A Comparative Assessment of Deliberative Claims: the Health
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF DELIBERATIVE CLAIMS: THE HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION, THE OREGON WATERSHED ENHANCEMENT BOARD, AND NEW COMMUNITY MEETING I AND II by RYAN ATKINSON SMITH A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department ofPolitical Science and the Graduate School ofthe University ofOregon in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy December 2009 11 University of Oregon Graduate School Confirmation of Approval and Acceptance of Dissertation prepared by: Ryan Smith Title: "A Comparative Assessment ofDeliberative Claims: The Health Services Commission, The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, and New Community Meeting I and II" This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the Doctor ofPhilosophy degree in the Department ofPolitical Science by: Gerald Berk, Chairperson, Political Science Ronald Mitchell, Member, Political Science Priscilla Southwell, Member, Political Science Richard Margerum, Outside Member, Planning Public Policy & Mgmt and Richard Linton, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies/Dean ofthe Graduate School for the University ofOregon. December 12,2009 Original approval signatures are on file with the Graduate School and the University of Oregon Libraries. 111 © 2009 Ryan Atkinson Smith IV An Abstract ofthe Dissertation of Ryan Atkinson Smith for the degree of Doctor ofPhilosophy in the Department ofPolitical Science to be taken December 2009 Title: A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF DELIBERATIVE CLAIMS: THE HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION, THE OREGON WATERSHED ENHANCMENT BOARD, AND NEW COMMUNITY MEETING I AND II Approved: ===================== Dr. Gerald Berk Considerable interest has emerged recently within U.S. policy scholarship toward deliberative democracy and its potential viability as a form ofalternative democratic governance in resolving persistent policy dilemmas. Despite these claims, the deliberative scholarship is an empirically understudied field. Instead, deliberative theory is usually normatively articulated as an alternative and preferable form of governance. Secondly and to a lesser extent, deliberative scholars assert that deliberative governance can work and does exist. In these cases, often extensive deliberative claims are made but not carefully tested according to explicitly identified deliberative criteria and measures. This dissertation contributes to the systematic testing ofdeliberative theory that has only recently begun. Theoretically, this dissertation fits within the gulfbetween ideal v and non-ideal deliberative scholarship. This dissertation draws from multiple sources, such as interviews, direct observation, meeting minutes, and secondary sources, to systematically evaluate and then comparatively assesses the evidence in four untested exemplar deliberative cases that took place within seemingly intractable policy issues. These cases are Oregon health care reform (OHCR) surrounding the Health Services Commission (HSC), watershed restoration and management in Oregon surrounding the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), and the New Community Meetings in Lane County and the greater Eugene-Springfield metro area surrounding the issues of "gay rights" and sustainable development (NCMI/II). These cases exhibit significant variation along explanatory and outcomes variables. Overall, the findings in this dissertation suggest that at times ideal deliberative scholars establish criteria and measures that are impractical or even unnecessary for robust deliberation. The evidence in these cases suggests that non-ideal deliberative standards appear capable ofyielding deliberative outcomes that are perceived by participant stakeholders in adequate terms. VI CURRICULUM VITAE NAME OF AUTHOR: Ryan Atkinson Smith PLACE OF BIRTH: Sioux City, Iowa DATE OF BIRTH: June 30, 1976 GRADUATE AND UJ\TDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED: University ofOregon Wright State University University ofMinnesota DEGREES AWARDED: Doctor ofPhilosophy in Political Science, 2009, University ofOregon Master ofScience in Political Science, 2005, University ofOregon Bachelor ofArts in Political Science, 2000, Wright State University AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: American Politics Public Policy PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Graduate Instructor, Department ofPolitical Science, University ofOregon, 2005 2009 Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department ofPolitical Science, University of Oregon, 2001-2005 Site Director, City ofEugene, 2002-2004 Assistant Manager, Knickerbocker Pools, 1999-2001 Vll Teaching Assistant, Department ofSociology, Wright State University, 1998 2000 GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS: Graduate Teaching Fellowship, University