Publication Type: Abstract
Abstract: The Edwards Aquifer is a primary water source for municipal, agricultural, and industrial users in central Texas. It also supports 8 federally listed threatened or endangered species and is the subject of immense conflict. In 2006, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided stakeholders an opportunity to participate in a collaborative process that strives to balance the human need for water and the needs of the listed species through the development of a Recovery Implementation Program (RIP). The program, as described by the USFWS is to be consensus-based and recent state legislation requires the program’s steering committee and science subcommittee to use a consensus-based decision making process. There is, however, no consensus on whether consensus is the appropriate tool to use in these situations. Further, if it is appropriate, there is no consensus on what consensus means and how it should be applied. Although program participants have expressed a commitment to consensus and have defined the term in a memorandum of agreement, meeting observations reveal that individual participants apply the term in many different ways. In addition, the proposed usage of a voting system when consensus cannot be achieved has shifted the focus of some participants away from consensus. This misinterpretation and differing expectations of what constitutes a consensus-based process have led to potential substantive, procedural, and relationship barriers to success.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Developing countries have observed neoliberal globalization norms at the behest of international financial institutions and powerful state actors, often to the effect of economic instability, negative growth and domestic social upheaval. Recently however

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper analyses the impact of consensus democracy and corporatism on socio-economic performance in twenty industrialized democracies. In the literature, there have been constructed several hypotheses between the relationship between on the one hand a wide range of institutions and on the other hand several indicators of performance. In the past, it has been argued that corporatism contributes to lower rates of inflation and unemployment. This has been questioned by some neo-liberals and by Calmfors & Driffill, who have found a hump-shaped relation between the wage bargaining level and performance. In Patterns of democracy Lijphart claims that the performance of the majoritarian model of consensus democracy is not superior over the consensus model. This paper focuses on the interaction between consensus democracy and corporatism and how both have an effect on the process of socio-economic policy-making. New measurements of both institutional models are used. This leads to an evaluation of the existing theories and to new results in the comparative study of socio-economic policy-making in industrialized countries.
Check author's web site for an updated version of the paper.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This experiment was designed to examine the impact of membership in a consensus or a non-consensus group on the use and value of common and unique information. A controversial topic on which many people have strong preexisting opinions was discussed in a group decision-making context. Unlike previous research on common and unique information, this study found no support for the common information bias. Also, this study found no support for the hypotheses that groups containing members of an opinion minority would utilize and value unique information more than groups with no opinion minority. In addition, minority members’ use of common information and level of persuasion were not found to be related. Minority members were found to value both common and unique information more than majority members. The role of neutral members versus non-neutral members was also explored. While neutral and non-neutral members did not significantly differ in their valuation of information, non-neutral members were found to utilize more information, both common and unique, than neutral members.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The depiction of political issues in the media has long defied analytic understanding and description. Important work, such as Bennett's Index Theory or Gans' Paraideology Theory – in which mass media professionals largely set the voices in their coverage to mirror that of mainstream government debate – offer compelling visions, but are only intermittently supported by data. This paper suggests that such theories enjoy inconsistent support because they fail to consider the interaction between journalists' incentives and the political climate. A theory is advanced here that the journalists' objective to please their superiors, please themselves, limit negative feedback, and expend minimum energy, in other words to minimize costs and maximize benefits, relies on tactics that vary with the scope of consensus support for an issue. That is, for example, the inclination to insert drama into coverage, present the appearance of objectivity, and conform to popular opinion rises and falls based on the degree of political consensus present for the issue. As an issue approaches near universal support, a reporter is likely to have little inclination or ability to present drama or objectivity, but is also quite likely to conform to established popular consensus. Conversely, as an issue approaches a complete lack of political consensus, reporters are much freer to ignore popular opinion, but are more likely to present coverage consistent with the desire to insert drama and their own personal opinion. This theory is tested by analyzing U.S. media coverage on a sample of six political issues debated in Congress and reveals that combining journalists' incentives with political consensus suggests a better way to understand the political journalism process.