Download More ebooks [PDF]. Format PDF ebook download PDF KINDLE.

Full download ebooks at ebookmass.com

Expertise and Participation:

Institutional Designs for Policy
Development in Europe 1st Edition Krick
For dowload this book click BUTTON or LINK below

https://ebookmass.com/product/expertise-and-
participation-institutional-designs-for-policy-
development-in-europe-1st-edition-krick/
OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmass.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Youth Active Citizenship in Europe: Ethnographies of

Participation 1st ed. Edition Shakuntala Banaji

https://ebookmass.com/product/youth-active-citizenship-in-europe-
ethnographies-of-participation-1st-ed-edition-shakuntala-banaji/

Shaping Human Science Disciplines: Institutional

Developments in Europe and Beyond Christian Fleck

https://ebookmass.com/product/shaping-human-science-disciplines-
institutional-developments-in-europe-and-beyond-christian-fleck/

Professional Service Firms and Politics in a Global

Era: Public Policy, Private Expertise 1st Edition Chris
Hurl

https://ebookmass.com/product/professional-service-firms-and-
politics-in-a-global-era-public-policy-private-expertise-1st-
edition-chris-hurl/

Knowledge Creation in Community Development:

Institutional Change in Southeast Asia and Japan 1st
Edition Ayano Hirose Nishihara

https://ebookmass.com/product/knowledge-creation-in-community-
development-institutional-change-in-southeast-asia-and-japan-1st-
edition-ayano-hirose-nishihara/
Understanding Youth Participation Across Europe: From
Survey to Ethnography 1st Edition Hilary Pilkington

https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-youth-participation-
across-europe-from-survey-to-ethnography-1st-edition-hilary-
pilkington/

Institutional Grammar: Foundations and Applications for

Institutional Analysis 1st ed. 2022 Edition Christopher
K. Frantz

https://ebookmass.com/product/institutional-grammar-foundations-
and-applications-for-institutional-analysis-1st-ed-2022-edition-
christopher-k-frantz/

The Palgrave Handbook of Disability Sport in Europe:

Policies, Structures and Participation Caroline Van
Lindert

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-palgrave-handbook-of-
disability-sport-in-europe-policies-structures-and-participation-
caroline-van-lindert/

Fiscal Policy for Sustainable Development in Asia-

Pacific Lekha S. Chakraborty

https://ebookmass.com/product/fiscal-policy-for-sustainable-
development-in-asia-pacific-lekha-s-chakraborty/

Semi-Presidential Policy-Making in Europe: Executive

Coordination and Political Leadership 1st ed. Edition
Tapio Raunio

https://ebookmass.com/product/semi-presidential-policy-making-in-
europe-executive-coordination-and-political-leadership-1st-ed-
edition-tapio-raunio/
PALGRAVE STUDIES IN
EUROPEAN POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

Expertise
and Participation
Institutional Designs for
Policy Development in Europe

Eva Krick
 Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology

Series Editors
Carlo Ruzza, School of International Studies, University of
Trento, Trento, Italy
Hans-Jörg Trenz, Faculty of Political and Social Sciences,
Scuola Normale Superiore, Firenze, Italy
Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology addresses contemporary
themes in the field of Political Sociology. Over recent years, attention has
turned increasingly to processes of Europeanization and globalization and
the social and political spaces that are opened by them. These processes
comprise both institutional-constitutional change and new dynamics of
social transnationalism. Europeanization and globalization are also about
changing power relations as they affect people’s lives, social networks and
forms of mobility.
The Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology series addresses
linkages between regulation, institution building and the full range of
societal repercussions at local, regional, national, European and global
level, and will sharpen understanding of changing patterns of attitudes
and behaviours of individuals and groups, the political use of new rights
and opportunities by citizens, new conflict lines and coalitions, societal
interactions and networking, and shifting loyalties and solidarity within
and across the European space.
We welcome proposals from across the spectrum of Political Sociology
and Political Science, on dimensions of citizenship; political attitudes
and values; political communication and public spheres; states, commu-
nities, governance structure and political institutions; forms of polit-
ical participation; populism and the radical right; and democracy and
democratization.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14630
 Eva Krick

Expertise
and Participation
Institutional Designs for Policy
Development in Europe
Eva Krick
ARENA Centre for European Studies
University of Oslo Blindern
Oslo, Norway

Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology

ISBN 978-3-030-75328-3 ISBN 978-3-030-75329-0 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75329-0

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting,
reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical
way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: Getty images: Adam Smigielski

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland
AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Acknowledgments

This book has taken shape at the University of Oslo’s ARENA Centre for
European Studies, where I enjoyed outstanding working conditions and
was part of a lively and inspiring academic debate. I am very grateful for
that and want to thank everyone at ARENA!
Some people stand out: I collaborated particularly closely with
Cathrine Holst within the research project EUREX. Thanks to Cathrine’s
broad academic ken, her energy, integrity and generosity, this collab-
oration has been the most inspiring and motivating experience of my
academic life. Åse Gornitzka brought me to ARENA in the first place and
together we have co-authored several studies on questions of expertise
and knowledge in European policy-making. Stine Hesstvedt has become
a cherished discussion partner on a wide range of political and academic
questions and I am indebted for the smart and honest comments she
provided to several of my drafts. I would also like to thank Johan Chris-
tensen for an exceedingly rewarding co-authorship, his general kindness,
support and optimism and many interesting debates. I am also very
grateful to Johan P. Olsen for thought-provoking feedback on my work.

v
vi Acknowledgments

He has a better memory, overview and analytical mind than any of us

and discussions with him have been a real privilege.
Two research stays during the last years have been essential sources of
input and energy. I would like to thank in particular Marc Geddes, Kat
Smith, Eugenia Rodrigues and Steve Yearly at the University of Edin-
burgh’s SKAPE Centre of science, knowledge and policy and Peter Munk
Christiansen and Fabio Wolkenstein at the University of Aarhus’s Centre
of public leadership for providing feedback on my work and for hosting
and integrating me. It is very much appreciated.
For different kinds of support during the last years I am grateful
to a large range of people. This applies especially to Åshild Næss, Ida
Hjelmesæth, John Erik Fossum, Asimina Michailidou, Morten Egeberg,
Christopher Lord, Johanne Døhlie Saltnes, Julia von Blumenthal, Holger
Straßheim, Matthew Wood, Vera Krick and, of course, Lars Leeten.
This work would not have been possible without the generous funding
by the German Research Council (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)
and the Norwegian Research Council (Forskningsrådet).
 Praise for Expertise and Participation

“Krick’s book provides the reader with a rare combination of an intel-

ligent probe into the fundamental problem of the theory of democracy
– how to reconcile democratic participation and reliable expertise – and
meticulous empirical case studies of three exemplary exercises in public
participation. The result is an unusually sophisticated analysis which does
not shy away from practical conclusions.”
—Prof. em. Peter Weingart,University of Bielefeld

“Making public policy that combines expert advice and public input is
no easy task. Eva Krick’s accessible and judicious book is full of insights
on why it is so difficult, and how complex democratic societies can do
better. Drawing on original empirical research, Krick develops nuanced
lessons for the design of participatory expert advisory processes. The
book offers an original and important contribution to democratic theory,
policy studies, science studies, and related fields.”
—Prof. Mark B. Brown,California State University, Sacramento

vii
viii Praise for Expertise and Participation

“Krick’s investigations illuminate the much-underestimated importance

of hybrid policy advice bodies for democratic governance. Her grounded
approach to institutional design is genuinely original, and truly advances
our understanding of how experts, citizens and stakeholders (should)
interact.”
—Prof. Cathrine Holst,University of Oslo

“In an era of increasing academic specialization, Krick makes a bold and

successful effort to integrate issues usually held apart: Empirical studies
of German and Norwegian cases, theory-development, normative assess-
ment and constructive design proposals. On the basis of a wide theoret-
ical perspective, important aspects of the conventional wisdom and key
conceptualizations are challenged, supplemented and refined.”
—Prof. em. Johan P. Olsen,University of Oslo
 Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 The Epistemic-Democratic Tension 3
1.2 The Quest for Integrated Institutions of Policy
Development 7
1.3 Outline of the Book 11
1.4 State of the Art 13
References 15

Part I Empirical Case Studies

2 Methodology, Theory and Context 25
2.1 Research Strategy, Case Selection and Methods 25
2.1.1 The Object of Inquiry: Multi-level Arenas
of Policy Advice and Consultation 25
2.1.2 Case Selection 28
2.1.3 Research Strategy and Methods 31
2.2 Normative Assessment Framework: Quality Criteria
of Democratic Participation and Reliable Expertise 34
2.2.1 The Structure of the Assessment Framework 34

ix
x Contents

2.2.2 Democratic Participation 37

2.2.3 Reliable Expertise 46
2.3 The Bigger Picture: Norway, Germany
and the European Multi-level Context 55
2.3.1 The Status of Political Participation
in Norway and Germany 55
2.3.2 The Role of Expert Advice in Norway
and Germany 62
2.3.3 Norway and Germany as European
Consensus Democracies 68
2.3.4 Environmental Policy Development
in the European Multi-level Context 70
References 72
3 The Cases 87
3.1 The Final Storage Committee 87
3.1.1 Democratic Participation in the Final
Storage Committee 89
3.1.2 Reliability and Problem Adequacy
of the Final Storage Committee’s Expertise 96
3.2 The Climate Protection Dialogue 99
3.2.1 Democratic Participation in the Climate
Protection Dialogue 100
3.2.2 Reliability and Problem Adequacy
of the Climate Protection Dialogue’s
Expertise 105
3.3 The Climate Adaptation Committee 108
3.3.1 Democratic Participation in the Climate
Adaptation Committee 110
3.3.2 Reliability and Problem Adequacy
of the Climate Adaptation Committee’s
Expertise 116
3.4 A Case-Comparative Perspective: Storylines
and Explanations 120
3.4.1 The Cases’ Scores 120
3.4.2 The Cases’ Storylines 121
 Contents xi

3.4.3 Conditions for Reconciling Ambitious

Epistemic and Democratic Standards 129
References 131

Part II Institutional Design Lessons

4 Participant Selection Modes for Policy-Developing
Collectives 137
4.1 Selection Mechanisms for Advisory
and Consultation Bodies 138
4.1.1 Open Access 138
4.1.2 Random Selection 140
4.1.3 Voting 143
4.1.4 Targeted Recruitment 145
4.2 Multi-level Structures of Policy Advice
and Consultation 146
4.2.1 A Leading Role for Intermediary
Organisations 147
4.2.2 Principles for Hand-Picking Stakeholders 151
4.2.3 Access for Academic Experts, Civil Servants
and Lay Citizens 153
4.3 Conclusion: Viable Participation Patterns
and Selection Strategies 156
References 158
5 Stopping Rules in Political Settings 163
5.1 Collective Decision-Making Logics and Voting
Rules 165
5.1.1 The Majoritarian, Competitive
and the Consensual, Integrative Logics
of Decision-Making 165
5.1.2 Majority Voting 167
5.1.3 Unanimous Voting 173
5.2 The Consensus Mode 174
5.2.1 How Does the Consensus Mode Work
in Practice? 176
xii Contents

5.2.2 The Normative Value of the Consensus

Mode 180
5.3 Conclusion: Approximating Agreement in the Phase
of Policy Development 184
References 188
6 Mechanisms of Institutional Coupling 195
6.1 Basic Conditions of the Relationship Between
Parent and Advisory Body 196
6.2 Democratic and Epistemic Dimensions of Coupling 199
6.2.1 Democratic Legitimacy Concerns
in the Relationship of Sponsor and Advisory
Arena 200
6.2.2 Epistemic Authority Concerns
in the Relationship of Sponsor
and Advisory Arena 202
6.3 Tensions Between Democratic and Epistemic
Demands to Coupling 203
6.4 Institutional Mechanisms that Strengthen
the Individual Normative Demands 206
6.4.1 Mechanisms of Autonomy 206
6.4.2 Mechanisms of Usability
and Policy-Relevance 208
6.4.3 Mechanisms of Impact and Resonance 209
6.4.4 Mechanisms of Accountability and Control 212
6.5 Conclusion: Coupling Devices that Reconcile
Epistemic and Democratic Demands 214
References 218

