Technology Helps, People Make: A Smart City Governance Framework Grounded in Deliberative Democracy

  • Roberto Garcia AlonsoEmail author
  • Sebastian Lippez-De Castro
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 11)


In sharp contrast to perspectives which overestimate the role played by technology in promoting smart cities initiatives, this chapter explores an important dimension for a full development of smart cities, the integration of human dimensions. Based on the theoretical model of Habermasian deliberative democracy, the chapter proposes a revision of the Chourabi et al. (2012) analytical framework for smart cities initiatives, in which people are as important as technology. In particular, we state that success of smart city initiatives depends upon the capability of integrating people and communities engagement with the advantages of information and communication technologies (ICTs), within a comprehensive smart city governance framework.


Technology Habermasian model Governance People and communities Smart city Framework 



Information and Communication Technologies


The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development


  1. Al-Dalou, R., & Abu-Shanab, E. (2013). E-participation levels and technologies. The 6th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT 2013), Amman, Jordan, 8–10 May (pp. 1–8). Accessed 29 July 2014.
  2. Alexander, C. (Ed.). (1998). Digital democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bessette, J. M. (1980). Deliberative democracy: The majority principle in republican government. In R. Goldwin & W. Schambra (Eds.), How democratic is the constitution? Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Episteme, 3(3), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohman, J. (2007). Political communication and the epistemic value of diversity: Deliberation and legitimation in media societies. Communication Theory, 17(4), 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohman, J., & Rehg, W. (Eds.). (1997). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bowker, N., & Tuffin, K. (2003). Dicing with deception: People with disabilities’ strategies for managing safety and identity online. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 8(2). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00209.x.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, L., & Belanger, F. (2004). Citizen adoption of electronic government initiatives. System Sciences. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on IEEE (p. 10). Accessed 29 July 2014.
  9. Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. System Science (HICSS). 45th Hawaii International Conference on IEEE (pp. 2289–2297). Accessed 29 July 2014.
  10. Christiano, T. (1996). The rule of the many. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, M., & Stewart, J. (1998). Community governance, community leadership and the new local government. YPS for the Joseph Rowntree foundation. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  12. Coe, A., Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (2001). E-governance and smart communities a social learning challenge. Social Science Computer Review, 19(1), 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davies, J., & Imbroscio, D. (2009). Theories of urban governance. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denters, B., & Rose, L. E. (2005). Comparing local governance—Trends and developments. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  15. Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Development, State Government of Victoria, Australia. (2009). Web 2.0: The new tools for democratic conversations—A snapshot of initiatives in government. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  16. Edwards, A. R. (2002). The moderator as an emerging democratic intermediary: The role of the moderator in Internet discussions about public issues. Information Polity, 7(1), 3–20.Google Scholar
  17. Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2009). Public services 2.0: The impact of social computing on public services. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  19. Fishkin, J., & Laslett, R. (2003). Debating deliberative democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Foster, S. P. (2000). The digital divide: Some reflections. International Information and Library Review, 23, 437–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giffinger, R., Kramar, H., & Haindl, G. (2007). The role of rankings in growing city competition. Proceedings of the 11th European Urban Research Association (EURA) Conference, Milan, Italy, October 9–11. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  22. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J. (1998). Facticidad y validez. Madrid: Trotta.Google Scholar
  25. Habermas, J. (2003). Truth and justification. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Habermas, J. (2005a). Between naturalism and religion. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  27. Habermas, J. (2005b). Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics. Acta Política, 40, 384–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hacker, K. L., & van Dijk, J. (Eds.). (2000). Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hall, R. E. (2000). The vision of a smart city. Proceedings of the 2nd International Life Extension Technology Workshop, Paris, France, September 28. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  30. Hambleton, R., & Gross, J. (2007). Governing cities in a global era. Urban innovation, competition and democratic reform. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harding, A. (1995). Elite theory and growth machines. In D. Judge, G. Stoker, & H. Wolman (Eds.), Theories of urban politics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Harrison, C., Eckman, B., Hamilton, R., Hartswick, P., Kalagnanam, J., Paraszczak, J., & Williams, P. (2010). Foundations for smarter cities. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 54(4), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hoff, J., Horrocks, I., & Tops, P. (2000). Democratic governance and new technology: Technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holden, S. H., Norris, D. F., & Fletcher, P. D. (2003). Electronic government at the local level: Progress to date and future issues. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(4), 325–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Holzer, M., Melitski, J., Rho, S., & Schwester, R. (2004). Restoring trust in government: The potential of digital citizen participation. E-Government Series, IBM Center for The Business of Government. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  36. Internet Content Syndication Council. (2008). Content creation and distribution in an expanding Internet universe: A white paper. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  37. Johnston, E. W., & Hansen, D. L. (2011). Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures. American Governance, 3, 197–212.Google Scholar
  38. Judge, D., Stoker, G., & Wolman, H. (1995). Urban politics and theory. In D. Judge, G. Stoker, & H. Wolman (Eds.), Theories of urban politics (pp. 1–12). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Kamarck, E. C., & Nye, J. S. (Eds. 2002). Democracy in the Information Age. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  40. Kersting, N., & Vetter, A. (Eds.). (2003). Reforming local government in Europe: Closing the gap between democracy and efficiency. Opladen: Springer DE, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Leske + Budrich.Google Scholar
  41. Kim, M. K., & Jee, K. Y. (2006). Characteristics of individuals influencing adoption intentions for portable Internet service. ETRI Journal, 28(1), 67–76.Google Scholar
  42. Klijn, E. H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in Europe. An assessment of ten years of research on the theme. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance: New government-society interactions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Komninos, N., Pallot, M., & Schaffers, H. (2013). Special issue on smart cities and the future internet in europe. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 119–134. doi:
  45. Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2000). Studying governance and public management: Challenges and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 233–262.Google Scholar
  46. Mooij, J. (2003). Smart governance? Politics in the policy process in Andhra Pradesh, India. (Working Paper 228). London: Overseas Development Institute.
  47. Mossberger, K., & Jimenez, B. (2009). Can e-government promote civic engagement? A study of local government websites in Illinois and the US. Institute for Policy and Civic Engagement Research Partnership. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  48. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship. The internet, society, and participation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times (pp. 282–291). Accessed 29 July 2014.Google Scholar
  50. Neblo, M. (2005). Thinking through democracy: Between the theory and practice of deliberative politics. Acta Politica, 40(2), 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Norris, P. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners. Information, consultation, and public participation in policy making. Paris: OECD.
  53. Osborne, S., & McLaughlin, K. (2002). The new public management in context. In K. McLaughlin, S. Osborne, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), New public management. Current trends and future prospects (pp. 7–14). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Pierre, J. (1999). Models of urban governance—The institutional dimension of urban politics, Urban Affairs Review, 34(3), 372–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pierre, J. (2000). Debating governance: Authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Polat, R. K., & Pratchett, L. (2009). E-citizenship: Reconstructing the public online. Changing local governance, changing citizens. doi:10.1332/policypress/9781847422170003.0011. Accessed 29 July 2014.Google Scholar
  57. Prats, J. (2003). El concepto y el análisis de la gobernabilidad. Revista Instituciones y Desarrollo, 14–15, 239–269.Google Scholar
  58. Putnam, R. D. (Ed.). (2002). Democracies in flux. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rubaii-Barrett, N., & Wise, L. R. (2006). Language minorities and the digital divide: A study of state e-government accessibility. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 12(2), 5–27.Google Scholar
  61. Rubaii-Barrett, N., & Wise, L. R. (2008). Disability access and e-government an empirical analysis of state practices. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19(1), 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281.
  63. Toppeta, D. (2010). The smart city vision: How innovation and ICT can build smart, “Livable”, sustainable Cities. The Innovation Knowledge Foundation. Accessed 29 July 2014.
  64. Washburn, D., Sindhu, U., Balaouras, S., Dines, R. A., Hayes, N. M., & Nelson, L. E. (2010). Helping CIOs understand “Smart City” initiatives: Defining the smart city, its drivers, and the role of the CIO. Cambridge: Forrester Research, Inc. Accessed 29 July 2014.Google Scholar
  65. Wiklund, H. (2005). A Habermasian analysis of the deliberative democratic potential of ICT-enabled services in Swedish municipalities. New Media & Society, 7(2), 247–270. Accessed 29 July 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto Garcia Alonso
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sebastian Lippez-De Castro
    • 2
  1. 1.BogotáColombia
  2. 2.BogotáColombia

Personalised recommendations