As our contribution is about the relation between public authority and interactive policy-making, somehow the above dimensions of legitimacy of public authority need to be matched with the essential characteristics of interactive policy-making, without infringing upon them.
This contribution took this case as an example of analyzing and discussing especially the legitimacy aspects of such interactive policy-making - assuming, for the moment, that the hopes at effectiveness will be fulfilled.
From this, legitimacy dimensions of 'shared values' and 'consent' emerge as most sensitive to interactive policy-making, necessitating proper safeguards, safeguards with relevance to the legitimacy of initiatives such as Sustainable Community Overijssel.
Beetham's multidimensional approach on legitimacy, as described below, provides a useful format to structure different aspects of legitimacy relevant to our discussion about the match between public authority and interactive policy-making.
As regards consent, the closely connected yet separate concern lies with the danger of exclusion from societal discourse following social exclusion from (benefits of) interactive policy-making, considering how state democracy rests upon the capacity within society to have all its individual members (able to) participate in public debate.
Finally, it must be pointed out that these selection functions are equivalent to the interactive policies in Section 2.1.
The idea is that, while the local maximum condition is kept unaltered, threshold θ now becomes a function θ≡θ(t) whose value is defined according to one of the interactive policies to be explained.
These individuals should be regarded as freed[38] and so equally may enjoy autonomous rights (i.e., not given by the state and to be respected equally by the state) and may become challenged by interactive policies, which include and support only those who act in concert with government (or state) views.
His interactive climate policy models are freely available at climateinteractive.org.org
