A Model for an Analytic−Deliberative Process in Risk Management

How can and should risk managers collect public preferences, integrate public input into the management process, and assign the appropriate roles to technical experts, stakeholders, and members of the public? Which concerns are legitimate for being used in decisions that may determine the life or death of many people? There are no simple answers to these questions. This paper discusses the potential and requirements for an analytic−deliberative decision making process in the field of risk management. It articulates the requirements for integrating analytic reasoning with deliberation and interpretation. As a result of these requirements a model of participation is developed that attempts to meet two major objectives: first, to enhance the competence in the decision making process and, second, to assign a fair share of the responsibility of managing risks to those who are or will be affected by the potential consequences. The model, named cooperative discourse, consists of three major steps: elicitation of values and criteria (stakeholder groups); provision of performance profiles for each policy option (experts); and evaluation and design of policies by randomly selected citizens. The paper provides some empirical evidence about the application of this method from experiences in three different countries. The case studies show that analytical thinking and deliberative exchange of arguments cannot be separated but should be'integrated in the decision making process. At the same time, the sequential involvement of stakeholders, experts, and the general public proved to be a productive way of ensuring competence, fairness, and efficiency.