Home  About us  Contact
 

Deliberative Forum (deliberative + forum)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences40%

Selected Abstracts

Pandemic influenza communication: views from a deliberative forum

HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, Issue 3 2009
Wendy A. Rogers BA (Hons) BM.BS PhD MRCGP FRACGP
Abstract Objective, To use a deliberative forum to elicit community perspectives on communication about pandemic influenza planning, and to compare these findings with the current Australian national communication strategy. Design, Deliberative forum of 12 persons randomly selected from urban South Australia. Forum members were briefed by experts in infection control, virology, ethics and public policy before deliberating on four key questions: what, how and when should the community be told about pandemic influenza and by whom? Results, The forum recommended provision of detailed and comprehensive information by credible experts, rather than politicians, using a variety of media including television and internet. Recommendations included cumulative communication to build expertise in the community, and specific strategies to include groups such as young people, people with physical or mental disabilities, and rural and remote communities. Information provided should be practical, accurate, and timely, with no ,holding back' about the seriousness of a pandemic. The forum expressed confidence in the expert witnesses, despite the acknowledged uncertainty of many of the predictions. Discussion and Conclusion, The deliberative forum's recommendations were largely consistent with the Australian national pandemic influenza communication strategy and the relevant literature. However, the forum recommended: release of more detailed information than currently proposed in the national strategy; use of non-political spokespersons; and use of novel communication methods. Their acceptance of uncertainty suggests that policy makers should be open about the limits of knowledge in potentially threatening situations. Our findings show that deliberative forums can provide community perspectives on topics such as communication about pandemic influenza. [source]

The EU Annual Budgetary Procedure: The Existing Rules and Proposed Reforms of the Convention and Intergovernmental Conference 2002,04,

JCMS: JOURNAL OF COMMON MARKET STUDIES, Issue 3 2007
GIACOMO BENEDETTO
This article analyses the proposed reform of the annual budgetary procedure of the European Union (EU) during the 2002,04 Convention and Intergovernmental Conference (IGC). We offer two findings. First, the European Parliament already has the power to reduce agricultural and fisheries spending subject to support from a blocking minority in the Council. Hence, a reduction of the Union's spending on agriculture and other areas of compulsory expenditure is not dependent on a reform of the budgetary procedure. Second, the proposal from the Convention would have increased EP budgetary powers while the procedure adopted by the IGC strengthens the hand of the Council, removing Parliament's right to overrule it. In constitutional bargaining, we see that Parliament gains in a deliberative forum where unanimity is not required, while it loses in a closed IGC. [source]

Medicare Reform Preferences: Before and After Education and Deliberation

POLITICS & POLICY, Issue 3 2009
SAMANTHA WOOLSEY
Using the case of Medicare reform, this article provides data on whether certain deliberative democracy efforts result in higher quality public opinion. Through a survey of preexisting social groups before and after a review of educational materials and participation in group discussion, the study hypothesized that: (1) respondents would change their reform preferences due to participation in an educational and deliberative forum; and (2) respondents' reform and value preferences would be more congruent after the forum than they were before it. Results supported these hypotheses. Reform preference changes were influential in terms of overall public opinion. In three cases, opinion changes resulted in the majority response changing from opposition or uncertainty to support. In other instances, preference change was evident in the magnitude of support indicated for particular reform proposals. Congruence between respondent value preferences and related reform proposals increased for all five major policy variables and their corresponding values, indicating higher quality opinion. Utilizando el caso de la reforma al sistema de salud, este artículo provee información acerca de si algunos foros de democracia deliberativa ocasionan una mayor calidad de la opinión pública. A través de una encuesta a grupos sociales pre-existentes antes y después de la revisión de los materiales educacionales y participación en la discusión de grupo, el estudio plantea que: (1) los encuestados cambiarían sus preferencias de reforma debido a la participación en un foro educacional y deliberativo; y (2) las preferencias y valores de reforma de los encuestados serían más congruentes después del foro que antes del mismo. Los resultados apoyaban estas hipótesis. Los cambios en las preferencias de reforma fueron influyentes en términos del conjunto de la opinión pública. En tres casos, los cambios de la opinión resultaron en que la respuesta de la mayoría cambiara de la oposición o indecisión al apoyo. Por otro lado, el cambio en la preferencia fue evidente en la magnitud del apoyo indicado para una propuesta de reforma particular. La congruencia entre el valor de la preferencia del encuestado y las propuestas de reforma relacionadas incrementó en todas las cinco variables políticas más importantes y sus valores correspondientes, indicando una mayor calidad de la opinión. [source]