Part III Conclusion

7 Lessons for Democratic Governance 227
7.1 The Obscuring Effect of Transparency 228
7.2 The Virtues of Consensus in Collective
Decision-Making 230
 Contents xiii

7.3 The Significance of Government Feedback

and Responsiveness 231
7.4 The Key Role of Stakeholders in Reconciling
Expertise and Participation 233
References 236

Index 239
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 The normative assessment framework of democratic

legitimacy and epistemic authority 35
Table 2.2 Three bodies of democratic participation 39
Table 2.3 Three bodies of reliable expertise 50
Table 3.1 Structure of the case studies 88
Table 3.2 The three cases’ scores on democratic legitimacy
and epistemic authority 122
Table 3.3 Key dynamics in the cases 129

xv
 1
Introduction

This book is about the role of expertise and participation in modern

policy-making. It explores the relationship of these increasingly impor-
tant and partly conflicting sources of legitimacy, and aims at their
reconciliation by means of institutional design.
The book zooms in on a particular phase of the policy cycle and a
particular kind of political organisations: The focus lies on arenas of
policy advice and consultation that are set up by the state in order to
agree on policy recommendations. The key question the book deals with
is how these institutions should be organised so that they generate reli-
able, sound and policy-relevant knowledge and at the same time integrate
the viewpoints of all those affected.
There is a broad range of arenas of policy advice and consultation,
which differ, inter alia, in terms of their composition and authority. They
go under various names in political practice, such as ‘consensus confer-
ences’, ‘policy dialogues’, ‘advisory committees’, ‘minipublics’, ‘expert
councils’ or ‘citizen forums’, and they form an important auxiliary
governance structure, through which external societal viewpoints are
fed into the early stages of the policy-making process, i.e. the policy
development phase. In many political systems, and especially in the
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1
Switzerland AG 2021
E. Krick, Expertise and Participation, Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75329-0_1
2 E. Krick

consensus-democratic polities in focus in this book, these arenas have

important coordination functions. In research, such structures have been
analysed mainly from the perspectives of democratic theory, science
studies and public administration. These perspectives have each tended
to focus on particular subtypes of advisory structures and they are so far
scarcely interrelated, even though most real-life cases are hybrids.
This book takes an integrated look at different kinds of arenas of policy
advice and consultation. It analyses the potential of complex, multi-level
and hybrid structures that bring together experts, citizens, stakeholders,
policy-makers and practitioners in a joint quest for consensual policy
suggestions through a range of different layers and channels. Based
on insights from theories of democracy, knowledge, science, organisa-
tion and decision-making as well as case studies from the context of
Norwegian and German environmental policy, the book draws insti-
tutional design lessons about three key organisational parameters: (a)
The modes of participant selection, (b) the internal, collective decision-
making rules and (c) the coupling of advisory bodies with representative
institutions. The design lessons provide pragmatic guidance about how
to efficiently set up and run ‘participatory expert bodies’ that strike a
balance between high epistemic and democratic standards. The book
furthermore develops theory about the relationship, the tensions and
the reconcilability of knowledge and democracy, the interdependence of
participation and representation, the political embedding of participa-
tory and advisory endeavours and the status of consensus in collective
decision-making.
This introductory chapter first elaborates on the problem that this
book responds to: The ‘epistemic-democratic tension’ that lies in the
concurrent need for specialised knowledge and for extended public
participation in modern governance (1.1). It then argues why advisory
and consultation arenas that consist of various, closely integrated levels
have a special capacity to ease this tension in the phase of policy devel-
opment (1.2). Finally, after an outline of the book’s different parts (1.3),
the state of the art, which the book builds on and develops, is illustrated
(1.4).
 1 Introduction 3

1.1 The Epistemic-Democratic Tension

The relationship of knowledge and democracy and between experts, civil
society and the state is a key debate in political sociology and polit-
ical science that has lately often been discussed under headings such as
‘epistemic democracy’ (Estlund and Landemore 2018), the ‘democrati-
sation of expertise’ (Nowotny et al. 2001), the ‘accountability of experts’
(Holst and Molander 2017) or ‘citizen experts’ (Tesh 1999). An epis-
temic-democratic tension lies in the specialisation and independence logic
of reliable expert knowledge on the one hand, and the equality and inclu-
sion imperative of democracy on the other, and it seems to leave us with
the unsatisfactory choice between notoriously suboptimal democratic
rule or elitist rule of the knowers.
This tension has recently been exacerbated by modern society’s
growing reliance on expertise for solving increasingly complex and tech-
nical collective problems (Kitcher 2011; Turner 2014), by the detach-
ment of an increasing number of ‘de-politicised’ expert bodies from
political control (Curtin 2007; Vibert 2007), by the crisis of confi-
dence in representative channels of democratic participation (Fischer
2009; Saward 2010) and subsequent public calls for more direct citizen
involvement (Meriluoto 2017; Polletta 2016).
The growing reliance on specialised knowledge in ‘the age of exper-
tise’ (Fischer 2009, p. 1; see also Jasanoff 2011, p. 622) is linked to
several broader societal developments: The last decades have seen a
sharp and steady increase of access to information and scientific knowl-
edge as well as rising levels of education and attainment around the
world (Bornmann and Mutz 2015; Meyer et al. 1997; OECD 2017).
A global shift towards ‘knowledge societies’ is reflected in the increasing
numbers of knowledge-producing organisations and the rise of inde-
pendent expert bodies (Vibert 2007). These shifts are likely to have
contributed to changes in ideas about what constitutes ‘good gover-
nance’ and to have pushed governance towards ‘expertisation’, i.e. the
growing reliance of modern policy-making on specialised, often research-
based expert advice (Gornitzka and Krick 2018). There is a widely held
belief in modern societies that a sound knowledge basis helps to ensure
the quality of public policies. As Meyer et al. (1997, p. 152) observe,
4 E. Krick

states ‘make valiant efforts to live up to the model of rational actor-

hood’, and they build policies on the ‘ceremonial’ value of expertise
(Meyer and Rowan 1977) to retain credibility and legitimacy. Being
perceived as uninformed, irrational and not evidence-based can become
a strain on public institutions’ reputation (Carpenter 2010). While the
relevance of expertise and a general rationality mandate for public policy-
making may not be a new theme (see, e.g., Douglas 2009), some recent
shifts have intensified these demands. The management of contempo-
rary high-pace technological change and the regulation of risks associated
with it make expert knowledge ever more indispensable (Christensen
and Holst 2017). The ongoing expansion of state functions, the subse-
quently growing complexity of policy-making and a concurrent tendency
to minimise state administration have extended the demand for external,
outsourced policy advice, as Lentsch and Weingart (2011b, pp. 5–7)
point out. This together with the relatively recent emergence of a science-
based policy advice market have accelerated ‘expertisation’ pressures
during the last two decades.
But this is not an unambiguous development that goes only one
way. Partly as a response to these ‘expertisation’ trends, pressures to
‘democratise’ policy-making by ‘opening up’ knowledge production to
the public have increased. What ‘democratisation’ amounts to when it
is invoked is very often not specified, and there seem to be at least
as many dimensions to it as to the notion of democracy. The rise of
powerful, de-politicised, technocratic bodies in modern systems of gover-
nance has spurred concerns about accountability deficits and triggered
calls to strengthen the transparency, social embeddedness and demo-
cratic control of expert bodies (Busuioc 2009; Curtin 2007; Krick and
Holst 2019). With influential concepts such as ‘post-normal science’
(Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993), ‘mode-2’ (Nowotny et al. 2001) and the
‘co-production’ of knowledge (Jasanoff 2003), science (and technology)
studies have pointed out the need to involve the public into epistemic
(or ‘sense-making’) practices in order to increase the validity, usefulness
and legitimacy of policy advice and expertise-based governance.1 These

1To be sure, the idea of opening up or democratising public knowledge production is not
new (see for instance the notion of (participatory or collaborative) ‘action research’ originally
 1 Introduction 5

notions have partly been taken up by policy-makers and complemented

by other concepts, such as ‘open science’ and ‘citizen science’, which are
both strongly promoted by the EU these days. The concepts differ in
the degree of authority they hand over to ‘ordinary citizens’, and not
always have responses to technocratic structures and the omnipresence
of expertise in public policy-making taken a constructive turn. Indeed,
they currently often come in the shape of fierce populist criticism, open
hostility and general contempt towards elites and experts.
Recent democratisation pressures have been fuelled by the crisis of
confidence in the traditional model of representative democracy. With
decreasing voter turnout, declining trust in state institutions and a dwin-
dling organisational degree of societies, public demands to tap into new
sources of legitimacy, participation and responsiveness and to reform
state institutions and the inter-institutional balance have been raised
more loudly (Fischer 2009, p. 49; Saward 2010, pp. 82ff.). Building
on the direct model of democracy, invocations of a ‘democratisation’ of
policy-making or a ‘deliberative’, ‘participatory’ turn in governance prac-
tices (Krick et al. 2019; Lövbrand et al. 2011; Jasanoff 2003) usually
focus on an increasing involvement of ‘the public’ and ‘ordinary citi-
zens’ into policy development through petitions and referenda on single
issues or within public fora such as consensus conferences, town hall
meetings or online consultation tools (Brown 2009; Fischer 2009; Fung
2003, 2006; Urbinati and Warren 2008).2 These channels of public
participation are generally seen as a means to strengthen the legitimacy
of public policies, to contain controversy and generate self-determined,
genuinely democratic and broadly accepted decisions as well as more
target-oriented and enforceable regulations (Fung 2006; Hansen and
Allansdottir 2011, p. 609; Irvin and Stansbury 2004, p. 55; Jasanoff
2011, p. 621; Maasen and Weingart 2005, p. 5; Papadopulos and Warrin
2007, pp. 446–450). Across Europe and the US, policy-makers have

coined by Lewin 1946), but the movement seems to have gained momentum during the last
two decades.
2 For these kinds of participatory formats that mainly target ‘ordinary citizens’ and the ‘general
public’ instead of established stakeholders, the attributes citizen or public are used in this
book (e.g. ‘citizen forum’, ‘public’ or ‘citizen participation’, ‘citizen involvement’, ‘public input
channels’).
6 E. Krick

strongly reacted to this public demand since the 1990s by setting up a

growing number of participatory programmes in all kinds of fields, with
a special focus on technological change and large infrastructure projects
(Brown 2009, p. 220; Hagendijk and Irwin 2006, p. 167; Lengwiler
2008, p. 194; Irvin and Stansbury 2004, p. 56; Webler and Tuler 2000,
p. 566).
The rationales behind these two pressures—the demand for more
extensive public participation and the demand for expertise-based poli-
cies—are likely to draw governance practices into two different direc-
tions.3 There are considerable tensions between these two normative
demands that raise doubts about their compatibility: On the one hand,
the principle of inclusion and equality that underlies democratic partic-
ipation demands the involvement of everyone affected, irrespective of
competences and knowledge. Yet, complicated problems that call for
complex analyses can strain the capacities of lay people to interpret
the information they receive, to know their preferences vis-à-vis these
issues, and act accordingly (Dahl 1994, p. 31; Hauptman 2001, p. 401;
Urbinati and Warren 2008, p. 390). When dealing with questions of risk
that arise from technological innovation, the room for genuine citizen
involvement and open deliberation can be limited. The need for efficient
and effective decision-making can further rule out extensive consulta-
tion, public participation and democratic audits of expertise, which tend
to be time-consuming and demanding (Maasen and Weingart 2005,
p. 10). Besides, particularly innovative, deliberative citizen inclusion is
burdened with a heavy ‘class bias’ that distorts the democratic quality of
such endeavours and (further) privileges the better-off in society (Fung
2006, p. 67; Irvin and Stansbury 2004, p. 59; Lijphart 1997, pp. 1–2;
Papadopulos and Warrin 2007, p. 455; Ryfe 2005, p. 52; Steiner 2012,
p. 49; Urbinati and Warren 2008, p. 405; Young 2000, p. 34).

