Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society (기술혁신학회지)

Korea Technology Innovation Society (한국기술혁신학회)
권호 표지

Public Deliberation for Technological Risk Policy Making in a Real-World Context

기술위험 정책결정을 위한 공론화 과정의 실제

  • 이윤정 (한국연구재단 국책연구본부)
  • Received : 2017.11.10
  • Accepted : 2017.12.08
  • Published : 2017.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper examines the gap between the theoretical premises of, and the ways that public deliberative approaches to decision-making function in application to a specific instance of technological risk policy. An interrogation of a UK nationwide public deliberation case-the CoRWM program (Committee on Radioactive Waste Management)-a real-world instance of public deliberation illuminates some significant contrasts in the ways that public deliberation takes place to those characterized in theory. A public-engaged deliberation on radioactive waste management in reality does not emerge as rational reasoning for the common good. Instead, it was rather a complex mix of various forms of material, social and political interactions, and relationships.

다양한 이해관계와 가치가 첨예하게 대립하는 기술위험관련 정책결정에 시민 및 이해관계자들의 참여를 독려하는 의사결정방법이 주목 받고 있다. 기술위험관리 방식으로서 일찍이 서구사회에서 학술적, 정책적으로 논의되어 온 공론화는 여러 분야의 과학기술정책 영역에서 실험되고 있다. 본고는 공론화의 이론적 근간인 숙의민주주의에서 정의하고 기대하는 공론화 과정과 실제로 다양한 이해와 가치가 얽혀있는 당사자들이 참여하여 기술위험정책에 관한 의사결정을 내리기까지의 과정에는 큰 차이가 있음을 주장한다. 이를 위해 실제로 영국에서 방사성폐기물 관리방안을 찾기 위해 수행된 대규모 공론화 프로그램(CoRWM 프로그램)의 주요 관계자를 인터뷰하고 각종 공식, 비공식 문헌을 분석하였다. 결과는 기술위험에 관한 공론화 과정의 실제는 이론에서 전제된 공동의 선을 위한 합리적 논쟁과정이라기 보다, 여러 이해관계자들 간의 다양하고 복잡한 물적, 사회적, 정치적 상호작용 및 관계맺기로 드러났다.

Keywords

References

  1. Bloomfield, D., Collins, K., Fry, C. and Munton, R. (2001), "Deliberation and Inclusion: Vehicles for Increasing Trust in UK Public Governance?", Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4): 501-513. https://doi.org/10.1068/c6s
  2. Blowers, A., Lowry, D. and Solomon, B. (1991), The International Politics of Nuclear Waste. London: Macmillan.
  3. Bohman, J. (1996), Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  4. Chilvers, J. (2007), "Towards Analytic‐deliberative Forms of Risk Governance in the UK? Reflecting on Learning in Radioactive Waste", Journal of Risk Research, 10(2): 197-222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870601147581
  5. Chilvers, J. (2008), "Deliberating Competence: Theoretical and Practitioner Perspectives on Effective Participatory Appraisal Practice", Science and Technology & Human Values, 33(2): 155-185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907307594
  6. Cohen, J. (1997), "Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy", In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (eds.) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 407-438.
  7. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (2005), "14th Plenary Meeting Minute", January 2005(Doc 935).
  8. Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (2006), Managing Our Radioactive Waste Safely: CoRWM's Recommendations to Government. CoRWM Doc 700. London: Committee on Radioactive Waste Management.
  9. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs et al. (2002), Managing Radioactive Waste Safely: Summary of Responses to the Consultation September 2001-March 2002. (A consultation report published jointly by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Department of Environment Northern Ireland).
  10. Department of Trade and Industry (2003), Our Energy Future-Creating a Low Carbon Economy. London: TSO (The Stationery Office).
  11. Dryzek, J. (2000), Deliberative Democracy and Beyond, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  12. Elster, J. (1998), Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Eriksen, E. O. and Weigard, J. (2003) Understanding Habermas: Communicative Action and Deliberative Democracy, London and New York: Continuum Press.
  14. Fraser, N. (1990) "Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy", Social Text, 25/26: 56-80.
  15. Hendriks, C. (2004), "Public Deliberation and Interest Organizations: A Study of Responses to Lay Citizens Engagement in Public Policy", Unpublished PhD Thesis at the Australian National University.
  16. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (2004), Radioactive Waste Management, London: HMSO.
  17. Kemp, R.V., Bennett, D. G. and White, M.J. (2006), "Recent Trends and Developments in Dialogue on Radioactive Waste Management: Experience from the UK', Environment International, 32(8): 1021-1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2006.06.010
  18. Levidow, L. (2007), "European Public Participation as Risk Governance: Enhancing Democratic Accountability for Agbiotech Policy?", East Asian Science, Technology and Society: an International Journal, 1(1): 19-51. https://doi.org/10.1215/s12280-007-9001-x
  19. Levine P., Fung, A. and Gastil, J. (2005), "Future Directions for Public Deliberation", Journal of Public Deliberation, 1(1): 1-13.
  20. Lovbrand, E., Pielke, R. Jr. and Beck, S. (2011), "A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology", Science, Technology, & Human Values, 36(4): 474-496. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243910366154
  21. Luskin, R. C. and Fishkin, J. S. (2002), "Deliberation and 'Better Citizens'", A research paper available from the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University. Available from (http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/papers/2002/bettercitizens.pdf).
  22. Mackerron, G. and Berkhout, F. (2009), "Learning to Listen: Institutional Change and Legitimation in UK Radioactive Waste Policy", Journal of Risk Research, 12(7-8): 989-1008. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870903126085
  23. Pellizzoni, L. (2001), "The Myth of the Best Argument: Power, Deliberation and Reason", British Journal of Sociology, 52(1): 59-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00071310020023037
  24. Renn, O. (1998), "The Role of Risk Communication and Public Dialogue for Improving Risk Management", Risk Decision and Policy, 3(1): 5-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/135753098348310
  25. Steele, J. (2001), "Participation and Deliberation in Environmental Law: Exploring a Problem-solving Approach", Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 21(3): 415-442. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/21.3.415
  26. Stern, P. and Fineberg, H. (eds.) (1996), Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
  27. Wilsdon, J. and Willis, R. (2004), See-through SCIENCE: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. London: Demos.