13. Deliberative Monetary Valuation

Question 1

What is Deliberative Democracy? Name 3 characteristics.

Answer 1

• Talk at center instead of voting
• Respectful communication
• Share understanding
• Constructive dialogue; not about defeating opponent
• Not the usual suspects/experts
• Diverse pool
• Global Deliberative Democracy would be possible

Question 2

What is DMV?

Answer 2

Deliberative Monetary Valuation is a combination of deliberative valuation and stated preference method

Question 3

Why was DMV developed?

Answer 3

Based on a rejection of the assumption that lay people have predefined self-regarding preferences especially for complex and unfamiliar environmental goods.

Question 4

Name 3 critiques on DMV.

Answer 4

• Anthropocentrism
• Utilitarianism/consequentialism
• Value monism (rather than value pluralism)
• Commodification of nature
• Ignoring the complexity of nature
• Non-democratic (vs. Open, inclusive and reciprocal dialogue among free and equal citizens)
• Biases in stated behaviour and preferences (vs. Constructed preferences)
• Consumer perspective (rather than citizen perspective)

Question 5

Describe the stances by Hebarmas, Rawls and Arendt regarding deliberative methods.

Answer 5

• Hebarmas: people are different; one needs to make sure people can talk as equals; they should only talk by the force of the better argument.
• Rawls: people are different; people should ignore their personal background and take on a veil of ignorance
• Arendt: representative thinking as a matter of imagining the perspective of others

Question 6

What is the goal of deliberative methods?

Answer 6

Ensure legitimacy of decisions made.

Question 7

Name two deliberative methods.

Answer 7

• Citizens juries
• Consensus conferences
• Planning cells
• Deliberative polls
• Citizens assemblies

Question 8

Name 3 steps of the 6 step process of deliberation.

Answer 8

1. Information, evidence
2. Mapping and scrutinising options
3. Giving (and taking) public reasons
4. Re-examining and (perhaps) changing preferences
5. Seeking (some level of) agreement or consensus
6. Making informed and reasoned decisions or recommendations

Question 9

What are the three reasons for doing DMV?

Answer 9

1. Normative reasons: deliberation as the right democratic process
2. Substantive reasons: improve quality of decisions: moral issues, uncertainty, complexity, value conflicts, multiple knowledges and meaning; Plural values of nature - additional (higher) WTP?; stable, informed preferences: information - most applied DMV studies
3. Instrumental reasons: deliberation as means to an end: quality of decision-making, legitimacy

Question 10

Name three differences between individual versus deliberative methods.

Answer 10

• Undemocratic vs democratic process
• Single ‘optimal’ outcome vs negotiated outcome
• Representative (statistically) vs all stakeholders involved
• Independent vs group effects
• Limited understanding possibly vs learning and sharing
• More deliberation time vs limited deliberation time
• Self-interest vs shared values, other-regarding

Question 11

What is DMV social WTP?

Answer 11

Studies that focus on a group WTP, people really sit together and debate; this is not just about a benefit maximising consumer but about the reflexive citizen

Question 12

Provide an example of a non-binding and a binding payment vehicle.

Answer 12

Non-binding: donation; binding: tax.

Question 13

Why didn’t Mark use a binding payment vehicle in his study?

Answer 13

It was in a poor region in Scotland, and the use of taxes was expected to result in negative outcomes.

Question 14

What was the outcome of Mark’s DMV?

Answer 14

Values (WTPs) went down after learning and deliberation.

Question 15

Name two limitations to Marije’s DMV study in Malawi.

Answer 15

• Dominant individuals
• Insufficient time

Question 16

Why would one use a group for DMV studies?

Answer 16

Group discussions lead to better understanding.

Question 17

What made doing a DMV in Malawi in particular challenging?

Answer 17

• Intra-household decisions are complex
• It is culturally difficult to discuss differences in wealth
• Language barrier