Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Policy Practice and Digital Science

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    UrbanAPI is an EC FP7 project focused on interactive analysis, simulation, and visualization tools for agile urban policy implementation http://www.urbanapi.eu/.

  2. 2.

    http://www.ocopomo.eu/in-a-nutshell/piloting-cases/kosice-self-governing-region-slovakia.

References

  • Ackerman J (2004) Co-governance for accountability: beyond “exit” and “voice”. World Dev 32(3):447–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson SR, Bryson JM, Crosby BC (1999) Leadership for the common good fieldbook. University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):691–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basu S (2004) E‐government and developing countries: an overview. Int’l Rev L Comp Tech 18(1):109–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):285–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best A, Holmes B (2010) Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy 6(2):145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):51

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):547–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):194–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, September

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 439–463

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15(3):239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant J (2003) The six dilemmas of collaboration: inter-organisational relationships as drama. Chichester: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson J 2004 What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Manag Rev 6(1):21–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):568–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi B (2003) Public participation and risk governance. Sci Public Policy 30(3):171–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 203–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton D (1965) A systems analysis of political life. Wiley, NewYork

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias AA, Cavana RY, Jackson LS (2002) Stakeholder analysis for R & D project management. R&D Manag 32(4):301–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flak LS, Rose R (2005) Stakeholder governance: adapting stakeholder theory to e-government. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 16(1):31

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin JS (1995) The voice of the people: public opinion and democracy. Yale University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (2010) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman B (ed) (1997) Human values and the design of computer technology. Cambridge University Press, New York (CSLI, Stanford)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 America

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):347–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):66–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung A, Graham M, Weil D (2007) Full disclosure: the perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hesketh D (2010) Weaknesses in the supply chain: who packed the box? World Cust J 4(2):3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 31–36

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • IAP2 (2007) IAP2 spectrum of public participation. International Association for Public Participation. Retrieved 24 December 2013 from http://www.iap2.org

  • 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, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones C (1977) An introduction to the study of public policy, 3rd ed. Wadsworth, Belmont

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennon N, Howden P, Hartley M (2009) Who really matters? A stakeholder analysis tool. Ext Farming Syst J 5(2):9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Kettl DF (2002) The transformation of governance: public administration for twenty-first century America. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Klievink B, Lucassen I (2013) Facilitating adoption of international information infrastructures: a Living Labs approach. Lect Notes Comput Sci 8074:250–261

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):543–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1951) The policy orientation. The policy sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp 13–14

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Medicine

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis C (1991) The ethics challenge in public service: a problem-solving guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone H, Turoff M (1975) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Addison-Wesley, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lomas J (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ 334(7585):129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee N (2004) Three models of democratic deliberation. J Specul Philos 18(1):44–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):853–886

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers D, Kitsuse A (2000) Constructing the future in planning: a survey of theories and tools. J Plan Educ Res 19(3):221–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pace RC (1990) Personalized and depersonalized conflict in small group discussions: an examination of differentiation. Small Gr Res 21(1):79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA (1991) Toward better theories of the policy process. PS 24:147–156. doi:10.2307/419923

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith G, en Wales C (2000) Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy. Polit Stud 48(1):51–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan YH, Bjørn-Andersen N, Klein S, Rukanova B (2011) Accelerating global supply chains with IT-innovation: ITAIDE tools and methods. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson T, Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. Acad Manage Rev 20(1):65–91

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):25–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R (2000) A stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plann 15(3):338–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM, Akkermans HA, Rouwette E (1996) Group model-building to facilitate organizational change: an exploratory study. Syst Dyn Rev 12(1):39–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):98–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2012) World development indicators 2012. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yetano A, Royo A, Acerete B (2010) What Is driving the increasing presence of citizen participation initiatives? Environ Plann C 28(5):783–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany, 187 Wolf Road, Suite 301, 12205, Albany, New York, USA

    Natalie Helbig & Sharon Dawes

  2. Department of Public Administration and Development Management, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA), New York, USA

    Zamira Dzhusupova

  3. Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX, Delft, The Netherlands

    Bram Klievink

  4. Institute for IS Research, University of Koblenz-Landau, Universitätsstr. 1, 56070, Koblenz, Germany

    Catherine Gerald Mkude

Authors
  1. Natalie Helbig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sharon Dawes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zamira Dzhusupova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bram Klievink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Gerald Mkude
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Natalie Helbig .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Marijn Janssen

  2. Institute for Information Systems Research, University of Koblenz-Landau, Koblenz, Germany

    Maria A. Wimmer

  3. Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ameneh Deljoo

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Helbig, N., Dawes, S., Dzhusupova, Z., Klievink, B., Mkude, C. (2015). Stakeholder Engagement in Policy Development: Observations and Lessons from International Experience. In: Janssen, M., Wimmer, M., Deljoo, A. (eds) Policy Practice and Digital Science. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12784-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation