Mediating public disputes: A response to the skeptics

Conclusions There are more than 75 well-documented cases of successful dispute resolution in the public sector (and a great many more that are less well-documented). The evidence attesting to the merits of non-adjudicatory approaches to dispute resolution is mounting rapidly.While there are some public disputes that do not lend themselves to informal resolution (i.e., disputes involving fundamental freedoms or rights), many involving conflicting interests and values have proven resolvable in a win-win fashion. The most important preconditions for success have been the presence of a credible nonpartisan facilitator or mediator, parties in an undeniably interdependent situation and pressure created by a decision maker who has promised to act (using traditional decision-making methods) in the absence of a consensus. In short, given these preconditions, there are a number of good reasons to forge ahead with efforts to employ mediation and other forms of dispute resolution on a more regular basis.Lawrence Susskind is Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Executive Director of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. Co-author ofResolving Environmental Regulatory Disputes (Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1984), he has served as a mediator of public disputes at the local, state and federal levels.