Consulting the British Public in the Digital Age: Emerging Synergies and Tensions in the Government 2.0 Landscape

  • Shefali VirkarEmail author
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 3)


Over the last two decades, public confidence and trust in government has declined visibly in several Western liberal democracies owing to a distinct lack of opportunities for citizen participation in political processes, and has given way instead to disillusionment with current political institutions, actors and practices. The rise of the Internet as a global communications medium has opened up huge opportunities and raised new challenges for government, with digital technology creating new forms of community, empowering citizens and reforming existing power structures in a way that has rendered obsolete or inappropriate many of the tools and processes of traditional democratic politics. Through an analysis of the No. 10 Downing Street ePetitions Initiative based in the United Kingdom, this chapter seeks to engage with issues related to the innovative use of network technology by government to involve citizens in policy processes within existing democratic frameworks in order to improve administration, reform democratic processes and renew citizen trust in institutions of governance.


e-Democracy Digital democracy e-Consultation e-Petition Democracy Governance 


  1. Archibugi, D. & D. Held (1995). Cosmopolitan Democracy: an Agenda for a New World Order, Polity Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J.W. & D. Birch (1970). The Dynamics of Action, Wiley Press: New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bicking, M., & Wimmer, M. A. (2010). Tools and technologies in eParticipation: insights from project evaluation. In F. De Cindio, A. Machintosh, & C. Peraboni (Eds.), Online deliberation, proceedings of the fourth international conference, OD2010 (pp. 75–86), June 2010.Google Scholar
  4. Bimber, B. (1998). The internet and political transformation: Populism, community and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31(1), 133–160f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop, P., & Anderson, L. (2004). E-government to E-democracy: ‘High-tech’ solutions to ‘no tech’ problems. Paper presented to the Australian Electronic Governance Conference, University of Melbourne, April 2004.Google Scholar
  6. Chun, S., Shulman, S., Sandoval, R., & Hovy, E. (2010). Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity Journal, 15(1–2), 1–9.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, S. (2011). The wisdom of which crowd? on the pathology of a listening government. The Political Quarterly, 82(3), 355–364.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, S., & Gotze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society and BT.Google Scholar
  9. Cruickshank, P., Edelmann, N., & Smith, C. (2010). Signing an e-Petition as a transition from lurking to participation. Electronic Government and Electronic Participation 1, 275–282. Google Scholar
  10. di Gennaro, C., & Dutton, W. H. (2006). The internet and the public: Online and offline political participation in the UK. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs, A. (1964). Inside Bureaucracy, Little Brown: Boston.Google Scholar
  12. Dutton, W. H., & Peltu, M. (2007). Reconfiguring government public engagements: Enhancing the communicative power of citizens. Oxford Internet Institute, Forum Discussion Paper No. 9, April 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Eggers, W. D. (2005). Government 2.0: Using technology to improve education, cut red tape, reduce gridlock and enhance democracy. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  15. Ferguson, R. (2006). Digital dialogues: Interim report, December 2005–August 2006. The Hansard Society.Google Scholar
  16. Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people: Public opinion and democracy. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Geoghegan, T. (2007). The petition, the ‘prat’ and the political ideal. BBC News – Magazine: February 13, 2007, Available at:
  18. Habermas, J. (1985). ‘Modernity – An Incomplete Project’, in Hal Foster (ed.) Postmodern Culture , Pluto Press: London, pp. 3 – 15. Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, S. & M. Mort (1998). ‘Which Champions, Which People? Public and User Involvement in Health Care as a Technology of Legitimation’, Social Policy Administration , 1 (32), pp. 60 – 70. Google Scholar
  20. Hartley, J. (2005). Case study research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organisational research (pp. 323–333). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  21. H.M. Government. (2002). In the service of democracy – A consultation paper on a policy for electronic democracy. London: Office of the e-Envoy, Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  22. Hiller, J.S., & Bélanger, F. (2001). Privacy strategies for electronic government. The PriceWaterHouseCoopers E-Government Series, January 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Irani, Z., Elliman, T., & Jackson, P. (2007). Electronic transformation of government in the UK: Research agenda. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 327–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kies R., & Wojcik, S. (2010). European web-deliberation: Lessons from the European citizens consultation. In F. De Cindio, A. Machintosh, & C. Peraboni (Eds.), Online deliberation, proceedings of the fourth international conference, OD2010, (pp. 198–211), June 2010.Google Scholar
  25. Kooiman, J., & van Vliet, M. (1993). Governance and public management. In K. A. Eliassen & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Managing public organisations (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  26. Koopmans, R., & Statham, P. (2002). The transformation of political mobilisation and communication in the European public spheres: A research outline. Report to the European Commission dated 18th February 2002.Google Scholar
  27. Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2009). Electronic petitions and institutional modernisation. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 1(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  28. Macintosh, A., Malina A., & Farrell, S. (2002). Digital democracy through electronic petitioning. In W. J. McIver Jr., & A. K. Elmagarmid (Eds.), Advances in digital government: Technology, human factors and policy, 2(1), (pp. 137–162). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Margetts, H., John, P., Escher, T. & S. Reissfelder (2012). ‘Social Information and Political Participation on the Internet: An Experiment’, European Political Science Review, 1(3), pp.1–24 Google Scholar
  30. Margolis, M. (2007). E-government and democratic politics. In P. G. Nixon, & V. N. Koutrakou (Eds.), E-government in Europe: rebooting the state¸ (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Newman, J. (2005). Remaking governance: Peoples politics and the public sphere. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  32. OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public participation in policymaking. Paris: OECD Press.Google Scholar
  33. OECD. (2003). Promise and problems of E-democracy: Challenges of online citizen engagement. Paris: OECD Press.Google Scholar
  34. Peters, B., Sifft, S., Bruggmann, M., & Konigslow, K. (2005). National and transnational public spheres: The case of the EU. In S. Liebfried & M. Zurn (Eds.), Transformations of the state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Pleace, N. (2007). E-government in the United Kingdom. In P. G. Nixon, & V. N. Koutrakou (Eds.), E-government in Europe: Rebooting the state, (pp. 61–74). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Rash, W. (1997). Politics on the Nets: Wiring the Political Process, W.H. Freeman & Co.: New York.Google Scholar
  37. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44, 652–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosen, T. (2001). E-democracy in practice: Swedish experience of new political tool. Available at
  39. Scharpf, F. W. (1999). Governing in Europe: Effective and democratic?. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sclove, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. The Electoral Commission. (2005). Election 2005: Engaging the public in Great Britain – an analysis of campaigns and media coverage. London: The Electoral Commission.Google Scholar
  43. Thomassen, J., & Schmitt, H. (1999). Introduction: Political representation and legitimacy in the European union. In H. Schmitt, & J. Thomassen (Eds.), Political representation and legitimacy in the European Union, (pp. 3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Virkar, S. (2007). (Dis) Connected citizenship? Exploring barriers to eConsultation in Europe. Report to the European Commission for the Breaking Barriers to eGovernment: Overcoming Obstacles to Improving European Public Services Project.Google Scholar
  45. Virkar, S. (2011). The politics of implementing e-Government for development: The ecology of games shaping property tax administration in bangalore city. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  46. Virkar, S. (2013a). Designing and implementing e-government projects: Actors, influences, and fields of play. In S. Saeed, & C. G. Reddick (Eds.), Human-centered design for electronic government. IGI Global: Hershey, P.A..Google Scholar
  47. Virkar, S. (forthcoming, 2013b). What’s in a game? The politics of shaping property tax administration in Bangalore, India. In J. Bishop & A. M. G. Solo (Eds.), Politics in the information age. Springer. IGI Global: Hershey, P.A.Google Scholar
  48. Virkar, S. (2013c). Re-engaging the public in the digital age: e-Consultation initiatives in the government 2.0 landscape. Encyclopedia of information science and technology (3rd Edn.), IGI Global: Hershey, P.A.Google Scholar
  49. Ward, S., Gibson, R. & W. Lusoli (2003). ‘Online Participation and Mobilisation in Britain: Hype, Hope, and Reality’, Parliamentary Affairs, 56, pp. 652–668.Google Scholar
  50. Whyte, A., & Macintosh, A. (2003). Analysis and evaluation of E-Consultations. e-Service Journal, 2(1), 9–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations