Several studies suggest that the diffusion of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in developing countries (DCs) can help such countries achieve national development goals - especially if accompanied by appropriate government policies designed to regulate and promote the use and the diffusion of ICTs in the national context. Over the past few years 'ICT policy' has thus become something worthy of academic attention, in particular in the ambit of ICT-for-development (ICT4D) literature. Scholarly studies on the subject have so far focused however primarily on policy content, and have often been prescriptive and/or evaluative in nature. Relatively less attention has been paid instead to the processes by which ICT policy is made in DCs - a lacuna reflected also in the relative scarcity, in the realm of ICT4D literature, of detailed theoretical frameworks with which to study ICT policymaking practice in DCs. This study intends to help fill this lacuna, by proposing an innovative framework for the analysis of ICT policy processes in DCs, and subjecting such a framework to a first 'proof of concept', through its application to a particular case (ICT policymaking in Uganda). In recognition of the importance of the cognitive aspects of policy practice, the framework proposed is interpretive in nature, and is organised around three 'movements', or steps: an analysis of the linguistic and non-linguistic constructs employed by policy actors to articulate discourse on ICT policymaking; an analysis of the key discourses around ICT policy constructed by policy actors in specific settings; and an analysis of the composition and the strength of the 'alliances', or coalitions, of actors that construct and propagate specific discourses in such settings. The ultimate purpose of this type of analysis is to understand how specific discourses on, or 'versions' of the ICT policy process gain particular purchase and acceptance in given national settings, thereby providing ICT policy actors with elements for reflection on the practices they are involved in. The framework proposed is particularly innovative in that integrates elements derived from mainstream political science and policy analysis literature - thus going some way in solidifying theorization in the ambit of ICT4D research. The study draws conclusions at two levels: at case level, findings indicate that Ugandan discourse around ICT policymaking appears to be constrained by the existence of a powerful, overall political discourse that defines ICT policy as necessarily 'participative'; at the level of theory and method, findings suggest that the framework proposed appears to be a viable and useful one for research on ICT policymaking practice in DCs.

Interest in ‘science-based targets’ (SBTs) as a means of helping the private sector achieve greater environmental sustainability has sharply increased in recent years. However, the significant ambiguity around what SBTs for Earth systems are and how they relate to broader sustainability issues has received little attention. This study adopts an interpretive approach to explore how different ‘framings’ of SBTs reflect very different storylines about sustainability problems and the role of SBTs in delivering solutions. It treats environmental governance not as a search for solutions to a pre-defined problem, but as a struggle over the definition of the environmental problem itself. In doing so, the study addresses deeper questions about whether sustainability science and practice should work within ‘the system’ to change it or critique it as part of the problem. It uses Q methodology to explore the perspectives of 22 scientists and practitioners engaged in SBTs for Earth systems. The results show two main framings of SBTs: ‘we need to develop science-based targets for the Earth system’ and ‘we need systemic economic, political and social change – and science-based targets.’ Results indicate that two distinctive storylines exist around SBTs, which emerge from reformist and radical environmental discourses. Alongside areas of consensus, they diverge on crucial issues regarding the nature of SBTs, sustainability problems and solutions, and the role of SBTs in transformation. The study suggests that the SBT is a boundary object; its ambiguity can both promote collaboration between diverse actors and conceal more radical discourse. It concludes that the plural interpretations of SBTs and their contribution to sustainability transformations have important implications. This highlights a need for greater reflexivity within sustainability science and practice, which could move them towards their sustainability aims.

This thesis empirically examines how lobby groups and activists respond to innovative forms of public participation. The study centres on processes that foster a particular kind of deliberative governance including citizens’ juries, consensus conferences and planning cells. These deliberative designs bring together a panel of randomly selected lay citizens to deliberate on a specific policy issue for a few days, with the aim of providing decision makers with a set of recommendations. While policy makers worldwide are attracted to these novel participatory processes, little consideration has been given to how well they work alongside more adversarial and interest-based politics. This doctoral research project examines this interface by studying what these processes mean to different kinds of policy actors such as corporations, advocacy groups, government agencies, experts and professionals. These entities are collectively referred to in this thesis as ‘interest organisations’ because in some way they are seeking a specific policy outcome from the state – even government-based groups.¶ The empirical research in this thesis is based on comparative case studies of four deliberative design projects in Australia and Germany. The Australian cases include a citizens’ jury on waste management legislation and a consensus conference on gene technology in the food chain. The German case studies include a planning cells project on consumer protection in Bavaria, and a national consensus conference on genetic diagnostics. Together the cases capture a diversity of complex and contested policy issues facing post-industrialised societies. In each case study, I examine how relevant interest organisations responded to the deliberative forum, and then interpret these responses in view of the context and features of the case.¶ The picture emerging from the in-depth case studies is that interest organisations respond to deliberative designs in a variety of ways. Some choose to participate actively, others passively decline, and a few resort to strategic tactics to undermine citizens’ deliberations. The empirical research reveals that though responses are variable, most interest organisations are challenged by several features of the deliberative design model including: 1) that deliberators are citizens with no knowledge or association with the issue; 2) that experts and interest representatives are required to present their arguments before a citizens’ panel; and 3) that policy discussions occur under deliberative conditions which can expose the illegitimate use of power.¶ Despite these challenges, the paradox is that many interest organisations do decide to engage in lay citizen deliberations. The empirical research indicates that groups and experts value deliberative designs if they present an opportunity for public relations, customer feedback, or advocacy. Moreover, the research finds that when policy actors intensively engage with ‘ordinary’ citizens, their technocratic and elite ideas about public participation can shift in a more inclusive and deliberative direction.¶ The thesis finds that, on the whole, weaker interest organisations are more willing to engage with lay citizens than stronger organisations because they welcome the chance to influence public debate and decision makers. It appears that powerful groups will only engage in a deliberative forum under certain policy conditions, for example, when the dominant policy paradigm is unstable and contested, when public discussion on the issue is emerging, when policy networks are interdependent and heterogeneous, and when the broader social and political system supports public accountability, consensus and deliberation. Given that these kinds of policy conditions do not always exist, I conclude that tensions between interest organisations and deliberative governance will be common. In order to create more cooperative and productive interfaces, I recommend that interest organisations be better supported and integrated into citizens’ deliberations, and that steps be taken to safeguard forums from strategic attempts to undermine their legitimacy.¶ The thesis also sends out three key messages to democratic theorists. First, the empirical research shows that different kinds of groups and actors in civil society vary in their willingness and capacity to participate to public deliberation. Second, the deliberative design model demonstrates that partisan actors, such as interest organisations, will engage in public deliberation when they can participate as strategic deliberators. In this role partisans are not expected to relinquish their agendas, but present them as testimonies before a group of deliberators. Third, the empirical research in this thesis should bring home to theorists that deliberative forums are closely linked to the discursive context within which they operate.