3 As working definitions, which will be refined in the course of the book (political) participation
shall refer to the involvement of those affected by policies into policy-making through referenda,
party membership, elections, demonstrations, citizen assemblies, etc. Democratic participation
qualifies this involvement according to certain criteria of democratic worth. Expertise, synony-
mous to expert knowledge, refers to the specialised knowledge that is held by experts, i.e. those
considered particularly knowledgeable, competent or experienced in a certain domain. Reli-
able expertise qualifies these knowledge claims according to criteria of epistemic worth (see
Chapter 2.2 in particular for a more thorough debate of these key concepts).
 1 Introduction 7

The dependency on experts, on the other hand, constitutes a demo-

cratic challenge, since expertise is intertwined with the idea of special-
isation and thus elitist by nature (Moore 2017). Experts can be very
influential, but they are neither always neutral and objective, nor are
there usually formal sanctioning channels in place for holding experts
accountable (see Brown 2009; Fischer 2009; Jasanoff 2011; Mansbridge
et al. 2012). When experts and non-experts interact, this creates further
problems: ‘Science’ or ‘academia’ as society’s main knowledge provider
and ‘the public’ as the prime source of citizen participation represent
two traditionally unrelated realms of society (Jasanoff 2003, p. 235) and
there is often a ‘noticeable tension between what scientists and technol-
ogists consider feasible and what the broader public finds acceptable or
desirable’ (Hansen and Allansdottir 2011, p. 609). What is more, when
lay people collaborate with experts on the formulation of policies, the
quality of policies might suffer because ‘people may not possess enough
specialised knowledge and material resources’ (Jasanoff 2003, p. 237).
They may lack both the habitus and terminology of expert discourses
(Young 2000, p. 53), and knowledge hierarchies can ultimately translate
into power hierarchies to the advantage of experts.

1.2 The Quest for Integrated Institutions

of Policy Development
This book aims at giving equal consideration to epistemic and to demo-
cratic quality demands and it strives at their reconciliation. It asserts
that the answer to the epistemic-democratic tension should not be to
favour one set of normative standards over the other. Nor should it be
to let experts, politicians and civil society actors deliberate in separate
venues. Against the outlined double normative perspective, the book
works on tangible, empirics- and theory-based institutional solutions
to the tension for the phase of policy development. This is a phase
of the policy cycle that provides many access points for experts and
civil society. Yet, it is also the phase, where the demand for democratic
participation and expert input can clash particularly strongly. Advi-
sory institutions therefore need to be carefully organised in a way that
8 E. Krick

ensures broad participation and respectful interaction of experts and

non-experts without compromising these arrangements’ independence
and problem-solving capacity (see also Holst and Molander 2017; Krick
2019).
The response to this challenge is far from obvious. One answer
has been given by systems perspectives on deliberative democracy. The
general argument goes that the three functions of deliberative democracy,
described as the ‘ethical’, ‘epistemic’ and ‘democratic’ function (Mans-
bridge et al. 2012), do not have to be fulfilled by every single political
institution, but can be distributed between institutions within a system.
Different venues can share the work, with some being better at deliv-
ering on expertise, while others represent the people well, and again
others resolve conflicts of interest and negotiate implementable solutions
(Christiano 2012). Yet, there are problems connected to such a division
of labour. If the venues are not well interconnected, the different views
of stakeholders, scientists and citizens will not be confronted with each
other and this can reinforce hierarchies and power imbalances, lead to
understanding and translation problems and reinforce the dichotomy of
citizens and experts (Brown 2009, p. 253; 2014, p. 64; Chambers 2017,
p. 266).
Setting up a single committee that brings together experts, civil society
actors and policy-makers to deliberate (i.e. decide by weighing reasons)
on a specific policy issue, also has striking disadvantages. As shown by
studies on collective decision-making, the size of the group would have
to be quite small for deliberations to be meaningful, inclusive and sincere
(Bächtiger et al. 2005 p. 236; Coleman 1990, p. 381; Papadopulos and
Warrin 2007, p. 451; Ryfe 2005, p. 51). A highly limited number of
seats, however, is likely to produce elitist structures, to confine the diver-
sity of both societal viewpoints and (academic) knowledge and to provide
little access for the general public.
The answer discussed in this book are arenas of policy advice and
consultation that involve experts, lay citizens, stakeholders, policy-
makers and practitioners within a multi-layered , but closely integrated
structure. A multi-layered structure can consist of a range of channels of
input for different actor groups and subtasks. It may be quite complex
and attribute differentiated participation rights to different kinds of
 1 Introduction 9

actors. Yet, as long as constant feedback loops are in place between the
different levels and channels of input, such structures have a pronounced
potential to meet a multiplicity of epistemic and democratic aims at the
same time. By bringing together different types of policy actors within
one and the same integrated structure that is characterised by the interac-
tive pursuit of a joint policy solution and by being thoroughly embedded
into the policy process, deficits of one venue can be effectively balanced
by a neighbouring venue with a different participation structure.
In integrated collective processes of deliberation, experts can poten-
tially be held to account during the process, hierarchies between experts
and citizens moderated, perspectives exchanged, compromises found and
voices integrated into a joint, and, ideally, consensual proposal. There
is a good chance that problematic dichotomies between societal groups
are dissolved and divergent perspectives mediated. In small groups and
direct interaction, mutual learning can occur, policy options can be
negotiated and shared framings be developed. This is important for the
power balance between professionals and lay people, organised and non-
organised citizens, partisan and non-partisan actors, because the framing
of problems sets the course for future debates and possible solutions. All
the involved actor groups can potentially benefit from such collective
endeavours: ‘Lay citizens’ need specialised input to generate informed,
sound policy suggestions; experts need public input to identify pressing
issues, respond to societal demands and link up to ‘experiential expertise’
and ‘local knowledge’ (Fischer 2000; Meriluoto 2017); policy-makers
need the perspectives of stakeholders, citizens and experts to develop
effective and acceptable policy solutions.
The key question of this book is how multi-layered advisory arenas
should best be institutionally designed, i.e. how the overall structure and
its components should be set up, arranged, regulated and run, so that
they operate in harmony with a wide range of democratic and epistemic
standards. Following Olsen’s understanding, institutional design shall
refer to acts of purposeful (usually organisational) intervention when
(re)constructing institutions (Olsen 1997, p. 205; see also Hendricks
2016, p. 44). To be sure, interventions are not always successful, but
an idea of success underlies design thinking: The perspective is explicitly
normative and aims at improvement. It is also empirical in that it does
10 E. Krick

not only set up an ideal, but also discusses tensions pertaining to the
respective parameter and aims for empirical realisation (see also Goodin
1996, p. 34). A key question is then how to navigate tensions and how
to realise empirically what may be clear theoretically.4
‘Institution’ not only pertains to legal rules, but also to collective prac-
tices, customs, roles and routine ways of action and interaction that
empower, constrain and structure actor behaviour in such a way that
a certain outcome can be expected (March and Olsen 1989, 22ff.). Insti-
tutions may be more or less formalised and they may be enforced by
coercion or be part of a code of appropriate behaviour that is learned
through socialisation and education. The term can also relate to a more
complex system of rules, such as constitutions or languages, and in the
context of this book, it often overlaps with ‘organisation’.5
In democratic governance and research, increasing efforts have been
made to respond to the most notorious shortcomings of advisory and
consultation institutions, such as the frequent lack of impact and the
‘social privilege’ bias of participatory endeavours (Steiner 2012, pp. 33,
49) or the detachment of expert bodies from scrutiny and control (Brown
2009, p. 240). Examples of such efforts are attempts at opening up advi-
sory processes and linking expert bodies to the public (see, e.g., Holst
and Molander 2017; Krick and Holst 2019; Lord 2019), coupling public
deliberation fora more closely to government units (Curato and Böker
2016; Hendriks 2016; Mansbridge et al. 2012), flattening knowledge
hierarchies and thus increasing the pool of available knowledge (see, e.g.,
Brown 2009, 2014; Fung 2006; Warren and Pearse 2008; Warren 2002)
or experimenting with participant selection techniques to maximise
inclusion (Smith and Setälä 2018; Steiner 2012). The book seeks to
learn from these debates on ‘democratic innovations’, the ‘social ties’ of
expert bodies, and the ‘democratisation’ of science and expertise as well

4 The general assumption in this book is that civil servants can, and usually do, make conscious
choices about how to organise advisory formats and that they are prepared to learn and react to
public demands and academic suggestions. Yet, certainly, not every decision is entirely thought-
through or strategic, and bounded rationality, information deficits, blind spots and biases are
general conditions of social life.
5 ‘Organisation’ relates to a collective that is characterised by a common purpose, some kind of
leadership structure and a certain permanence and our design suggestions pertain to advisory
bodies which are also organisations.
 1 Introduction 11

as from the here-conducted in-depth case studies of multi-level advisory

arrangements that aimed very high in both epistemic and democratic
terms.
Although this book discusses ‘best ways’ of designing policy advice
and consultation arenas, there is nonetheless not one solution that fits
all. The developed design suggestions are meant as corridors. They
stand for particularly suited ways of striking a balance between epis-
temic and democratic expectations and can be used as general guide-
lines or yardsticks for decisions on the composition, the decision rules
and the embedding of advisory arenas, but they also leave room for
adapting institutional designs to different contexts. Individual (multi-
level) advisory arrangements need to be adjusted to the context they
operate in and they may have to be re-designed when the policy issue
they deal with or the participation patterns change. The main political
players, the affected viewpoints and the notion of ‘the public’ differ from
system to system and from policy field to policy field and this needs to
be reflected when setting up and operating advisory rounds.

1.3 Outline of the Book

The book is organised in two parts, the first one consisting of empir-
ical case studies, the second of theoretical studies that deal with key
institutional design questions surrounding the use of policy advice and
consultation in policy-making.
The whole book concentrates on three key organisational parameters
of advisory arenas—(a) their participation patterns, (b) their processes of
decision-making and deliberation and (c) their embedding or coupling
with the environment. These organisational parameters pervade both the
epistemic and the democratic legitimacy dimension and they structure
both the case studies and the theory chapters of the second part of the
book.
In part I of the book (‘Empirical case studies’), real world examples
of multi-level policy developing arenas are analysed in terms of their
epistemic and democratic merits. In in-depth studies of three cases that
aimed very high in both epistemic and democratic terms, normative
12 E. Krick

tensions and ways of dealing with them are identified and material for
the second part of the book is harnessed.6 Key questions leading part
I are: How ‘good’ was the individual practice of policy development in
democratic and epistemic terms? Which problems occurred? How were
tensions between normative standards moderated?7
The first chapter of part I, Chapter 2, prepares the case studies
in methodological, theoretical and policy-contextual terms. It develops
a normative assessment framework that guides the case studies in
Chapter 3. The three cases from the enviornmental policy field in
Germany and Norway are first analysed one-by-one and then from
a comparative perspective that outlines key practices and mechanisms
that the policy-developing arenas used to deal with multiple and partly
conflicting normative objectives.8
In part II of the book (‘Institutional design lessons’), three theoretical
arguments are developed on how to strike a balance between epis-
temic and democratic demands. Building on theoretical knowledge and
insights from a range of case studies, it responds to three central political-
sociological questions of institutional design that pose themselves when
trying to create ‘participatory expert bodies’: How should these arenas
be composed when epistemic and democratic standards are given equal
value (Chapter 4)? How should they decide collectively, which decision
rules should they follow (Chapter 5)? How should they be organised and
embedded into the policy process (Chapter 6)?
More specifically, Chapter 4 theorises on the ideal participation
patterns and the selection mechanism(s) that produce them. Chapter 5
discusses the merits of stopping rules that bring decision processes to
a close and the social norms that sustain them. Chapter 6 deals with
the most appropriate coupling mechanisms between advisory bodies and
their ‘sponsor’ or appointing authority.

6 The cases are the German ‘Final storage committee’ and ‘Climate protection dialogue’ and
the Norwegian ‘Climate adaptation committee’.
7 For the detailed research questions guiding the case studies, see Chapter 2.2 (‘Normative
assessment framework’).
8 See Chapter 2.1 for the case selection strategy and Chapters 3.1–3.3 for the in-depth case
studies, and Chapter 3.4 for the comparative perspective.
 1 Introduction 13

1.4 State of the Art

The book builds on and adds to a range of bodies of research and theory.
It particularly closely links up to democratic theory, social theories of
knowledge and science, as well as organisation and decision theory.9 The
following section lines out how the different parts of the book relate to
current research.
The normative assessment framework that guides the empirical, first
part of the book is particularly theory-rich (see Chapter 2.2). Its demo-
cratic legitimacy criteria are drawn to a large extent from the substantial
body of democratic theories that discuss aspects of participation, repre-
sentation, deliberation and inclusion. While most individual contribu-
tions to democratic theory focus on one specific legitimacy aspect, this
book builds particularly strongly on studies that attend to the internal
tensions and normative dilemmas of democracy (e.g. Brown 2009; Fung
2006; Ryfe 2005; Steiner 2012; Urbinati and Warren 2008; Young
2000). Deliberative democratic theory has naturally been very useful for
analysing the democratic legitimacy dimension of the advisory processes
and they have fed into both the assessment framework and the theoretical
arguments developed in part II (see, e.g., Chambers 2005; Fung 2006;
Hendricks 2016; Mansbridge et al. 2012; Young 2000). Some of the
works in the field also touch on questions of expertise and the epistemic-
democratic relationship and this book builds on these considerations
(Brown 2009; Fischer 2009; Holst and Tørnblad 2015; Landemore and
Estlund 2017; Mansbridge et al. 2012; Moore 2017; Young 2000). Yet,
the focus of deliberative democracy lies usually on the epistemic quali-
ties of the deliberative procedure, while the qualification of the individual
expert or the problem-solving quality of the expertise itself - which are

9 There are some works and authors that stand out because they have been exceedingly valuable
for the reflections in this book. This pertains particularly, but of course not exclusively, to the
works by Mark B. Brown, Frank Fischer, Archon Fung, Cathrine Holst, Sheila Jasanoff, Jane
Mansbridge, Johan P. Olsen, Jürg Steiner, Nadia Urbinati, Marc Warren, Peter Weingart and
Iris Marion Young. These authors are numerously cited within the book, but these references
cannot fully give credit to the influence they have had overall.
14 E. Krick

just as central to the perspective of this book - are not analysed in system-
atic terms (see also Biegelbauer and Hansen 2011; Brown 2009; Fischer
2009 for these lines of arguments).
This book’s assessment framework therefore complements democratic
theory perspectives with philosophical and sociological works on the
value and validity of expertise. Social epistemology helps to theorise
on the trustworthiness and competence of the individual expert (see,
e.g., Fricker 1998; Goldman 2001; Gelfert 2011) and the sociology of
knowledge and science provides important insights about the policy-
science-nexus (e.g. Beck 2012; Beck and Forsyth 2015; Nowotny et al.
2001; Jasanoff 2003; Lentsch and Weingart 2011a; Maasen and Wein-
gart 2005; Straßheim 2013). These perspectives do usually not consider
the collective, political dimension of expertise production or questions of
institutional design, however. While they sometimes invoke a ‘democrati-
sation of expertise’ (Nowotny et al. 2001; Jasanoff 2003), they tend
to stop short when it comes to political challenges of implementation,
democratic dilemmas and the constraints of collective decision-making,
which is why these perspectives are complemented by the aforemen-
tioned works in democratic theory.
In addition, both parts of the book link up to empirically-oriented
studies for the purpose of formulating indicators of democratic and epis-
temic worth, for identifying tensions between different quality standards
and identifying favourable institutional designs. The complex, multi-
layered arenas of policy deliberation and advice in focus here have so
far not been the explicit object of social scientific research. Yet, there
is a substantial body of empirical research on ‘minipublics’ and other
participatory governance arrangements, which usually build on demo-
cratic theory (e.g. Bächtiger et al. 2005; Curato and Böker 2016; Fung
2006; Hansen and Allansdottir 2011; Irvin and Stansbury 2004; Rowe
and Frewer 2000; Steiner 2012), as well as works on ‘expert bodies’
and other policy advice arrangements, which are usually rooted within
public administration and science studies (see, e.g., Brown 2009; Haas
2004; Jasanoff 1990, 2005b; Krick and Holst 2019; Lentsch and Wein-
gart 2011a; Veit et al. 2017). These bodies of work will be built on and
interconnected.
 1 Introduction 15

The theory-building part II of the book draws on a range of addi-

tional bodies of research: Most notably, Chapters 4 and 5 tap social
science theories of collective decision and organisation (e.g. Buchanan
and Tullock 1962; Kelsen 1955; Krick 2017, 2018; Manin 1997; Novak
2014; Offe 1983; Olsen 1972; Risse 2009; Stone 2009; Romme 2004;
Steiner and Dorff 1980; Urfallino 2012, 2014), and Chapter 6 addi-
tionally links up to delegation and principal agent theories, in particular
(e.g. Busuioc 2009; Carpenter 2010; Curtin 2007; Lavertu and Weimer
2011; Verhoest et al. 2004).

References
Bächtiger, André, Markus Spörndli, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Jürg Steiner.
2005. “The Deliberative Dimensions of Legislatures.” Acta Politica 40 (2):
225–239.
Beck, Silke. 2012. “The Challenges of Building Cosmopolitan Climate Exper-
tise: The Case of Germany.” WIREs Climate Change 3: 1–17.
Beck, Silke, and Tim Forsyth. 2015. “Co-production and Democratizing
Global Environmental Expertise: The IPCC and Adaptation to Climate
Change.” In Science and Democracy: Making Knowledge and Making Power
in the Biosciences and Beyond , edited by Rob Hagendijk, Stephen Hilgartner,
and Clark Miller, 113–132. London: Routledge.
Biegelbauer, Peter, and Janus Hansen. 2011. “Democratic Theory and Citizen
Participation: Democracy Models in the Evaluation of Public Participation
in Science and Technology.” Science and Public Policy 38 (8): 589–597.
Bornmann, Lutz, and Rüdiger Mutz. 2015. “Growth Rates of Modern Science:
A Bibliometric Analysis Based on the Number of Publications and Cited
References.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology
66 (11): 2215–2222.
Brennan, Jason. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
Brown, Mark B. 2009. Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and
Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Brown, Mark B. 2014. “Expertise and Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative
Democracy. Issues and Cases, edited by Stephen Elstub and Peter McLaverty,
50–68. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
16 E. Krick

Buchanan, James M., and Gordon Tullock. 1962. The Calculus of Consent:
Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Busuioc, Madalina. 2009. “Accountability, Control and Independence: The
Case of European Agencies.” European Law Journal 15 (5): 599–615.
Carpenter, Daniel P. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and
Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Chambers, Simone. 2005. “Measuring Publicity’s Effect: Reconciling Empirical
Research and Normative Theory.” Acta Politica 40: 255–266.
Chambers, Simone. 2017. “Balancing Epistemic Quality and Equal Participa-
tion in a System Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology
31 (3): 266–276.
Christensen, Johan, and Cathrine Holst. 2017. “Advisory Commissions,
Academic Expertise and Democratic Legitimacy: The Case of Norway.”
Science and Public Policy 44 (6): 821–833.
Christiano, Thomas. 2012. “Rational Deliberation Among Experts and Citi-
zens.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale,
edited by John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, 27–51. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press.
Curato, Nicole, and Marit Böker. 2016. “Linking Minipublics to the Deliber-
ative System: a Research Agenda.” Policy Science 49: 173–190.
Curtin, Deidre. 2007. Holding (Quasi)autonomous EU Administrative Actors
to Public Account European Law Journal 13 (4): 523–541.
Dahl, Robert A. 1994. “A Democratic Dilemma: System Effectiveness Versus
Citizen Participation.” Political Science Quarterly 109 (1): 23–34.
Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal . Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Estlund, David, and Helène Landemore. 2018. “Epistemic Value of Demo-
cratic Deliberation.” In Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, edited
by André Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark E. Warren,
113–131. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fischer, Frank. 2000. Citizens, Experts and the Environment. The Politics of Local
Knowledge. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Fischer, Frank. 2009. Democracy and Expertise. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 1 Introduction 17

Fricker, Miranda. 1998. “Rational Authority and Social Power: Towards a Truly
Social Epistemology.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series 98:
159–177.
Fung, Archon. 2003. “Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Insti-
tutional Design Choices and Their Consequences.”The Journal of Political
Philosophy 11 (3): 338–367.
Fung, Archon. 2006. “Varieties of Participation in Complex Governance.”
Public Administration Review 66 (1): 66–74.
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the Post-normal
Age. Futures 25 (7): 739–755.
Gelfert, Axel. 2011. “Expertise, Argumentation and the End of Inquiry.”
Argumentation 25: 297–312.
Goldmann, Alvin I. 2001. Experts: Which Ones Should We Trust? Philosophy
and Phenomenological Research 63 (1): 85–110.
Goodin, Robert E. 1996. “Institutions and Their Design.” In The Theory
of Institutional Design, edited by Robert E. Goodin, 1–53. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Gornitzka, Åse, and Eva Krick. 2018. “The Expertisation of Stakeholder
Involvement in EU Policy Making.” In Expertisation and Democracy in
Europe, edited by Magdalena Góra, Haas, Peter M. 2004. “When Does
Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process.”
Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4): 569–592.
Hagendijk, Rob, and Alan Irwin. 2006. “Public Deliberation and Governance:
Engaging with Science and Technology in Contemporary Europe.” Minerva
44 (2): 167–184.
Hansen, Janus, and Agnes Allansdottir. 2011. “Assessing the Impacts of Citizen
Participation in Science Governance: Exploring New Roads in Comparative
Analysis.” Science and Public Policy 38 (8): 609–617.
Haas, Peter M. 2004. “When does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist
Approach to the Policy Process.” Journal of European Public Policy 11 (4):
569–592.
Hauptman, Emily. 2001. “Can Less Be More? Leftist Deliberative Critique of
Participatory Democracy.” Polity 33 (3): 397–421.
Hendricks, Carolyn M. 2016. Coupling Citizens and Elites in Deliberative
Systems: The Role of Institutional Design. European Journal of Political
Research 55 (1): 43–60.
Holst, Cathrine, and Anders Molander. 2017. “Public Deliberation and the
Fact of Expertise: Making Experts Accountable.” Social Epistemology 31 (3):
235–250.
18 E. Krick

Holst, Cathrine, and Silje Hexeberg Tørnblad. 2015. Variables and Challenges
in Assessing EU Experts’ Performance.” Politics and Governance 3 (1): 166–
178.
Irvin, Renee A., and John Stansbury. 2004. “Citizen Participation in Decision
Making: Is it Worth the Effort?” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 55–
65.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch. Science Advisers as Policymakers.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2003. “(No?) Accounting for Expertise.” Science and Public
Policy 30 (3): 157–162.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005a. “Judgment Under Siege: The Three-Body Problem of
Expert Legitimacy.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms
of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by Sabine Maasen
and Peter Weingart, 209–224. Dordrecht: Springer.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2005b. Designs on Nature. Science and Democracy in Europe
and the United States. Princeton. Princeton University Press.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2011. “Quality Control and Peer Review in Advisory Science.”
In The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assur-
ance, edited by Justus Lentsch and Peter Weingart, 19–35. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Kelsen, Hans. 1955. “Foundations of Democracy.” Ethics 66 (1): 1–101.
Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. New York, NY: Phrom-
eteus Books.
Kosack, Stephen, and Archon Fung. 2014. “Does Transparency Improve
Governance?” Annual Review of Political Science 17: 65–87.
Krick, Eva. 2017. “The Myth of Effective Veto Power Under the Rule of
Consensus. Dynamics and Democratic Legitimacy of Collective Decision-
making by “Tacit Consent”.” Revue Négociations 27 (1): 109–128.
Krick, Eva. 2018. “The Epistemic Quality of Expertise. Contextualised Criteria
for the Multi-source, Negotiated Policy Advice of Stakeholder Fora.” Critical
Policy Studies 12 (2): 209–226.
Krick, Eva. 2019: “Creating Participatory Expert Bodies. How the Targeted
Selection of Policy Advisers Can Bridge the Epistemic-Democratic Divide.”
European Politics and Society 20 (1): 101–116.
Krick, Eva, and Cathrine Holst. 2019. The Socio-political Ties of Expert
Bodies. How to Reconcile the Independence Requirement of Reliable
Expertise and the Responsiveness Requirement of Democratic Governance.”
European Politics and Society 20 (1): 117–131.
 1 Introduction 19

Krick, Eva, Johan Christensen, and Cathrine Holst. 2019. “Between ‘Scienti-
sation’ and a ‘Participatory Turn’. Tracing Shifts in the Governance of Policy
Advice.” Science & Public Policy [online first] https://doi.org/10.1093/sci
pol/scz040.
Landemore, Hélène. 2017. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic
Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 277–295.
Lavertu, Stéphane, and David L. Weimer. 2011. “Federal Advisory Commit-
tees, Policy Expertise, and the Approval of Drugs and Medical Devices at
the FDA.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 21 (2):
211–237.
Lehmbruch, Gerhard. 1975. “Consociational Democracy in the International
System.” European Journal of Political Research 3 (4): 377–391.
Lengwiler, Martin. 2008. “Participatory Approaches in Science and Tech-
nology: Historical Origins and Current Practices in Critical Perspective.”
Science, Technology and Human Values 33 (2): 186–200.
Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart. 2011a. The Politics of Scientific Advice:
Institutional Design for Quality Assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart. 2011b. “Introduction: The Quest for
Quality as a Challenge to Scientific Policy Advice: An Overdue Debate?”
In The Politics of Scientific Advice: Institutional Design for Quality Assurance,
edited by Justus Lentsch and Peter Weingart, 3–18. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lewin, Kurt. 1946. “Action Research and Minority Problems” Journal of Social
Issues 2 (4): 34–46.
Lijphart, Arend. 1997. “Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved
Dilemma.” The American Political Science Review 91 (1): 1–14.
Lord, Christopher. 2019. “No Epistocracy Without Representation? The Case
of the European Central Bank.” European Politics and Society 20 (1): 1–15.
Lövbrand, Eva, Roger Pielke, and Silke Beck. 2011. “A Democracy Paradox in
Studies of Science and Technology.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 36
(4): 474–496.
Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2005. “What’s New in Scientific Advice
to Politics?” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scien-
tific Advice in Political Decision-Making, edited by Sabine Maasen and Peter
Weingart, 1–19. Dordrecht: Springer.
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Democracy. Cambridge
University Press.
20 E. Krick

Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano,

Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis F. Thompson, and Mark E. Warren.
2012. “A Systematic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative
Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by John Parkinson
and Jane Mansbridge, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
March, James, and Johan Olsen. 1989. Re-discovering Institutions. The Organi-
zational Basis of Politics. New York and London: Free Press.
Meriluoto, Taina. 2017. “Turning Experience into Expertise: Technologies of
the Self in Finnish Participatory Social Policy.” Critical Policy Studies 12 (3):
294–313.
Meyer, John W., and Brian Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations:
Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” The American Journal of Sociology
83 (2): 340–363.
Meyer, John W., J. John Boli, Geoge M. Thomas, and Francisco O. Ramirez.
1997. “World Society and the Nation-State.” American Journal of Sociology
103 (1): 144–181.
Moore, Alfred. 2017. Critical Elitism. Deliberation, Democracy and the Problem
of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Novak, Stéphanie. 2014. “Majority Rule.” Philosophy Compass 9 (10): 681–
688.
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking Science.
Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity.
OECD. 2017. “Research and Development Statistics.” Accessed 11
December 2020. https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/researchanddevelopmentst
atisticsrds.htm.
Offe, Claus. 1983. “Political Legitimation Through Majority Rule?” Social
Research 5 (4): 709–756.
Olsen, Johan P. 1972. “Voting, ‘Sounding Out’, and the Governance of
Modern Organizations.” Acta Sociologica 15 (3): 267–283.
Olsen, Johan P. 1997. “Institutional Design in Democratic Contexts.” Journal
of Political Philosophy 5 (3): 203–229.
Papadopulos, Yannis, and Philippe Warin. 2007. “Are Innovative, Participatory
and Deliberative Procedures in Policy Making Democratic and Effective?”
European Journal of Political Research 46 (4): 445–472.
Polletta, Francesca. 2016. “Participatory Enthusiasms: a Recent History of
Citizen Engagement Initiatives.” Journal of Civil Society 12 (3): 231–246.
Risse, Mathias 2009. “On the Philosophy of Group Decision Methods I: The
Nonobviousness of Majority Rule.” Philosophy Compass 4 (5): 793–802.
 1 Introduction 21

Romme, A. Georges L. 2004. “Unanimity Rule and Organizational Decision

Making: A Simulation Model.” Organization Science 15 (6): 704–718.
Rowe, Gene, and Lynne J. Frewer. 2000. “Public Participation Methods: a
Framework for Evaluation.” Science, Technology and Human Values 25 (3):
3–29.
Ryfe, David M. 2005. “Does Deliberative Democracy Work?” Annual Review
of Political Science 8 (1): 49–71.
Saward, Michael. 2010. The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Smith, Graham, and Maija Setälä. 2018. “Mini-Publics and Deliberative
Democracy.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, edited
by Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren,
1–19, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Steiner, Jürg. 2012. The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy. Empirical
Research and Normative Implications. Cambridge University Press.
Steiner, Jürg and Robert Dorff. 1980. “Decision by Interpretation: A New
Concept for an Often Overlooked Decision Mode.” British Journal of
Political Science 10 (1): 1–13.
Stone, Peter. 2009. “The Logic of Random Selection.” Political Theory 37 (3):
375–397.
Straßheim, Holger. 2013. “Politische Expertise im Wandel: Zur diskursiven
und institutionellen Einbettung epistemischer Autorität.” In Wissen und
Expertise in Politik und Verwaltung, edited by Sabine Kropp and Sabine
Kuhlmann, 65–86. Opladen: Budrich.
Tesh, Sylvia N. 1999. “Citizen Experts in Environmental Risk.” Policy Sciences
32 (1): 39–58.
Thiele, Carmen. 2008. Regeln und Verfahren der Entscheidungsfindung innerhalb
von Staaten und Staatenverbindungen: Staats- und kommunalrechtliche sowie
europa- und völkerrechtliche Untersuchungen. Berlin: Springer.
Turner, Stephen P. 2014. The Politics of Expertise. New York: Routledge.
Urbinati, Nadia, and Marc E. Warren 2008. “The Concept of Representation
in Contemporary Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Sciences
11 (1): 387–412.
Urfalino, Philippe. 2012. “Reasons and Preferences in Medicine Evaluation
Committees.” In Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, edited by
Hélène Landemore and Jon Elster, 173–203. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
22 E. Krick

Urfalino, Philippe. 2014. “The Rule on Non-Opposition: Opening Up

Decision-Making by Consensus.” Journal of Political Philosophy 22 (3):
320–341.
Veit, Sylvia, Turid Husted, and Tobias Bach. 2017. “Dynamics of Change in
Internal Policy Advisory Systems: The Hybridization of Advisory Capacities
in Germany.” Policy Sciences 50 (1): 85–103.
Verhoest, Koen, B. Guy Peters, Geert Bouckaert, and Bram Verschuere. 2004.
“The Study of Organisational Autonomy: A Conceptual Review.” Public
Administration and Development 24 (2): 101–118.
Vibert, Frank. 2007. The Rise of the Unelected . Democracy and the New
Separation of Powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warren, Mark E. 2002. “What Can Democratic Participation Mean Today?”
Political Theory 30 (5): 677–701.
Warren, Mark E., and Hilary Pearse 2008. Designing Deliberative Democracy.
The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Webler, Thomas, and Seth Tuler. 2000. “Fairness and Competence in Citizen
Participation. Theoretical Reflections from a Case Study.” Administration &
Society 32 (5): 566–595.
Young, Iris M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
 Part I
Empirical Case Studies
 2
Methodology, Theory and Context

2.1 Research Strategy, Case Selection

and Methods
This subchapter describes the methodology of the case studies in terms
of case selection, research strategy and methods. It starts by defining the
object of inquiry in more detail.

2.1.1 The Object of Inquiry: Multi-level Arenas

of Policy Advice and Consultation

The organisations in focus in this book are set up by governments

or parliaments (the ‘sponsor’ or ‘parent body’) to deliberate and agree
on joint policy recommendations. A generic term for these kinds of
organisations is used in this study, namely: arenas of policy advice and
consultation.1 They can be composed of actors from various backgrounds,

1 Abbreviated generic forms are also sometimes used as alternatives (such as ‘advisory body’ or
‘consultation arena’).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 25

Switzerland AG 2021
E. Krick, Expertise and Participation, Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-75329-0_2
26 E. Krick

such as interest groups, NGOs, scientists, civil servants, politicians, ‘ordi-

nary citizens’, entrepreneurs and ‘practitioners’. In political practice they
go under a variety of names such as ‘policy dialogues’, ‘expert commis-
sions’, ‘consensus conferences’, ‘public inquiry committees’, ‘enquete
commission s’, ‘minipublics’ or ‘citizen panels’. These are neither self-
explanatory nor protected terms, and the naming of an advisory body
can be used by the parent body to send a message to an audience.
Some of these titles point out the expertise-aspect, others emphasise
public involvement or societal interests, again others stress the aim of
interaction, dialogue and consensus-building.
As mentioned in the preceding chapter, research on these organisa-
tions is fairly divided between studies on participatory arrangements such
as randomly selected ‘minipublics’2 or online consultations on the one
hand and studies on policy advice, expertise and advisory committees
on the other (notable exceptions are Brown 2009 and Fischer 2009).
The first cluster of arenas tends to be studied from a perspective of
deliberation and participation, while policy advisory committees have
primarily been the subject of public administration and science studies.
Yet, a case can be made that the line between ‘advice’ and ‘participation’
is far from clear-cut. In the policy realm, both can be seen as forms of
input by externals, i.e. agents that do not belong to the system of govern-
ment in the narrower sense. What is more, most real-life advisory bodies
are hybrid s that interlink the realms of academia, policy-making and
the public. Therefore, an encompassing perspective on these organisa-
tions is taken here and all state-sponsored advisory bodies in the policy
development phase are called quite plainly ‘arenas of policy advice and
consultation’—irrespective of whether they may have been tailored more
explicitly towards involving ‘the public’ or lean towards independent
advice, for instance.

2 The term ‘minipublic’ these days often pertains quite specifically to randomly selected public
deliberation fora, such as ‘consensus conferences’, ‘citizen juries’ or ‘planning cells’ in research
(see Brown 2009, p. 251; Steiner 2012, p. 33), and this book follows this understanding. Yet,
some authors also use the term in a more general sense for participatory settings that target
the ‘the public’, and include town hall meetings and online debate fora that allow open access
into the definition (see, e.g., Fung 2003, p. 338f.).
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
“Well, I’m glad you do. Go ahead and do your whitewashing.
Whitewash isn’t like paint, it comes off easy.”
From behind the closed door of the library a sharp voice called:
“Cap’n Townsend! Cap’n Townsend! Supper’s ready!”
Varunas started. “I must be goin’,” he whispered. “Don’t tell her about
it, Cap’n Foster, will ye. She’ll pester me to death to find out what’s
up and if I don’t tell her, she— But say!” he added admiringly, “that is
about as slick a trick as ever I heard of, that whitewashin’ is. How did
you ever come to think that up all by yourself?”
Foster Townsend, his hand on the knob of the dining room door,
grunted.
“I didn’t think it up all by myself,” he said, curtly. “There’s nothing new
about it. It’s an old trick, as old as horse racing. I remembered it,
that’s all, and I guess it is good enough to fool any of Sam Baker’s
gang. You can tell me to-morrow how it worked.”
He opened the door, crossed the library and sat down in his chair at
the lonely supper table. Nabby Gifford brought in the eatables and
set them before him.
“I made you a fish chowder to-night, Cap’n Foster,” she said. “I know
you always liked it and we ain’t had one for a long time. Ezra
Nickerson had some real nice tautog that his boy had just caught out
by the spar buoy and there’s no kind of fish makes as good chowder
as a tautog. Now I do hope you’ll eat some of it. You ain’t ate enough
the last week to keep a canary bird goin’. You’ll be sick fust thing you
know.”
Townsend dipped his spoon in the chowder and tasted approvingly.
“Good enough!” he declared. “Tastes like old times. Seems like old
times to have you waiting on table, too, Nabby. Mother always liked
your fish chowders.”
Mrs. Gifford nodded. “I know she did,” she agreed. “Time and time
again I’ve heard her say there was nobody could make a chowder
like me. Um-hum. Oh, well! We’re here to-day and to-morrow the
place thereof don’t know us, as it says in the Bible. Ah, hum-a-day!...
Speakin’ of waitin’ on table,” she added, noting the expression on his
face, “I wanted to talk to you about that, Cap’n Townsend. There ain’t
any reasons why I shouldn’t do it all the time. You don’t need two
hired help in that kitchen now any more than a codfish needs wings.
Ellen, she and that Georgie D. of hers will be gettin’ married pretty
soon—leastways all hands says they will—and when she quits you
mustn’t hire anybody in her place. If I can’t get meals for one lone
man then I’d better be sent to the old woman’s home. You might just
as well let me do it, and save your money—not that you need to
save any more, land knows!”
Foster Townsend shook his head. “A pretty big house for one pair of
hands to take care of,” he observed. “When Ellen goes—or if she
goes—you better hire some one else, Nabby.”
“Now, Cap’n Foster, what’s the use? What for?”
“Because I want you to, for one reason.... There, there, Nabby! don’t
argue about it. I know what I’m doing. At any rate I guess I can
spend my own money, if I want to.”
“I guess you can. I don’t know who’s liable to stop you doin’ anything
you want to, far’s that goes. Nobody has done it yet, though there’s a
good many tried.... But while I’m talkin’ I might just as well talk a little
mite more. I don’t see why you keep on livin’ in this great ark of a
place. ’Tain’t a bit of my business, but if I was you I’d sell—or rent it,
or somethin’—and have a little house that I wouldn’t get lost in every
time I went upstairs.”
Her employer shook his head. “This is my house and I stay in it,” he
said, crisply.
“Well, if you will you will, of course. When you bark at a body that
way there ain’t a mite of use barkin’ back, I know that. And I realize
that you and—and her that’s gone had the best time in the world
buildin’ over this house and riggin’ it up. It’s just that I know how
lonesome you are—a blind person could see that.... Here, here! You
mustn’t get up from that table yet, Cap’n Foster. You’ve got to have
some more of my tautog chowder.”
“No. Had enough, Nabby.”
“My soul! Well, then you must have a helpin’ of baked indian puddin’.
I made it ’special, because I knew how you liked it. Don’t tell me you
won’t touch that puddin’!”
“All right, all right. Bring it along. And I’ll have another cup of tea, if
you’ve got it.”
“Got it! I’ve got a gallon. That Varunas man of mine would drink a
hogshead of strong tea all to himself any time if I’d let him. I tell him
no wonder he’s all shriveled up like a wet leather apron.”
She disappeared into the kitchen to return, a moment later, with the
refilled cup. She was talking when she went out and talking when
she came back.
“You hadn’t ought to keep on livin’ in this house all alone,” she
declared, with emphasis. “I said it afore and now I say it again. It ain’t
natural to live that way. It ain’t good for man to be alone, that’s what
the Good Book says. Land sakes! afore I’d do that I’d—I’d do the
way the rich man in the—what-d’ye-call-it—parallel done. I’d go out
into the highways and byways and fetch in the lame and the halt and
the blind. Yes, indeed I would! I’d do it for company and I wouldn’t
care how halt they was, neither; they’d be better’n nobody. Speakin’
about that parallel,” she added, reflectively. “I’ve never been real
sure just what ailed a person when he was a ‘halt.’ A horse—mercy
knows I hear horse talk enough from Varunas!—has somethin’
sometimes that’s called the ‘spring halt,’ but that, so he tells me, is a
kind of lameness. Now the parallel tells about the lame and the halt,
so— Good gracious! Why, you ain’t through, be you, Cap’n Foster?
You ain’t hardly touched your puddin’.”
The captain had risen and pushed back his chair. “I’ve eaten all I can
to-night, Nabby,” he said. “My appetite seems to have gone on a
voyage these days and left me ashore.... Humph! So you think I’d
better have somebody come and live here with me, do you? That’s
funny.”
“Why is it funny? Sounds like sense to me.”
“It’s funny because I had just about made up my mind— Oh, well,
never mind that, I’m going out pretty soon. If any one comes to see
me you can tell them I’ve gone.”
“Where shall I say you’ve gone?”
“If you don’t know you won’t have to say it.... Good-night.”
“Shall I tell Varunas to have the carriage and team ready for you?”
“No, I’m going to walk.”
“Walk! What’ll people think if they see you out a-walkin’ on your own
feet like—like common folks? The idea!”
“Good-night. One thing more: If the minister comes tell him I’ll keep
up Bella’s subscription to the church the same as she did when she
was here—that is, for the present, anyhow. If he says anything about
my giving money toward the new steeple tell him I haven’t made up
my mind whether or not the steeple is going to be rebuilt. When I do
I’ll let him know.... That’s all, I guess.”
He went into the library, drawing the curtains with his own hands this
time. He glanced at the ornate marble and gold clock upon the
mantel, decided that it was too early for his contemplated walk, and
sank heavily into the leather chair. He picked up the paper from the
floor, adjusted his spectacles and attempted to read. The attempt
was a failure. Nothing in the closely printed pages aroused his
interest sufficiently to distract his thoughts from the empty rocker at
the other side of the table. He tossed the paper upon the floor again
and sat there, pulling at his beard and glancing impatiently at the
clock. Its gold plated hands crept from seven to seven-thirty and, at
last, to ten minutes to eight. Then he rose and moved toward the
front hall.
In that hall he took from the carved walnut hatstand a long ulster and
a black soft hat. He had donned the ulster and was about to put on
the hat when he heard Mrs. Gifford’s step in the library. She was
calling his name.
“Well, here I am,” he answered, impatiently. “Now what?”
Nabby was out of breath, and this, together with the consciousness
of the importance of her errand, did not help her toward coherence.
“I—I’m awful sorry to stop you, Cap’n Foster,” she panted, “and—and
of course I know you didn’t want to see nobody to-night. But—but he
said ’twas serious and he’d come all the way from Trumet a-purpose
—and it’s rainin’ like all fire, too—and bein’ as ’twas him, I—well, you
see, I just didn’t know’s I’d ought to say no—so—”
Townsend interrupted. “Who is it?” he demanded.
Nabby’s tone was awe-stricken. “It’s Honorable Mooney,” she
whispered. “Representive Mooney, that’s who ’tis. He’s drove all the
way from Trumet, rain and all, to see you, Cap’n Foster, and he says
it’s dreadful important. If it had been any one else I wouldn’t have let
him in, but honest, when I see him standin’ on the steps to the side
door, lookin’ just as big and—and noble as he done when Varunas
took me to that Republican rally and he made such a grand speech, I
—well, I—”
Again her employer broke in.
“You have let him in, I take it,” he said, curtly. “And of course you told
him I was in.... Well, I’ll give him five minutes. Send him into the
sitting-room.”
The Honorable Alpheus Mooney was a young man serving his first
term in the Massachusetts Legislature as Representative for the
Ostable County district. He was extremely anxious to continue his
service there, had been renominated and was now facing the ordeal
of the election which would take place early in November. His
manner as he entered the library was a curious mixture of
importance, deference and a slight uneasiness.
“How do you do, Cap’n Townsend?” he gushed, changing his hat
from his right hand to his left and extending the former. “How do you
do, sir?”
He seized the Townsend hand and shook it heartily. The captain
endured the shaking rather than shared in it. He did not ask his caller
to be seated.
“How are you, Mooney?” he said. “Well, what brought you over here
this wet night?”
Mr. Mooney sat without waiting for an invitation. He placed his hat
upon the floor, clasped his hands in his lap, unclasped them again,
crossed his knees, cleared his throat, and agreed that the evening
was a wet one. Townsend, still standing, thrust his own hands into
his trousers pockets.
“Well, what’s the matter?” he asked, dismissing the subject of the
weather.
Mooney once more cleared his throat. “Oh—er—oh, nothing in
particular, Cap’n,” he said. “Nothing much. I was over here in Harniss
and—and I thought I would drop in for a minute, that’s all. I haven’t
seen you since your—er—sad loss—and I—er—I can’t tell you how
sorry I was to learn of your bereavement. It was a great shock to me,
a dreadful shock.”
Townsend’s face was quite expressionless. “All right,” he observed.
“Nabby said you wanted to see me about something important.
Well?”
“Well—well, I—er—I did. Not so very important, perhaps—but ... you
were going out, weren’t you, Cap’n Townsend?”
“Yes. I am going out in five minutes. Perhaps a little less.”
“I wouldn’t think of keeping you, Cap’n, of course not.”
“All right.”
“Cap’n Townsend, I—er—well, I am going to be—I am going to
speak right out, as man to man. I know you would rather have me
speak that way.”
Townsend nodded. “There aren’t any women here, as I know of,” he
agreed. “Go ahead and speak.”
“Yes.” Mr. Mooney seemed to find the “man to man” speaking
difficult. “Well,” he began, “it has come to my ears—far be it from me
to say it is true; I don’t believe it is, Cap’n Townsend—but I have
heard that you weren’t so very—well, anxious to see me reëlected
Representative. I have heard stories that you said you didn’t care
whether they reëlected me or not. Now, as I say, I don’t believe you
ever said anything of the kind. In fact, I as good as know you didn’t.”
He paused and looked up eagerly, seeking confirmation of the
expressed disbelief. The Townsend face was still quite
expressionless, nor was the reply altogether satisfactory.
“All right,” said the captain again. “If you know it, then you don’t need
to worry, do you?”
“No. No-o; but—you haven’t said any such thing, have you, Cap’n
Townsend?”
Townsend did not answer the question. He regarded his visitor with a
disquieting lack of interest.
“I was given to understand that you said you were as good as
reëlected already,” he observed. “If you said that, and believe it, then
what I said or what anybody else said isn’t worth fretting about, let
alone cruising twelve miles in a rainstorm to find out about.”
“Well, but, Cap’n Townsend—”
“Heave to a minute. See here, Mooney, you’ve got the Republican
nomination.”
“Yes. Of course I have, but—”
“Wait. And there hasn’t been a Democratic Representative from this
district at the state house since the sixties, has there?”
“No, but—”
“All right. Then you don’t need to talk to me. If you’re a Republican,
ready to vote every time with your party and for the district, you are
safe enough. Especially,” with a slight twitch of the lip, “when you say
yourself you’re as good as reëlected.”
This, perhaps, should have been reassuring, but apparently it was
not. The Honorable Mr. Mooney shifted uneasily in his chair.
“Yes, yes, I know,” he admitted. “That’s all right, so far as it goes....
But, Cap’n Townsend, I—well, I know you aren’t as—well, as strong
for me as you were when I ran before. You thought, I suppose—like
a good many other folks who didn’t know—that I ought to have voted
for that cranberry bill. You, nor they, didn’t understand about that bill.
That bill—well, it read all right enough, but—well, there was more to
it than just reading. There were influences behind that bill that I didn’t
like, that’s all. No honest man could like them.”
“Um-hum. I see. Well, what was it that honest men like you didn’t like
about that bill? I was one of those ‘influences,’ behind it, I guess. It
protected the cranberry growers of the Cape, didn’t it? Looked out
for their interests pretty well? I thought it did, and I read it before you
ever saw it.”
“Yes. Yes, it protected them all right. But there are other sections
than the Cape, Cap’n Townsend. They’re beginning to raise
cranberries up around Plymouth and—and—”
“I know. And there are influences up there, too. Well, what has that
cranberry bill got to do with you? You didn’t vote against it. Of course
you told me and a few others, before you were elected the first time,
that you would vote for it, but you didn’t do that, either. You weren’t in
the House when that bill came up to a vote. You’d gone fishing, I
understand.”
Mr. Mooney was indignant. “No such thing;” he declared, springing to
his feet. “I hadn’t gone fishing. I was sick. That’s what I was—sick.”
“Yes?” dryly. “Well, some of the rest of us were sick when we heard
about it. Never mind that. The bill was defeated. Of course,” he
added, after a momentary interval, “it may come up again this
session and Jim Needham, the Democratic candidate, says he shall
vote for it, provided he’s elected. But you say you’re going to be
elected, so what he may or may not do won’t make any difference....
There! my five minutes are up, and more than up. I’ve got to go.
Honest men are scarce in politics, Mooney. Maybe all hands around
here will remember that on election day and forget their cranberry
swamps. Maybe they will. Sorry I’ve got to hurry. Good-night.”
He was on his way to the hall door, but his visitor hurried after him
and caught his arm.
“Hold on, Cap’n Townsend,” he begged. “Hold on just a minute. I—I
came here to tell you that—that I’d changed my mind about that bill. I
—I’m going to vote for it. Yes, and I am going to work for it, too.”
“Oh!... Well, speaking as one of those ‘influences’ you were talking
about, I’m glad to hear you say so, of course. But you said so before.
What makes you change your mind this time—change it back again,
I mean? Has that honesty of yours had a relapse?”
The Honorable Mooney ignored the sarcasm. He had journeyed from
Trumet in the rain to say one thing in particular and now he said it.
“Cap’n Townsend,” he pleaded desperately, “you aren’t going to use
your influence against me, are you? There’s no use beating around
the bush. Everybody that knows anything knows that a word from
you will change more votes than anybody else’s in the county. If you
say you’re going to vote for Needham—well, this is a four to one
Republican district, but I guess you can lick me if you want to. You
won’t do that, will you? I’m going to work hard to get that cranberry
bill through the House; honest, I am. I was a fool last session. I
realize it now. If that bill can be shoved through I’ll help do it. That’s
the honest God’s truth.”
Foster Townsend regarded him in silence. Mooney’s eyes met the
grim intentness of the gaze for a moment, then faltered and fell. The
Townsend lip twitched.
“You’re goin’ to make a speech here in Harniss sometime this week,
aren’t you?” the captain asked.
“Yes. Next week, Tuesday night, at the town hall.”
“Um-hum. Going to say anything about that cranberry bill?”
“Yes, yes, I am. I am going to come out for it hard. I am going to tell
everybody that I was wrong about it, that I’ve seen my mistake and
they can count on me as being strong for it. That’s what I am going
to tell them.... Say,” he added, eagerly, “I’ve got my speech all written
out. It’s in my pocket now. Don’t you want to read it, Cap’n? I brought
it hoping you would.”
Townsend shook his head.
“I can wait until Tuesday, I guess,” he replied. “I was planning to go
to the rally. I’ll be there, along with some more of the dishonest
influences. They will all want to hear you.”
“And you won’t work against me, Cap’n Townsend? I can’t tell you
how sorry I am about—about this whole business.”
“Never mind. You can tell it all at the rally. It ought to be interesting to
hear and, if it is interesting enough, it may bring some votes into port
that have been hanging in the wind. I can’t say for sure, but it may....
There! I can’t spare any more time just now.... Nabby!” raising his
voice. “Nabby!”
Mrs. Gifford appeared between the curtains. Her employer waved a
hand toward his visitor.
“Nabby,” he said, “just see that Mr. Mooney finds his way out to his
buggy, will you.... Good-night, Mooney.”
The honorable representative of an ungrateful constituency, thus
unceremoniously dismissed, followed Mrs. Gifford to the dining room
and from there to the side entrance to the mansion. Foster
Townsend watched him go. Then he shrugged, sniffed disgustedly,
and, pulling the soft hat down upon his forehead, strode through the
hall, stopped to take an umbrella from the rack, and stepped out
through the front door into the rainy blackness of the night.
The few who met and recognized him as he tramped the muddy
sidewalks bowed reverentially and then stopped to stare. For
Captain Foster Townsend, greatest among Ostable County’s great
men, to be walking on an evening such as this—walking, instead of
riding in state behind his span of blacks—was an unheard-of
departure from the ordinary. Why was he doing it? Where was he
bound? What important happenings hung upon his footsteps?
They could not guess, nor could their wives or sons and daughters
when the story was told them. They were right, however, when they
surmised that the magnate’s errand must be freighted with
importance. It was—vastly important to him and no less so to the
members of another household in the village of Harniss.
 CHAPTER II
IN the Harniss post office Reliance Clark was sorting the evening
mail. The post office was a small building on the Main Road. It sat
back fifteen or twenty feet from that road and a white picket fence
separated the Clark property from the strip of sidewalk before it. A
boardwalk, some of its boards in the last stages of bearability, led
from the gap in that fence to the door. Over the door a sign, black
letters on a white ground, displayed the words “POST OFFICE.” On
the inner side of that door was a room of perhaps fifteen by ten feet,
lighted in the daytime by two windows and at night by three kerosene
lamps in brackets. There was a settee at either end of the room, a
stove in the middle, and a wooden box filled with beach sand beside
the stove. The plastered walls were covered with handbills and
printed placards. The advertisement of the most recent
entertainment at the town hall, that furnished by “Professor Megenti,
the World Famous Ventriloquist and Necromancer,” was prominently
displayed, partially obscuring the broadside of “The Spalding Bell
Ringers” who had visited Harniss two weeks earlier. Beneath these
were other announcements still more passé, dating back even as far
as the red, white and blue placards of the Centennial Exhibition in
Philadelphia in ’76. The room was crowded with men and boys,
dressed as befitted the weather, and the atmosphere was thick with
tobacco smoke and the smells of wet clothing, fishy oilskins and
damp humanity.
Across the side of the room opposite the door was a wooden
partition, divided by another door into two sections. On the left was a
glass showcase displaying boxes of stick candy, spools of thread,
papers of pins and needles, and various oddments of the sort known
as “Notions.” Behind the showcase was standing room for the
person who waited upon purchasers of these; behind this a blank
wall.
At the right of the door, and extending from floor to ceiling, was a
wooden frame of letter boxes with a sliding, ground-glass window in
the center. This window was closed while the mail was in process of
sorting and opened when it was ready for distribution. In the
apartment on the inner side of the letter boxes and window, an
apartment little bigger than a good-sized closet, Reliance Clark,
postmistress of the village of Harniss, was busy, and Millard Fillmore
Clark, her half-brother, was making his usual pretense of being so.
Reliance was plump, quick-moving, sharp-eyed. Her hair had
scarcely a trace of gray, although she was nearly fifty. The emptied
leather mail bag was on the floor by her feet, packages of first and
second class mail matter lay upon the pine counter before her and
her fingers flew as she shot each letter or postal into the box rented
by the person whose name she read.
Millard Fillmore Clark was older by five years. He was short, thin and
inclined to be round-shouldered. He was supposed to be sorting
also, but his fingers did not fly. They lingered over each envelope or
post card they touched. Certain of the envelopes he held, after a
precautionary glance at his half-sister, between his eyes and the
hanging lamp, and the postal cards he invariably read.
“Humph! Sho!” he muttered aloud, after one such reading. Reliance
heard him and turned.
“What is it?” she asked. “What’s the matter now?”
Millard, who had spoken without being aware of it, looked guilty.
“Why, nothin’ special,” he answered, hurriedly. “I just— Humph!
Seems that Peter Eldridge’s wife’s nephew has had another baby.
That’s news, ain’t it!”
Reliance sniffed.
“Yes, I should say it was,” she observed, dryly, “if it was the way you
put it. His wife’s niece, you mean, I suppose.”
“Well, it’s his wife’s nephew’s wife. That’s the same thing, ain’t it.
He’s the one that married the girl from up to Middleboro. Simpson—
or Simpkins—seems to me her name was, as I recollect. She—”
“Mil Clark, you put that postal in the box where it belongs. This mail
is late enough already and I don’t want to stay out here in this office
all night. If you would only mind your own business as well as you do
everybody else’s you’d be the smartest man in this town, which—”
She did not finish the sentence. Mr. Clark regarded her suspiciously.
“Well, which what?” he demanded, after a momentary pause. “Which
what? What was you goin’ to say?”
“Nothin’ in particular. Go to work and stop talkin’.”
“I know what you was goin’ to say. You’ve said it too many times
afore. I’m gettin’ sick of havin’ it hove up to me, too. Just about sick
of it, I am. A man can stand about so much and then he gets
desperate. He don’t care what he does to himself. Some of these
days you’ll be surprised, Reliance Clark—you and Esther and all the
rest of ’em.”
His sister did not seem greatly alarmed.
“Um-hum,” she sniffed. “Well, just now you can surprise me by doin’
your share of this mail sortin’.... Oh, my soul and body!” she added,
snatching the postal from his hand. “Either go to work or get out of
my way, one or the other. Go out in the back room and sit down. You
can sit down as well as anybody I ever saw.”
Millard Fillmore did not accept the suggestion. With the expression of
a martyr he proceeded to cut the twine binding the bundles of papers
and second class matter, muttering to himself and shaking his head
as he did so. The contents of the bundles followed the letters and
postals into the boxes. At last Reliance heaved a sigh of relief.
“There!” she exclaimed. “That’s done. Open the window.”
Mr. Clark slid back the ground-glass window. An eager crowd was
standing at the other side of the partition. Millard faced his fellow-
citizens with an air of importance. This was the part of the post-office
routine which he liked.
“All right!” he announced, briskly. “Now then! Cap’n Snow’s first. Yes,
sir! here you are. Quite a bunch of mail you’ve got this evenin’. All
right, Hamilton, you’re next ... just a minute, Mr. Doane; I’ll attend to
you in a jiffy.... Now, now, you boy! you hold on; you take your turn.
No use shovin’, you won’t get it any sooner. This business has to be
done systematic.”
The group before the window thinned as its members received their
shares of the mail matter. Some departed immediately, others
lingered to open envelopes or for a final chat. Suddenly there was a
stir and a turning of heads toward the door. Some one had entered,
some one of importance. There was a buzz of respectful greeting.
“Why, good evening, Cap’n Townsend!”... “How d’ye do, Cap’n?”...
“Kind of bad night to be out in, ain’t it? Yes, ’tis.”
The salutations in general were of this kind. There were a few, and
these from persons of consequence, which were more familiar.
Judge Wixon said “Good evening, Foster,” and paused to shake
hands, but even he was not in the least flippant. The Reverend Mr.
Colton, minister of the old First Church, was most cordial, even
anxiously so. “I stopped at your door, Captain Townsend,” he began,
“but Mrs. Gifford told me—I gathered from what she said—”
The great man broke in. “Yes, all right, Colton,” he said. “I’ll see you
pretty soon. I haven’t made up my mind yet. To-morrow or next day,
maybe. Hello, Ben! Evening, Paine.”
He moved forward to the window, those before him making way for
his passing. Millard Fillmore Clark’s bow was a picture, his urbanity a
marvel. He brushed aside a lad who was clamoring for the copy of
the Cape Cod Item in the family box and addressed the
distinguished patron of the postal service.
“Good evenin’, Cap’n Townsend,” he gushed, “Yes, sir! I’ve got your
mail all ready for you. It’s such a mean night I didn’t hardly expect
you’d come for it yourself, but I had it all laid out cal’latin’ if Vaninas
showed up, I’d—Eh? Oh, yes, here ’tis! There’s consider’ble of it,
same as there generally is. Yes, indeed!”
Foster Townsend paid no attention to the flow of language. He took
the packet of letters and papers and thrust it into the pocket of his
ulster, and, pushing the speaker unceremoniously out of the way,
leaned through the window and addressed the postmistress.
“Reliance,” he said.
Miss Clark, already tidying up the little room preparatory to closing
for the night, looked over her shoulder.
“Yes,” she said. “What is it?”
“Come here a minute. I want to speak to you.”
Reliance finished brushing the counter before she complied. Then,
pushing her half-brother a little farther from the window, she stepped
to the place he had occupied. Millard accepted the push with as
much dignity as was possible under the circumstances. It was no
novelty; he was pushed out of some one’s way at least a dozen
times a day.
“Well?” queried Reliance, briskly. Her tone in addressing Ostable
County’s first citizen was precisely that which she used when
addressing others less consequential. Of the two, it was Foster
Townsend who seemed embarrassed, and embarrassment was not
usual with him.
“Is—is that niece of yours in the house?” he asked.
For just an instant Reliance hesitated. She was regarding him
intently.
“I suppose likely she is,” she said. “Why?”
“Hasn’t gone to bed, has she?”
“She usually sits up till I come in.”
“Um.... How much longer will you be out here in the office?”
“I expect to lock up at nine, same as I usually do.”
“I see. Going into the house then, aren’t you?”
“I certainly am. I don’t expect to go out walkin’ in a pourin’ down
rainstorm like this one.”
Townsend’s embarrassment seemed to increase. He pulled at his
beard.
“Well,” he said, “I—I want to have a talk with the girl and—er——”
Again he paused. Reliance, her gaze fixed upon his face, broke in.
“What’s that?” she asked, sharply. “Do you mean to say you want to
talk with her—with Esther?”
“Yes, I do. I’ve got something to say to her, something rather
important. I want you to be there when I say it. I’ll wait and go into
the house with you when you’re ready. That is, if it’s all right.”
Another momentary pause. Then Miss Clark nodded.
“No reason why it shouldn’t be all right,” she said. “You better come
into the shop and wait.... Be still, Millard! Here, you let Cap’n
Townsend through into the shop and light the lamp there. Yes, and
when you’ve done it you come straight back and help me sweep up.
Bring the broom with you. Hurry now!”
Mr. Clark, whose eager ears had been strained to catch this
conversation, hastened to unlock the door between the post-office
waiting-room and the official quarters. He ushered the visitor into the
large apartment at the rear of the building—or would have done so if
the said visitor had not pushed him aside and gone in first. About this
room were stands displaying finished hats and bonnets. Others, but
partially finished, lay about upon tables and chairs. In the room also
were two sewing-machines, workbaskets, scraps of ribbons and
cloth, spools of thread, and the general disorder of the workroom of
a millinery shop. Reliance Clark was the town milliner as well as its
postmistress. “I and Esther and Mil have to live on somethin’,”
Reliance had more than once told Abbie Makepeace, the middle-
aged spinster who was her partner in the millinery business, “and
what Uncle Sam pays me for sortin’ letters is nothin’, or next door to
it.”
Millard Fillmore, agog with excitement, pulled forward a chair,
carefully wiping its seat with a soiled handkerchief, and Foster
Townsend sat down. Mr. Clark cleared his throat and offered
apologies.
“We don’t usually look so—so sort of messed up out here, Cap’n
Foster,” he explained; “but the mail’s been so extry heavy lately—
election day comin’ and all—that we ain’t neither of us had hardly a
minute to spare.... It ain’t any of my business, Cap’n,” he added,
lowering his voice, “but did I understand you to say you’d come here
to-night to see—to see—Esther? I wasn’t quite sure as I heard it
straight, but—”
From the adjoining room his sister’s voice issued an order. “Bring
that broom,” she commanded.
Mr. Clark hesitated.
“I’m afraid you’ll have to excuse me, Cap’n Foster,” he explained.
“You see, there’s a little too much work for Reliance to handle, and
she—yes, yes, I’m comin’, Reliance. Heavens and earth! can’t you
wait a minute?”
He took the broom from the corner and joined his sister. Foster
Townsend, left alone, crossed his knees and leaned back in the
chair.
At eight fifty-nine Miss Clark extinguished the bracket lamps in the
waiting-room and locked the front door. A half minute later she
appeared in the workshop, threw a black cloth waterproof over her
shoulders and turned to her caller.
“All ready,” she announced. “Millard, put out that light.”
The trio emerged from the side entrance of the building just as the
clock presented to the First Church by the late Arabella Townsend
struck the hour. It was still raining heavily. They followed a path
across a small yard and stood beneath a latticed portico covered
with honeysuckle, the dry tendrils of the latter rattling as the rain fell
upon them. Reliance opened the door beneath the lattice and they
stepped into a tiny sitting-room. By a table, with a paper-shaded
lamp upon it, a girl of seventeen was sitting, reading a public library
book. She turned as Miss Clark and her brother entered, but when
the bulky figure of Foster Townsend came through the doorway she
rose, an expression of astonishment upon her pretty face. She was
Esther Townsend, daughter of Freeling Townsend, Foster
Townsend’s much younger brother, and Eunice, his wife. Freeling
Townsend died in eighteen sixty-nine. Eunice, Millard Clark’s own
sister and half-sister to Reliance, died five years later. Esther had
lived with the Clarks ever since. And during that time not once, until
this evening, had her father’s brother come to that house. She stood
and gazed, but she did not speak.
Characteristically it was Millard Fillmore who broke the silence and,
just as characteristically, it was Reliance who interrupted him.
“Esther,” began Mr. Clark, with bustling importance, “don’t you see
you’ve got a caller? Can’t you say good evenin’? Take off your
things, Cap’n Foster. Here! let me help you with your coat. Esther,
can’t you see he’s holdin’ his umbrella? Don’t stand there gawpin’.
Get—”
And here Reliance broke in. “Millard,” she ordered, “be still! Yes,
you’d better take off your coat, Foster; that is, if you’re goin’ to stay
any time. It’s warm in here. Esther usually has this house hot enough
to roast a Sunday dinner. Esther, get him a chair.”
The girl brought forward the rocker she had been sitting in.
Townsend pulled off his ulster and handed it and his hat and
umbrella to Mr. Clark who was obsequiously waiting to receive them.
He lowered himself into the rocker. Then he turned to the others.
“You better sit down, all of you,” he said. “What I’ve got to say may
take a little time. Sit down, Reliance. Sit down, Esther.”
Mr. Clark’s name was not included in the invitation, but he was the
first to sit. Esther took a chair at the other side of the table. Reliance
was shaking out her waterproof.
“Sit down, Reliance,” repeated Townsend. Miss Clark’s reply was
promptly given.
“I intend to, soon as I’m ready,” she declared, with some tartness.
The caller looked up at her. “Reliance,” he observed, with a grim
smile, “you don’t change much. When you were a girl I remember
you used to say ‘Black’ whenever anybody else said ‘White.’ Well,
independence is a good thing, if you can afford it.”
Reliance, having arranged the waterproof to her satisfaction, hung it
on a hook by the door. She drew forward a chair from the wall.
“I’ve managed to scratch along on it so far,” she announced, placing
herself in the chair. “Well, what is it you’ve come to this house for,
after all these years, Foster Townsend?”
Townsend was looking at his niece, not at her. And it was the niece
whom he addressed.
“Esther,” he said, after a moment, “how long has it been since your
father died?”
The girl met his keen gaze for an instant, then looked down at the
book upon the table.
“Ten years,” she said. Her tone was not too cordial. This rich uncle of
hers had been a sort of bugbear in her family. Her father never
mentioned his name while he lived and, although her mother had
mentioned it often enough, it was only to call its owner a selfish,
proud, wicked, stubborn man. When their daughter and Foster
Townsend met on the street he sometimes acknowledged the
meeting with a nod and sometimes not. His wife had been quite
different; she always sent the girl presents at Christmas and was
kindly gracious. Esther would have liked her, or would have liked to
like her. And she envied her, of course; every female in Harniss did
that. She envied Foster Townsend, too, but she was far from liking
him.
He repeated her words. “Ten years, eh?” he observed, meditatively.
“Humph! is it possible! It doesn’t seem so long—yet, of course it is.
And the last time I was in this house was at his funeral. No wonder
you’re surprised to see me here now. I’m surprised, myself, to be
here.... You’re surprised, too, aren’t you, Reliance?”
Millard hastened to declare that he was, but was awful glad, of
course. His sister’s reply was a surprise in itself.
“I don’t know that I am, altogether,” she said. “I’ve been rather
expectin’ you, if you want to know.”
Townsend swung about in the rocker. “You have!” he exclaimed,
sharply. “What do you mean by that?”
“I mean what I say. I don’t know what you’ve come for, but I might
guess, maybe. Most of us have got a conscience somewheres on
the premises, even if some of us have kept it packed away up-attic
so long we’ve pretty nigh forgot it.”
The captain regarded her with what appeared to be sincere, if
somewhat grudging, admiration. “You’re a smart woman, Reliance
Clark,” he declared. “Yes, you are! If Freeling had had sense enough
to pick you out instead of— Well, well! there’s no use wasting breath
about that.... You say you’ve guessed what I’ve come here for. If you
have perhaps Esther hasn’t. I’m going to make her a proposition. I
don’t expect her to answer it, one way or the other, to-night. I want to
make it; then I want her and you, Reliance, to think it over and talk it
over between you. When you’ve done that you can say yes or no.
Esther,” turning to the girl once more, “how would you like to come
up to my house and live with me?”
The question, thus bluntly put, had a varied effect upon his listeners.
Millard Clark’s eyes and mouth opened and he gasped audibly. His
half-sister nodded two or three times, as if with satisfaction at finding
her suspicions confirmed. Esther gazed at the speaker in mute
bewilderment. Townsend looked from one to the other and smiled.
“So you had guessed right, had you, Reliance,” he observed. “Well,
whether you had or not, there it is. I am lonesome in that big house
of mine, lonesome as the devil. I don’t suppose I’m what you’d call a
sentimental man; I try to use my common sense and face what can’t
be helped in a sensible way, but since Mother died I’m lonesome.
For the last week I’ve been making up my mind what to do. I might
travel, I suppose, but when I went to sea I cruised a whole lot and
there wouldn’t be much that was new to look at and no satisfaction in
looking at it alone. And I’d rather stay at home, anyhow. This is my
town. I helped to make it grow and I’m more interested in it, and the
folks in and around it, than I am in anything else. I might move out of
my house to a smaller one, but I won’t. Mother and I built that house
together. She thought the world of it and so do I. She lived in it till
she died and that’s what I want to do. But I’d rather not live in it by
myself. I want somebody to talk to and to talk to me, and I’d rather
have a Townsend than anybody else. So I thought of Esther. If she