ofOregon, 2001- 2005 University Honors Scholar, Wright State University, Spring 2000 PUBLICAnONS: Southwell, Priscilla, Eric Lindgren, and Ryan A. Smith. (2004). Lifetime Term Limits: The Impact on Four State Legislatures. The American Review ofPolitics 25: 305 320. V111 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS An extensive support network enabled me to successfully complete this dissertation. I would especially like to acknowledge the support and mentoring ofDr. Gerald Berk. I am forever grateful for Gerry's genuine interest in this project and in my intellectual development generally. I can say with certainty that without Gerry Berk's patient and insightful guidance I would have never completed this project. I would also like to thank Ronald Mitchell, Priscilla Southwell, and Richard Margerum for their contributions to my committee. I would especially like to acknowledge the prompt and specific feedback given by Ronald Mitchell. I would also like to thank my parents, Richard Smith and Katherine Pedersen. My father's infectious love oflearning planted and nurtured the seed ofintellectual curiosity when I was very young. My mother's unwavering faith in my ability and emotional support throughout all oflife's challenges sustained my drive in this and other endeavors. I would be remiss if! failed to acknowledge Jennifer Hehnke and her unwavering emotional support and eagerness to read draft after draft and offer extensive and productive suggestions. I would also like to thank Sean Parson, Bruno Anili, and Courtney Smith. As members ofour "dissertation survival group," your different yet always rich perspectives helped immensely in guiding my project. I also found your accepting and collaborative exchange ofideas one ofthe most intellectually rewarding experiences ofmy graduate experience. IX I would also like to thank Mansir Petrie, Clark Bacon, Joseph Schuermeyer, and Ben Crandall. You actively believed in and supported me no matter how busy or far away our lives have taken us. Finally, this dissertation is submitted with gratitude for the generous, eager participation and extensive assistance ofso many participant stakeholders. I would especially like to thank Gayle Landt and Bonnie Ashford, who were always willing to go to extensive measures to help me in my data gathering endeavors. Thanks to all ofyou and so many others! x TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION, LITERATURE REVIEW, AND METHODOLOGy . I. Introduction 1 II. Nonnative Deliberative Claims: Why Deliberation? 5 III. Exemplar Deliberative Case Studies .. 15 IV. Deliberative Disagreement 17 V. Shared Deliberative Criteria 20 VI. Theoretical Deliberative Variables 27 VII. Method ofAnalysis 38 VIII. Case Selection 39 IX. Data Collection...................................................................................... 42 II. CASE STUDY I. EVALUATING EXEMPLAR DELIBERATIVE CLAIMS SURROUNDING OREGON HEALTH CARE REFORM 49 I. Introduction 49 II. Evidence: An Accounting ofPower 54 III. An Accounting ofRespect 88 IV. Discussion: Perceived Adequacy and the Role of Representative Deliberation 104 III. CASE STUDY II. EVALUATING EXEMPLAR DELIBERATIVE CLAIMS SURROUl\IDING THE OREGON WATERSHED ENHANCEMEJ\IT BOARD 114 I. Introduction 114 II. Evidence: An Accounting ofPower 123 III. An Accounting ofRespect 160 IV. Chapter Discussion: Perceived Adequacy-Centralization & the Role of Representative Deliberation 177 Xl Chapter Page IV. CASE STUDY III. EVALUATING EXEMPLAR DELIBERATIVE CLAIMS SURROUNDING THE NEW COMMUNITY MEETINGS 183 I. Introduction 183 II. Evidence: An Accounting ofPower 195 III. An Accounting ofRespect 230 IV. Discussion: Representative Deliberation, Institutions, Respect, Issues Area, and Openness....................................................................... 253 V. CASE COMPARISON CHAPTER: HSC, OWEB, AND NCMIIII 265 I. Introduction 265 II. Comparative Chapter Findings 268 BIBLIOGRAPHY 300 xu LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Oregon Basic Health Services Act 52 2. OWEB Board Voting Members. 143 3. Eugene Chamber ofCommerce 246 4. City Club ofEugene 247 5. Citizens for Public Accountability and Friends ofEugene 247 6. Inside and Outside Case Comparison by Parity and Respect 268 7. Case Comparison (HSC, OWEB, NCM) by Variable 268 8. OHCR: OUTSIDE HSC 278 9. OWEB: OUTSIDE BOARD 278 10. NCM: OUTSIDE NCMI and II 278 11. Parity and Perceived Adequacy INSIDE HSC 281 12. OWEB: Parity and Perceived Adequacy INSIDE BOARD 281 13. NCM: Parity and Perceived Adequacy INSIDE NCMI and II 282 14. OHCR: Ideal parity INSIDE HSC 285 15. OWEB: Ideal parity INSIDE BOARD 286 16. NCM: Ideal Parity INSIDE NCMI and II 286 17. OHCR and Mutual Respect 287 18. OWEB and Mutual Respect 287 X111 Figure Page 19. NCMIIII and Mutual Respect 288 20. OHCR: OUTSIDE HSC 294 21. OWEB: OUTSIDE BOARD 294 22. NCM: OUTSIDE NCMI and II 294 XIV LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Indicators of(Xs) Relative Parity 35 2.