eParticipation in Smart Cities of Developing Countries: Research-Based Practical Recommendations

  • Paulo Roberto de Mello MirandaEmail author
  • Maria Alexandra Viegas Cortez da Cunha
  • José Maria Pugas Filho
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 11)


Cities are facing major challenges and the expansion of citizen participation has been considered a valuable strategy. Citizen participation experiences supported by information and communication technologies (ICT), the so-called eParticipation, have taken hold in cities around the world. In this chapter, we discuss some of the enabling and inhibiting elements for the creation of virtual spaces for participation by governments in a developing country of Latin America—Brazil. A list of enabling and inhibiting elements grouped in five dimensions was produced from a survey with Brazilian experts, including public officials, academic researchers, and consultants involved with the implementation of eDemocracy projects. To contribute to smart city initiatives in developing countries, interviews were made with the chief information officers (CIOs) of four major cities in Brazil—Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre, Curitiba, and Campinas. We found out that the enablers are concentrated in the sociocultural and technological dimensions, while the inhibitors are mainly in the political and governance dimensions. The enabling elements are, for the most part, external to the sphere of action of city information and communication technologies (ICT) managers. As far as inhibiting elements are concerned, even though they pose broad challenges that may be perceived to be beyond the reach of the leaders of eParticipation initiatives, there is more scope for managerial action.


eParticipation Smart cities Developing countries Enabling elements Inhibiting elements 


