Advertisement

Perceptions About the Effectiveness of E-Participation: A Multistakeholder Perspective

  • Sonia RoyoEmail author
  • Ana Yetano
  • Basilio Acerete
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 5)

Abstract

Local authorities increasingly need to demonstrate the legitimacy of their decisions and to develop effective and appropriate forms of citizen engagement. Previous literature has highlighted many advantages of citizen engagement, but has also acknowledged that authentic public participation is rarely found. This chapter uses different sets of empirical data reflecting the opinions of different stakeholders about e-participation initiatives. We aim to analyze whether citizens are familiar with e-participation tools, what citizens and organizers think about the effectiveness of citizen participation, and, finally, whether there is a perceived effectiveness gap between online and offline (traditional) forms of participation. Results show that, despite a high rate of Internet use, the level of use of e-participation among citizens is quite low. Nevertheless, the opinions of citizens and public sector managers regarding e-participation tend to be positive. As regards perceived effectiveness, some differences exist between citizens’ and managers’ perceptions. Citizens feel that e-participation is less costly and at least as good as offline participation, but it seems that greater changes are achieved through offline participation. Managers tend to agree that online participation is better in reaching a higher number of potential participants, and also in its immediateness and in the lower effort required, whereas offline participation is thought to be better at building social capital.

Keywords

Internet User Discussion Forum Citizen Participation Ordinary Citizen Participation Process 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study has been carried out with the financial support of the Spanish National R&D Plan through research project ECO2010-17463 (ECON-FEDER) and of the European Science Foundation/European Collaborative Research Projects through the project EUI2008-03788.

