ABSTRACT
This section has examined some of the complexities of the narrow/broad participation debate, and some of the institutional dilemmas that this raises. A first conclusion is that there are clear normative arguments for wider forums of participation in risk decision-making. All other things being equal, less secrecy is a goal to be valued in and of itself, and several legitimation considerations would support this conclusion. However, against this are set practical objections to broad participation (revolving primarily around issues of blame and responsibility), as well as difficulties raised by the recognition that social discourses about risks reflect plural rationalities. The former might perhaps be overcome by institutional adjustments, and are certainly issues for further reflection and research. The latter, however, sets us a more formidable philosophical conundrum. Finally, although substantive arguments do suggest that broad participation may lead to the detection of errors, and with this better chances for learning and improved risk management, there will also be circumstances in which it brings other, perhaps worse, risks in its train. Ultimately, the challenge remains to understand how the social contexts of risk shape appropriate institutional strategies for its management in a world beset with dilemmas.