  1. Agre, P. (2002). Real-time politics: The internet and the political process. The Information Society, 18(5), 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsworth, S., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2005). Online consultation: E-democracy and e-resistance in the case of the development gateway. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 120–145.Google Scholar
  3. Åström, J., Karlsson, M., Linde, J., & Pirannejad, A. (2012). Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: Domestic and international factors. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 142–150. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakry, S. H. (2004). Development of e-government: A STOPE view. International Journal of Network Management, 14(5), 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bélanger, F., & Carter L. (2012). Internet voting and political participation: An empirical comparison of technological and political factors. ACM SIGMIS Database, 43(3), 26–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Busatto, C., & Vargas, P. (2004). Governança Solidária Local—Fundamentos políticos da mudança em Porto Alegre. Proceedings of the International Colloquium—The multi-stakeholder aproach in information and communication policy. Veneza, Itália.Google Scholar
  7. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Smart cities in Europe. Proceedings of the 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science—CERS, Košice, Slovak Republic, pp. 45–59.Google Scholar
  8. Carrizales, T. (2008). Critical factors in an electronic democracy: A study of municipal managers. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 6(1), 23–30.Google Scholar
  9. Chourabi, H., Nam T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS), Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
  10. Coleman, S. (2005). Direct representation: Towards a conversational democracy. London: Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  11. Coleman, S., & Rowe, C. (2005). Remixing citizenship: Democracy and young people’s use of the Internet. Research report. London: Carnegie Young People Initiative.Google Scholar
  12. Criado, J. I. (2008). Public sector innovation and the Europeanization of eGovernment: An institutional approach. Proceedings of the European Group of Public Administration Annual Conference, Rotterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  13. Cunha, M. A., & Miranda P. R. M. (2013). O Uso de TIC pelos Governos: Uma proposta de agenda de pesquisa a partir da produção acadêmica e da prática nacional. Organizações & Sociedade, 66, 543–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cunha, M. A., Duclós, L. C., Souza, G. S., & Correa S. M. (2005). O Uso de Meios Eletrônicos no Relacionamento do Parlamentar com o Cidadão e com o Poder Executivo nos Grandes Municípios Brasileiros. Proceedings of the XXIX Encontro Nacional da ANPAD—ENANPAD, Brasília, Brazil.Google Scholar
  15. Cunha, M. A., Coelho, T. R., & Pozzebon, M. (2013). The use of ICT in public decision-making participation. Proceedings of the ECIS—21st European Conference on Information Systems, Utrecht, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  16. Dahlberg, L. (2001). Democracy via ciberspace: Mapping the rhetorics and practices of three proeminent camps. New Media & Society, 3(2), 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Damodaran, L., Nicholls, J., Henney, A., Land, F., & Farbey, B. (2005). The contribution of sociotechnical systems thinking to the effective adoption of e-government and the enhancement of democracy. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 3(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
  18. Esteves, J., & Joseph, R. C. (2008). A comprehensive framework for the assessment of eGovernment projects. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frey, K. (2004). Governança Urbana e Participação Pública. Proceedings of the XXVIII Encontro Nacional da ANPAD- EnANPAD, Curitiba, Brazil.Google Scholar
  20. Gil-García, J. R., & Pardo, T. A. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grönlund, Å. (2001). Democracy in an IT-framed society. Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grönlund, Å., & Horan, T. (2005). Introducing e-GOV: History, definitions and issues. Communications of the AIS, 15, 713–729.Google Scholar
  23. Guidi, L. (2001). E-Democracia em Bologna: a rede cívica Iperbole e como construir uma comunidade participativa online. Revista Informática Pública, 3(1), 49–70.Google Scholar
  24. Holzer, M. (2005). Restoring trust in government: The potential of digital citizen participation. Proceedings of the second Sino-US international conference: Public administration in the changing world, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
  25. Holzer M., & Manoharan, A. (2007). E-governance and quality of life: Associating municipal e-governance with quality of life worldwide. In C. Reddick (Ed.). Handbook of research on strategies for local e-government adoption and implementation: Comparative studies (pp. 408–418). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  26. ITU—International Telecommunication Unit. (2013). Measuring the information society. Accessed 5 March 2014.
  27. Kanter, R. M., & Litow, S. S. (2009). Informed and interconnected: A manifesto for smarter cities. Harvard Business School General Management Unit Working Paper, 9–141. 17 March 2014.
  28. Lindskog, H. (2004). Smart communities initiatives. Proceedings of the 3rd ISOneWorld Conference, Las Vegas.Google Scholar
  29. Macadar, M., & Reinhard, N. (2002). Telecentros Comunitários possibilitando a inclusão digital: Um estudo de caso comparativo de iniciativas brasileiras. Proceedings of the XXVI Encontro Nacional da ANPAD-EnANPAD, Salvador, Brazil.Google Scholar
  30. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Honolulu, HI, USA.Google Scholar
  31. Motta, F. C. P.(1990). Organização e Poder: Empresa, Estado e escola. São Paulo: Atlas.Google Scholar
  32. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research—Dg.o’11, College Park, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  33. New Zealand. (2004). Participation through e-government: The context. Wellington: State Services Commission. Accessed 10 April 2010.Google Scholar
  34. Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Odeendal, N. (2003). Information and communication technology and local governance: Understanding the difference between cities in developed and emerging economies. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(6), 585–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paskaleva, K. (2009). Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rose, J., Grönlund, A., & Andersen, K. V. (2007). What is eParticipation?. In A. Avdic, K. Hedström, J. Rose, & Å. Grönlund (Eds.), Understanding eParticipation: Contemporary PhD eParticipation studies in Europe. Sweden: Örebro University Library.Google Scholar
  38. Ruediger, M. A. (2002). Governo Eletrônico e Democracia—Uma Análise Preliminar dos Impactos e Potencialidades na Gestão Pública. Proceedings of the XXVI Encontro Nacional da ANPAD—ENANPAD, Salvador, Brazil.Google Scholar
  39. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, K. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 400–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Smart cities and the future internet: Towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In J. Domingue, et al. (Eds.). Future internet assembly. (Vol. 6656, pp. 431–446). Cham (ZG): Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Susha, I., & Grönlund, A. (2012). eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29, 373–382. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Thindwa, J., Monico, C., Reuben, W. (2003). Enabling Environments for civic engagement in PRSP countries. Social Development Notes Nº 82. Washington. World Bank.Google Scholar
  43. United Kingdom. (2009a). Local democracy, economic development and construction bill. London: House of Commons, The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar
  44. United Kingdom. (2009b). Listening to communities: Consultation on draft statutory guidance on the duty to respond to petitions. Secretary of state for communities and local government. Department for communities and local government. London: Communities and Local Government Publications.Google Scholar
  45. United Nations. (2010). E-government survey 2010: Leveraging e-government at a time of financial and economic crisis. New York: UN Publishing Section.Google Scholar
  46. Williamson, A. (2006). Disruptive spaces and transformative praxis: Reclaiming community voices through electronic democracy. Proceedings of the conference of Community Informatics Research Network, Prato, Itália.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Roberto de Mello Miranda
    • 1
    Email author
  • Maria Alexandra Viegas Cortez da Cunha
    • 1
  • José Maria Pugas Filho
    • 2
  1. 1.Curitiba/PRBrazil
  2. 2.Curitiba/PRBrazil

Personalised recommendations