Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 179–193 | Cite as

A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e-democracy

Original Paper


In this paper, focusing on participatory public decision making processes, I propose a framework for group support systems and discuss related research issues. As a case illustrating the feasibility of participatory public decision making, I present the participatory budgeting experience in Porto Alegre, Brazil. The case is analyzed based on the proposed framework.


E-democracy Group decision support systems  Negotiation support systems Participatory budgeting Porto Alegre 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



This research is supported in part by grants from the Concordia University Research Fund and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Canada. The author also wants to thank European Science Foundation, Towards Electronic Democracy program for invitation to the 2nd European summer school on e-democracy held in Aranjuez, Spain, July 2005.


  1. Arrow KJ (1951) Social choice and individual values. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber B (2000) Which techonology for which democracy? Which democracy for which democracy? Int J Commun Law Policy Winter(6):
  3. Belton V, Pictet J (1997) A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information? Revue des systemes de decision 6(3):283–303Google Scholar
  4. Briggs RO, Nunamaker JF, Sprague RH (1997/1998) 1001 unanswered research questions in GSS. J Manage Inform Syst 14(3):3–21Google Scholar
  5. Center for Urban and Development Studies (2004) Assessment of participatory budgeting in Brazil. Harvard University/Inter-American Development Bank Report: ParticipatoryBudget.pdf
  6. Cranor LF (1996) Declared-strategy voting: an instrument for group decision making. Computer Science. St-Louis, Washington University:
  7. Daft RL, Lengel RH, Trevino LK (1987) Message equivocality, media selection, and manager performance: implications for information systems. MIS Quarterly 11:355–366Google Scholar
  8. Davis R (1999) The Web of politics: the Internet’s impact on the American political system. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. de Sousa Santos B (1998) Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: toward a redistributive democracy. Politics Soc 26(4):461–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunn W (1994) Public policy analysis: an introduction. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehtamo H, Kettunen E, Hamalainen RP (2001) Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations. Eur J Operational Res 130:54–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elshitain JB (1987) Democracy and the QUBE tube. The NationGoogle Scholar
  13. Fjermestad J, Hiltz SR (1998) An assessment of group support systems experiment research: methodology and results. J Manage Inform Syst 15(3):7–149Google Scholar
  14. Gibbard A (1973) Manipulation of voting schemes: a general result. Econometrica 41:587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas J (1989) Structural transformation of the public sphere. MIT Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalai E, Smorodinski M (1975) Other solutions to Nash’s bargaining problem. Econometrica 43(3):515–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeney R (1976) A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Manage Sci 23(2):140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miranda S, Bostrom R (1999) Meeting facilitation: process versus content interventions. J Manage Inform Syst 15(4):89–114Google Scholar
  19. Nash JF (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18:155–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nguyen DT, Jon A (ed) (1996) The coming of cyberspace time and the end of the polity. Cultures of Internet: virtual spaces, real histories, living bodies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Ocker R, Fjermestad J, Hiltz SR, Johnson K (1998) Effects of four modes of group communication on the outcomes of software requirement determination. J Manage Inform Syst 15(1):99–118Google Scholar
  22. Poster M (1995) CyberDemocracy: Internet and the public sphere. writings/democ.html
  23. Raiffa H (2002) Negotiation analysis. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  24. Rios Insua D, Holgado J, Moreno R (2003) Multi-criteria e-negotiation systems for e-democracy. J␣Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 12(2–3):213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rios JM, Rios-Insua D, Fernandez E, Rivero JA (2005) Participatory budget formation through the Web. TCGOV 2005. LNAI 3416:268–276Google Scholar
  26. Satterthwaite M (1975) Strategy-proofness and Arrow’s conditions: existence and correspondence theorems for voting procedures and social welfare functions. J Econ Theor 10:187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Thomson W (1994) Cooperative models of bargaining. In: Aumann RJ, Hart S (eds) Handbook of game theory. North-Holland, pp 1238–1277Google Scholar
  28. Toffler A (1984) The third wave. BantamGoogle Scholar
  29. Tung L-l, Turban E (1998) A proposed research framework for distributed group support systems. Decision Support Syst 23:175–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. UN-HABITAT (2004) 72 Frequently asked questions about participatory budgeting:

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Systems EngineeringConcordia UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations