Advertisement

Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: Observations and Lessons from International Experience

  • Natalie HelbigEmail author
  • Sharon Dawes
  • Zamira Dzhusupova
  • Bram Klievink
  • Catherine Gerald Mkude
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 10)

Abstract

This chapter provides a starting point for better understanding how different approaches, tools, and technologies can support effective stakeholder participation in policy development. Participatory policy making involves stakeholders in various stages of the policy process and can focus on both the substance of the policy problem or on improving the tools and processes of policy development. We examine five international cases of stakeholder engagement in policy development to explore two questions: (1) what types of engagement tools and processes are useful for different stakeholders and contexts? And (2) what factors support the effective use of particular tools and technologies toward constructive outcomes? The cases address e-government strategic planning in a developing country, energy policy in a transitional economy, development of new technology and policy innovations in global trade, exploration of tools for policy-relevant evidence in early childhood decision making, and development of indicators for evaluating policy options in urban planning. Following a comparison of the cases, we discuss salient factors of stakeholder selection and representation, stakeholder support and education, the value of stakeholder engagement for dealing with complexity, and the usefulness of third-party experts for enhancing transparency and improving tools for engagement.

Keywords

Stakeholder Group Policy Process Policy Choice Stakeholder Engagement Engagement 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.

References

  1. Ackerman J (2004) Co-governance for accountability: beyond “exit” and “voice”. World Dev 32(3):447–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali M, Weerakkody V (2009) The impact of national culture on e-government implementation: a comparison case study. Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Francisco, California, 6–9 August 2009Google Scholar
  3. Anderson SR, Bryson JM, Crosby BC (1999) Leadership for the common good fieldbook. University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen DA, Vennix J, Richardson G, Rouwette E (2007) Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. J Oper Res Soc 58(5):691–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basu S (2004) E‐government and developing countries: an overview. Int’l Rev L Comp Tech 18(1):109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Shlomo Y, Kuh D (2002) A life course approach to chronic disease epidemiology: conceptual models, empirical challenges and interdisciplinary perspectives. Int’l J Epidemiol 31(2):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Best A, Holmes B (2010) Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy 6(2):145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bijlsma RM, Bots PW, Wolters HA, Hoekstra AY (2011) An empirical analysis of stakeholders’ influence on policy development: the role of uncertainty handling. Ecol Soc 16(1):51Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Black LJ, Andersen DF (2012) Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst Res Behav Sci 29(2):194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borning A, Friedman B, Davis J, Lin P (2005) Informing public deliberation: value sensitive design of indicators for a large-scale urban simulation. Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW) (pp 449–468), Paris, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  12. Borning A, Waddell P, Förster R (2008) UrbanSim: using simulation to inform public deliberation and decision-making. In: Hsinchun Chen et al. (eds) Digital government: e-government research, case studies, and implementation. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 439–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15(3):239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bryant J (2003) The six dilemmas of collaboration: inter-organisational relationships as drama. Chichester: WileyGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryson J 2004 What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Manag Rev 6(1):21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bryson J, Freeman RE, Roering W (1986) Strategic planning in the public sector: approaches and directions. In B. Checkoway (ed) Strategic perspectives on planning practice. Lexington Books, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Bryson JM, Cunningham GL, Lokkesmoe KJ (2002) What to do when stakeholders matter: the case of problem formulation for the African American men project of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Admin Rev 62(5):568–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Marchi B (2003) Public participation and risk governance. Sci Public Policy 30(3):171–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dzhusupova Z, Janowski T, Ojo A, Estevez E (2011) Sustaining electronic governance programs in developing countries. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on eGovernment (ECEG 2011), pp 203–212Google Scholar
  20. Easton D (1965) A systems analysis of political life. Wiley, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Elias AA, Cavana RY, Jackson LS (2002) Stakeholder analysis for R & D project management. R&D Manag 32(4):301–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flak LS, Rose R (2005) Stakeholder governance: adapting stakeholder theory to e-government. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16(1):31Google Scholar
  24. Fishkin JS (1995) The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy. Yale University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, BostonGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman RE (2010) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedman B (ed) (1997) Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge University Press, New York (CSLI, Stanford)Google Scholar
  28. Friedman B, Borning A, Davis JL, Gill BT, Kahn Jr PH, Kriplean T, Lin P (2008) Laying the foundations for public participation and value advocacy: interaction design for a large scale urban simulation. In: Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on digital government research (pp 305–314). Digital Government Society of North AmericaGoogle Scholar
  29. Frost H, Geddes R, Haw S, Jackson CA, Jepson R, Mooney JD, Frank J (2012) Experiences of knowledge brokering for evidence-informed public health policy and practice: three years of the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy. Evid Policy 8(3):347–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):66–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fung A, Graham M, Weil D (2007) Full disclosure: the perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Furdík K, Sabol T, Dulinová V (2010) Policy modelling supported by e-participation ICT tools. In: MeTTeG’10. Proceedings of the 4th international conference on methodologies, technologies and tools enabling e-government. University of Applied Sciences, Northwestern Switzerland, Olten (pp 135–146)Google Scholar
  33. Hesketh D (2010) Weaknesses in the supply chain: who packed the box? World Cust J 4(2):3–20Google Scholar
  34. Higgins A, Klein S (2011) Introduction to the living lab approach. In: Tan Y-H, Bjørn Andersen N, Klein S, Rukanova B (eds) Accelerating global supply chains with IT-innovation. ITAIDE tools and methods. Springer, Berlin, pp 31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. IAP2 (2007) IAP2 spectrum of public participation. International Association for Public Participation. Retrieved 24 December 2013 from http://www.iap2.org
  36. Jenkins-Smith HC, Sabatier PA (1993) The study of public policy processes. In: Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith HC (eds) Policy change and learning. An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones C (1977) An introduction to the study of public policy, 3rd ed. Wadsworth, BelmontGoogle Scholar
  38. Kennon N, Howden P, Hartley M (2009) Who really matters? A stakeholder analysis tool. Ext Farming Syst J 5(2):9–17Google Scholar
  39. Kettl DF (2002) The transformation of governance: public administration for twenty-first century America. John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  40. Klievink B, Lucassen I (2013) Facilitating adoption of international information infrastructures: a Living Labs approach. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8074:250–261Google Scholar
  41. Klievink B, Janssen M, Tan Y-H (2012) A stakeholder analysis of business-to-government information sharing: the governance of a public-private platform. Int’l J Electron Gov Res 8(4):54–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knight C, Lightowler C (2010) Reflections of ‘knowledge exchange professionals’ in the social sciences: emerging opportunities and challenges for university-based knowledge brokers. Evid Policy 6(4):543–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lasswell HD (1951) The policy orientation. The policy sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 13–14Google Scholar
  44. Lay-Yee R, Milne B, Davis P, Pearson J, McLay J (2014) Determinants and disparities: a simulation approach to the case of child health care, submitted to Social Science and MedicineGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewis C (1991) The ethics challenge in public service: a problem-solving guide. San Francisco: Jossey-BassGoogle Scholar
  46. Linstone H, Turoff M (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Lomas J (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ 334(7585):129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. McAfee N (2004) Three models of democratic deliberation. J Specul Philos 18(1):44–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Milne BJ, Lay-Yee R, Thomas J, Tobias M, Tuohy P, Armstrong A, Lynn R, Pearson J, Mannion O, Davis P (2014) A collaborative approach to bridging the research-policy gap through the development of policy advice software. Evid Policy 10(1):127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Acad Manage Rev 22(4):853–886Google Scholar
  51. Myers D, Kitsuse A (2000) Constructing the future in planning: a survey of theories and tools. J Plan Educ Res 19(3):221–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pace RC (1990) Personalized and depersonalized conflict in small group discussions: an examination of differentiation. Small Gr Res 21(1):79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sabatier PA (1991) Toward better theories of the policy process. PS 24:147–156. doi:10.2307/419923Google Scholar
  54. Smith G, en Wales C (2000) Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy. Polit Stud 48(1):51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Star SL, Griesemer J (1989) Institutional ecology, translations, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Soc Stud Sci 19:387–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tan YH, Bjørn-Andersen N, Klein S, Rukanova B (2011) Accelerating global supply chains with IT-innovation: ITAIDE tools and methods. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  57. Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manage Rev 20(1):65–91Google Scholar
  58. Van Egmond S, Bekker M, Bal R, van der Grinten T (2011) Connecting evidence and policy: bringing researchers and policy makers together for effective evidence-based health policy in the Netherlands: a case study. Evid Policy 7(1):25–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R (2000) A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plann 15(3):338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vennix JAM, Akkermans HA, Rouwette E (1996) Group model-building to facilitate organizational change: an exploratory study. Syst Dyn Rev 12(1):39–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wimmer MA, Scherer S, Moss S, Bicking M (2012) Method and tools to support stakeholder engagement in policy development: the OCOPOMO Project. Int’l J Electron Gov Res 8(3):98–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. World Bank (2012) World development indicators 2012. World Bank Publications, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yetano A, Royo A, Acerete B (2010) What Is driving the increasing presence of citizen participation initiatives? Environ Plann C 28(5):783–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalie Helbig
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sharon Dawes
    • 1
  • Zamira Dzhusupova
    • 2
  • Bram Klievink
    • 3
  • Catherine Gerald Mkude
    • 4
  1. 1.Center for Technology in GovernmentUniversity at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Public Administration and Development ManagementUnited Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA)New YorkUSA
  3. 3.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Institute for IS ResearchUniversity of Koblenz-LandauKoblenzGermany

Personalised recommendations