References

  1. Alió M, Gallego A (2002) Civic entities in environmental local planning. A contribution from a participative research in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. GeoJournal 56(2):123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen HT, van Kempen R (2003) New trends in urban policies in Europe: evidence from the Netherlands and Denmark. Cities 20(2):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen KV, Henriksen HZ, Secher C, Medaglia R (2007) Costs of e-participation: the management challenges. Transform Gov People Process Policy 1(1):29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnstein SR (1969) Ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Astleithner F, Hamedinger A (2003) Urban sustainability as a new form of governance: obstacles and potentials in the case of Vienna 1. Innov Eur J Soc Sci 16(1):51–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Grimes JM (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Gov Inf Q 27(3):264–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bertot JC, Jaeger PT, Hansen D (2012) The impact of polices on government social media usage: issues, challenges, and recommendations. Gov Inf Q 29(1):30–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bingham LB, Nabatchi T, O’Leary R (2005) The new governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Adm Rev 65(5):547–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonsón E, Torres L, Royo S, Flores F (2012) Local e-government 2.0: social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Gov Inf Q 29(2):123–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brainard LA, McNutt JG (2010) Virtual government–citizen relations: informational, transactional, or collaborative? Adm Soc 42(7):836–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buček J, Smith B (2000) New approaches to local democracy: direct democracy, participation and the ‘third sector’. Environ Plann C 18(1):3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burton P (2009) Conceptual, theoretical and practical issues in measuring the benefits of public participation. West Eur Polit 15(3):263–284Google Scholar
  13. Cheyne C, Comrie M (2002) Enhanced legitimacy for local authority decision making: challenges, setbacks and innovation. Policy Polit 30(4):469–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cooper TL, Bryer TA, Meek JW (2006) Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Public Adm Rev 66:76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cunningham C, Tiefenbacher J (2008) Evaluating the effectiveness of public participation efforts by environmental agencies: repermitting a smelter in El Paso, Texas, USA. Environ Plann C 00026(00004):841–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davies BB, Blackstock K, Rauschmayer F (2005) ‘Recruitment’, ‘composition’, and ‘mandate’ issues in deliberative processes: should we focus on arguments rather than individuals? Environ Plann C 23(4):599–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dutil PA, Howard C, Langford J, Roy J (2007) Rethinking government public relationships in a digital world: customers, clients, or citizens? J Inf Technol Polit 4(1):77–90Google Scholar
  18. Feeney MK, Welch EW (2012) Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Manag Rev 14(6):815–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Few R, Brown K, Tompkins EL (2007) Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim Policy 7(1):46–59Google Scholar
  20. Font J, Navarro C (2013) Personal experience and the evaluation of participatory instruments in Spanish cities. Public Admin 91(3):616–631Google Scholar
  21. Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66:66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halvorsen KE (2003) Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Adm Rev 63(5):535–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hui G, Hayllar MR (2010) Creating public value in e-government: a public-private-citizen collaboration framework in Web 2.0. Austr J Public Adm 69:S120–S131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IDEA (2001) Democracy at the local level. The international IDEA handbook on participation, representation, conflict management, and governance. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  25. Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort? Public Adm Rev 64(1):55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Joseph RC (2012) E-government meets social media: realities and risks. IT Prof 14(6):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klijn E-H, Edelenbos J, Steijn B (2010) Trust in governance networks: its impacts on outcomes. Adm Soc 42(2):193–221Google Scholar
  28. Kolsaker A, Lee-Kelley L (2008) Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: a UK study. Int J Public Sector Manag 21(7):723–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lowndes V, Pratchett L, Stoker G (2001) Trends in public participation: part 1—local government perspectives. Public Adm 79(1):205–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mahrer H, Krimmer R (2005) Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: identifying the notion of the ‘middleman paradox’. Inf Syst J 15(1):27–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mergel I (2013) Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Gov Inf Q 30(2):123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mergel I, Bretschneider SI (2013) A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Adm Rev 73(3):390–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Musso J, Weare C, Hale M (2000) Designing web technologies for local governance reform: good management or good democracy? Polit Commun 17(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nam T (2012) Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Gov Inf Q 29(1):12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norris DF, Reddick CG (2013) Local E-government in the United States: transformation or incremental change? Public Adm Rev 73(1):165–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. OECD (2003) Promise and problems of E-democracy: challenges of online citizen engagement. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  37. Panagiotopoulos P, Sams S, Elliman T, Fitzgerald G (2010) E-petitions and social networks—assessing the connections: E-government bulletin, issue 321. Available at http://www.headstar.com/egblive/?p=617. Accessed 15 Oct 2010
  38. Pateman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Portney K (2005) Civic engagement and sustainable cities in the United States. Public Adm Rev 65(5):579–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Portney K (2013) Taking sustainable cities seriously. Economic development, the environment, and quality of life in American cities, 2nd edn. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  41. Portney KE, Berry JM (2010) Participation and the pursuit of sustainability in U.S. cities. Urban Aff Rev 46(1):119–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rauschmayer F, van den Hove S, Koetz T (2009) Participation in EU biodiversity governance: how far beyond rhetoric? Environ Plann C 27(1):42–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reddel T (2002) Beyond participation, hierarchies, management and markets: ‘new’ governance and place policies. Austr J Public Adm 61(1):50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reddick CG (2011) Citizen interaction and e-government: evidence for the managerial, consultative, and participatory models. Transform Gov People Process Policy 5(2):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reddick CG, Norris DF (2013) E-participation in local governments: an empirical examination of impacts. Paper presented at the 14th annual international conference on digital government research, Quebec, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  46. Royo S, Yetano A, Acerete B (2011) Citizen participation in German and Spanish local governments. A comparative study. Int J Public Adm 34(3):139–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sæbø Ø, Rose J, Skiftenes Flak L (2008) The shape of eParticipation: characterizing an emerging research area. Gov Inf Q 25(3):400–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sæbø Ø, Rose J, Molka-Danielsen J (2010) eParticipation: designing and managing political discussion forums. Social Sci Comput Rev 28(4):403–426Google Scholar
  49. Schellong A, Girrger P (2010) Government 2.0 in betaphase a analysis of eParticipation and Web 2.0 applications of Germany’s 50 largest cities and 16 federal states. CSC, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  50. Scott JK (2006) “E” the people: do U.S. municipal government web sites support public involvement? Public Adm Rev 66(3):341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Smyth P, Reddel T (2000) Place management; a new way forward in redressing social exclusion in Queensland. Natl Hous Action 14(2):9–14Google Scholar
  52. Snead JT (2013) Social media use in the U.S. executive branch. Gov Inf Q 30(1):56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tambouris E, Liotas N, Tarabanis K (2007) A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools. Paper presented at the 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, HawaiiGoogle Scholar
  54. Taylor M (2007) Community participation in the real world: opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces. Urban Stud 44(2):297–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor-Smith E (2010) eParticipation to support the information society European commission workshop report on eParticipation. Brussels: European Commission workshop report on eParticipation. Available at http://www.epractice.eu/. Accessed 18 Feb 2012
  56. Thomas JC, Streib G (2005) E-democracy, E-commerce, and E-research: examining the electronic ties between citizens and governments. Adm Soc 37(3):259–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tolbert CJ, Mossberger K (2006) The effects of E-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Adm Rev 66(3):354–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. United Nations (2012) United nations E-government survey 2012. E-government for the people. UN, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang X, Hawkins CV, Lebredo N, Berman EM (2012) Capacity to sustain sustainability: a study of U.S. cities. Public Adm Rev 72(6):841–853Google Scholar
  60. Welch EW, Hinnant CC, Moon MJ (2004) Linking citizen satisfaction with E-government and trust in government. J Public Adm Res Theory 15(3):371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yang KF (2005) Public administrators’ trust in citizens: a missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Adm Rev 65(3):273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yang KF, Callahan K (2007) Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Adm Rev 67(2):249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yang KF, Holzer M (2006) The performance-trust link: implications for performance measurement. Public Adm Rev 66(1):114–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yetano A, Royo S, Acerete B (2010) What is driving the increasing presence of citizen participation initiatives? Environ Plann C Gov Policy 28(5):783–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zavattaro SM (2013) Social media in public administration’s future: a response to Farazmand. Adm Soc 45(2):242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversidad de ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations