciseCommunication 1. You will be paired with another participant. 2. On the following grid, write what you would say if you were the facilitator – usingthe model below – to handle the seven circumstances that are listed on the grid. I feel (ownership) + feeling word + behavioral description Example: I feel worried about the passivity of the majority of the group. 3. Then compare notes with your partner, discussing how best to send yourconcerns without creating defensiveness, putting anybody down, or seemingunduly controlling.

  48. Situation 1. Group hasdrifted off theagreed-upontopic Your message: ...............................................

  49. Situation 2. People are notable to completetheir commentsbecause ofinterruptions Your message: ...............................................

  50. Situation 3. Too many people talking at once Your message: ...............................................