Skip to main content

Transparent Public Decision Making: Discussion and Case Study in Sweden

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
e-Democracy

Part of the book series: Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation ((AGDN,volume 5))

Abstract

The Swedish city of Örebro has since long faced complex problems with poor water quality in a local river. This problem is a typical example of a regional decision problem, since there are several different stakeholders that might be affected, and there are different views on the need for, and effect of, different measures. The problems also strongly relate to the environmental condition of the river and involve other municipalities as well. In this chapter, we describe how to address this problem using an implementation of a systematic democratic decision process for enhancing the transparency and the decision quality in itself. The process is in conformity with common democratic processes, but with higher emphasis on accuracy and precision and on the interaction between civil servants and decision makers. A main issue here is to clearly separate the various views involved in these processes from the actual facts and, at the same time, facilitate input from various stakeholders. Therefore, we allow for modelling of outcomes based on different preferences and facilitate an elicitation process where views are extracted and combined with basic data from the background investigations preceding the decision. The process is divided into two stages. The first one is emphasized in this chapter and concerns the internal democracy, i.e. the formulation and refinement of the original and extended decision problems and the interaction between politicians and civil servants, while the second stage deals with the external democracy, i.e. the communication with the public, where communication channels directed towards citizens will be formed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barzilai, J., W. Cook and B. Golany. 1987. Consistent weights for judgements matrices of the relative importance for alternatives. Operations Research Letters, 6, 131–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, M. 2004. Handling imperfect user statements in real-life decision analysis. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 3(3), 513–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, M. and L. Ekenberg. 2007. Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(2), 808–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, A. Ekengren, T. Hökby and J. Lidén. 2008. A process for participatory democracy in electronic government. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 15(1–2), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, Ã…. Grönlund and A. Larsson. 2005. Public decision support – using a dss to increase democratic transparency. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1(1), 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, J. Johansson and A. Larsson 2003a. Investment decision analysis – a case study at SCA transforest. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering. CSREA Press. pp. 79–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, J. Johansson and A. Larsson. 2003b. The DecideIT decision tool. In Bernard, J.-M., Seidenfeld, T., Zaffalon, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and their Applications. Lugano, Carleton Scientific. pp. 204–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. 1977. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 7(5), 326–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekenberg, L., L. Brouwers, M. Danielson, K. Hansson, J. Johansson, A. Riabacke and A. Vári. 2003. Flood risk management policy in the upper Tisza basin: a system analytical approach – simulation and analysis of three flood management strategies. IIASA Report IR-03-003, Laxenburg, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekenberg, L., A. Larsson, J. Idefeldt and S. Bohman. 2009. The lack of transparency in public decision processes. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 5(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. 1970. Utility Theory for Decision Making. New York, NY, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, A. 2001. IT, demokratin och medborgarnas deltagande (IT, Democracy, and the Citizens’ Participation). Stockholm, Vinnova and Teldok.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, A. 2003. Framing electronic government: e= mc3. In R. Traunmüller and K. Lenk (Eds.), Proceedings of DEXA 03. New York, NY, Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez, A., S. Ríos-Insua and A. Mateos. 2006. A generic multi-attribute analysis system. Computers & Operations Research, 33(4), 1081–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. New York, NY, Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krovak, J. 1987. Ranking alternatives – comparison of different methods based on binary comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 32, 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A., J. Johansson, L. Ekenberg and M. Danielson. 2005. Decision analysis with multiple objectives in a framework for evaluating imprecision. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(5), 495–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lootsma, F. A. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2, 87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsatsinis, N. F. and A. P. Samaras. 2001. MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 414–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. 2003. Engaging citizens online for better policy-making. OEDC Policy Brief. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/23/2501856.pdf

  • Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hämäläinen. 1995. Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 458–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. R. and A. N. S. Freeling. 1982. Assessing attribute weights. OMEGA, 10, 582–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. R. and A. N. S. Freeling. 1983. Comments on: assessing attribute weights by ratio. OMEGA, 11, 13 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, A. G. 2000. Democracy in the Digital Age. Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York, NY, Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. 2000. Exploring the limits of public participation in local government. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(2), 246–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this chapter was funded by the Swedish Research Council FORMAS.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mats Danielson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Larsson, A., Riabacke, M. (2010). Transparent Public Decision Making: Discussion and Case Study in Sweden. In: Rios Insua, D., French, S. (eds) e-Democracy . Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9045-4_15

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics