Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Electronic Participation in Europe

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Electronic Democracy in Europe

Abstract

In modern liberal democracies, participation of the dēmos is not restricted to casting votes in elections, but includes a growing variety of other, both formally institutionalised and informal practices of civic engagement. At the European Union level, the importance of public engagement has increased with the rise of new forms of governance and a “participatory turn” in reaction to the persistent distance and mistrust of citizens towards EU institutions. Propelled by fast technological change in the field of information and communication technologies, electronic or e-participation now plays a crucial role in all kinds of participatory processes between citizens and government as well as between civil society organisations and government. Chapter 3 of this book describes the full scope of the different categories and variants of Internet-based political participation. It starts with reflections on the role of participatory democracy in EU-governance and the relevance of e-participation across the policy cycle, reviews empirical evidence on the use and effects of major forms of e-participation (structured into top-down and bottom-up approaches), places a special focus on the European Citizens’ Initiative as a novel instrument, and highlights good practice cases of European e-participation.

Section 3.4 of this chapter has been co-authored by Niklas Gudowsky; e-mail: Niklas.Gudowsky@oeaw.ac.at.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Roots of experimenting with information and communication technology (ICT) for citizen participation date back to the early 1970s (cf. Crickman and Kochen 1979).

  2. 2.

    Major steps were the introduction of participatory democracy as a principle into the Constitutional Treaty signed in Rome in December 2004 and of the relevant Article on the European Citizens’ Initiative—although without its original heading of “Participatory Democracy”—into the Lisbon Treaty; an upswing of “civil society” consultations, increasingly via Internet, through a so-called “transparent consultation mechanism” by European institutions; the EC’s launch of a “Plan D for democracy, dialogue and debate” in 2005 aiming to “go local, listen to and engage with citizens”; a White Paper on the European Communication Policy with a similar mission; two large-scale meetings for exchange between civil society organizations and MEPs in the European Parliament in 2007 and 2009 (“European Agora”); the launch of a Green Paper on the European Transparency Initiative; and most recently a proposal for a Directive on the European Citizens’ Initiative (cf. Saurugger 2010; EC 2010). In 2011 the European Parliament held Citizens’ Agora processes on “The Economic and Financial Crisis and New Forms of Poverty” and in November 2013 a “Citizens’ Agora on Youth Unemployment”. For further information see: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/00567de5f7/Agora.html [accessed July 9, 2015].

  3. 3.

    For a brief overview see Jann and Wegrich (2007).

  4. 4.

    http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice [accessed July 9, 2015].

  5. 5.

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu [accessed July 9, 2015].

  6. 6.

    http://www.buergerhaushalt-lichtenberg.de [accessed July 9, 2015].

  7. 7.

    http://www.buergerhaushalt-hamburg.de [accessed July 9, 2015].

  8. 8.

    http://www.wien.gv.at/amtshelfer/dokumente/verwaltung/wahl/petition/einbringen.html [accessed July 9, 2015].

  9. 9.

    http://twitter.com/#!/Europarl_EN [accessed July 9, 2015].

  10. 10.

    http://wiki.ffii.org/Ep050706En [accessed July 9, 2015].

  11. 11.

    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/34-443-Klageschriften-gegen-die-Vorratsdatenspeicherung-185285.html [accessed July 9, 2015]. In April 2014, the European Court of Justice declared the Data Retention Directive invalid. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/08/european_court_of_justice_says_data_retention_directive_is_invalid/ [accessed July 9, 2015].

  12. 12.

    OKF is a non-profit organisation which seeks to promote open knowledge in order to create social benefits. See http://okfn.org [accessed July 9, 2015].

  13. 13.

    This is also in accordance with the EU transparency initiative that inter alia aimed at providing information about lobbying activities to the public and improving the scrutiny of EU funds. See http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/ai0003_en.htm [accessed July 9, 2015]. In 2012, the EU Commission introduced the transparency register. See http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do [accessed July 9, 2015].

  14. 14.

    See http://www.mysociety.org [accessed July 9, 2015].

  15. 15.

    http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome [accessed July 9, 2015].

  16. 16.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:065:0001:0022:EN:PDF [accessed July 9, 2015].

  17. 17.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:065:0001:0022:EN:PDF [accessed July 9, 2015].

  18. 18.

    http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bundesrecht/ebig/gesamt.pdf [accessed July 9, 2015].

  19. 19.

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:301:0003:0009:EN:PDF [accessed July 9, 2015].

  20. 20.

    http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/prepare-system?lg=en [accessed July 9, 2015].

  21. 21.

    http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/prepare-system?lg=en [accessed July 9, 2015].

  22. 22.

    http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/software [accessed July 9, 2015].

  23. 23.

    http://www.citizens-initiative.eu [accessed July 9, 2015].

  24. 24.

    https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/ocs/issue/all [accessed July 9, 2015].

  25. 25.

    http://www.more-onion.com/en/blog/our-eci-signature-setup-has-been-approved [accessed July 9, 2015].

  26. 26.

    http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/information-society/data/main-tables [accessed July 9, 2015].

  27. 27.

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=citizenhouse.eu.ecisupportcentre [accessed July 9, 2015].

  28. 28.

    Further good practice examples selected under similar criteria can be found for instance in Albrecht et al. (2008) and Kubicek et al. (2011).

  29. 29.

    See http://epetitions.scottish.parliament.uk [accessed July 9, 2015]. Sources of case description: Lindner and Riehm (2009) and Tambouris et al. (2007).

  30. 30.

    http://service.berlin.de/buergerhaushalt/ [accessed July 9, 2015].

  31. 31.

    http://www.buergerhaushalt-lichtenberg.de [accessed July 9, 2015].

  32. 32.

    https://www.mysociety.org/ [accessed July 9, 2015].

  33. 33.

    These are also accessible via separate websites, e.g., http://www.writetothem.com [accessed July 9, 2015], http://www.hearfromyourmp.com [accessed July 9, 2015].

  34. 34.

    http://www.participedia.net/en/organizations/mysociety [accessed July 9, 2015].

  35. 35.

    http://www.right2water.eu [accessed July 9, 2015].

  36. 36.

    http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome?lg=en [accessed July 9, 2015].

  37. 37.

    http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/initiatives/finalised/details/2012/000003 [accessed July 9, 2015].

  38. 38.

    The Concessions Directive inter alia aims at facilitating public-private partnerships and improving access to the concessions market. See http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-14-19_en.htm [accessed July 9, 2015].

  39. 39.

    http://www.right2water.eu/news/press-release-commission-lacks-ambition-replying-first-european-citizens%E2%80%99-initiative [accessed July 9, 2015].

References

  • Aichholzer, G. (2016). Citizen participation in climate governance. In G. Aichholzer, H. Kubicek, & L. Torres (Eds.), Evaluating e-participation. Frameworks, practice, evidence (pp. 47–62). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aichholzer, G., Cimander, R., & Kubicek, H. (2013). Can information save energy? A three country comparison of words and actions in participatory local climate protection projects. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 6(1), 66–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aichholzer, G., & Strauß, S. (2016). Collaborative forms of citizen (e-)participation. In G. Aichholzer, H. Kubicek, & L. Torres (Eds.), Evaluating e-participation. Frameworks, practice, evidence (pp. 109–122). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, S. (2010). Reflexionsspiele. Deliberative Demokratie und die Wirklichkeit politischer Diskurse im Internet. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, S., Kohlrausch, N., Kubicek, H., Lippa, B., Märker, O., Trenel, M., et al. (2008). eParticipation—Electronic participation of citizens and the business community in eGovernment. Study on Behalf of the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Division IT 1, Bremen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfaro, C., Gómez, J., & Ríos, J. (2010). From participatory to e-participatory budgets. In D. Rios Insua & S. French (Eds.), e-Democracy. A group decision and negotiation perspective (pp. 283–299). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anduiza, E., Jensen, M. J., & Jorba, L. (2012). Digital media and political engagement worldwide. A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baringhorst, S. (2009). Introduction. Political campaigning in changing media cultures—Typological and historical approaches. In S. Baringhorst, V. Kneip, & J. Niesyto (Eds.), Political campaigning on the web (pp. 9–30). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baringhorst, S., Kneip, V., & Niesyto, J. (Eds.). (2009). Political campaigning on the web. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkirane, R. (2012). The alchemy of revolution: The role of social networks and new media in the Arab Spring. GCSP Policy Paper, No. 2012/7. Geneva Center for Security Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, C., & Głogowski, P. (2014). An overview of the first two years of the European Citizens’ Initiative. In C. Berg, & J. Thomson (Eds.), An ECI that works! Learning from the first two years of the European Citizens’ Initiative. The ECI campaign (pp. 11–18). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://ecithatworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/An_ECI_That_Works.pdf

  • Berg, C., & Thomson, J. (Eds.). (2014a). An ECI that works! Learning from the first two years of the European Citizens’ Initiative. The ECI campaign. Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://ecithatworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/An_ECI_That_Works.pdf

  • Berg, C., & Thomson, J. (2014b). Lessons and recommendations for an ECI that works. In C. Berg, & J. Thomson (Eds.), An ECI that works! Learning from the first two years of the European Citizens’ Initiative. The ECI campaign (pp. 118–122). Retrieved September 7, 2015, http://ecithatworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/An_ECI_That_Works.pdf

  • BHLB. (2010). Bürgerhaushalt Berlin-Lichtenberg, Projektportal. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://buergerhaushalt-lichtenberg.de

  • Bochel, C. (2013). Petitions systems: Contributing to representative democracy? Parliamentary Affairs, 66(4), 798–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucher, S. (2009). If citizens have a voice, who’s listening? Lessons from recent citizen consultation experiments for the European Union. EPIN Working Paper No. 24/June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boussaguet, L. (2015, February 23). Participatory mechanisms as symbolic policy instruments? Comparative European Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouza García, L. (2012a). Anticipating the attitudes of European Civil Society Organisations to the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI): Which public sphere may it promote? In Bruges Political Research Papers (Vol. 24, pp. 23–51). Bruges, Belgium: College of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouza García, L. (2012b). New rules, new players? The ECI as a source of competition and contention in the European public sphere. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13(3), 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouza García, L. (2015). Participatory democracy and civil society in the EU: Agenda-setting and institutionalisation. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bouza García, L., & Greenwood, J. (2014). The European citizens’ initiative: A new sphere of EU politics? Interest Groups & Advocacy, 3(3), 246–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandtzaeg, P. B., & Heim, J. (2009). Why people use social networking sites. In A. A. Ozok, & P. Zaphiris (Eds.), Online communities (LNCS 5621, pp. 143–152). Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.academia.edu/907531/Why_People_Use_Social_Networking_Sites

  • Bruns, A., & Wilson, J. (2009). Citizen consultation from above and below: The Australian perspective. In EDEM 2009—Conference on Electronic Democracy, 7–8 September, Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabannes, Y. (2004). Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment & Urbanization, 16(1), 27–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrara, S. (2012). Towards e-ECIs? European participation by online pan-European mobilization. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13(3), 352–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, A. (2009). Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance. A Journal of Law and Policy, 5(1), 9–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The Internet and democratic citizenship. Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S., & Goetze, J. (2002). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. London: Hansard Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S., & Ross, K. (2002). The public, politics and the spaces between: Election call and democratic accountability. London: Hansard Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, M. (2013). Small-states perspective on the European citizens’ initiative. Icelandic Review of Politics and Administration, 9(2), 301–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crickman, R., & Kochen, M. (1979). Citizen participation through computer conferencing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 14(1), 47–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuesta-López, V. (2012). A preliminary approach to the regulation on European Citizens’ Initiative from comparative constitutional law. In Bruges Political Research Papers (Vol. 24, pp. 6–22). Bruges, Belgium: College of Europe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2013). Do social media enhance democratic participation?—The importance and difficulty of being realistic. Policy Paper No. 4/2013. Berlin, Germany: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/Standpunkte/policy_paper/PolicyPaper_04-2013.pdf

  • DCLG—Department for Communities and Local Government. (2011). Communities in the driving seat: A study of Participatory Budgeting in England. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6152/19932231.pdf

  • De Clerck-Sachsse, J. (2012). Civil society and democracy in the EU: The paradox of the European citizens’ initiative. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13(3), 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delakorda, S., & Delakorda, M. (2009). E-participation—A new sphere of NGO activity? Originally published in June 2009 at the Trust for Civil Society in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE Trust). Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://csf.ceetrust.org/paper/19/

  • Democracy International. (2011). European Citizens’ Initiative. Köln.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donges, P., & Jarren, O. (1999). Politische Öffentlichkeit durch Netzkommunikation? In K. Kamps (Ed.), Elektronische Demokratie? Perspektiven politischer Partizipation (pp. 85–108). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Duinkerken, M. J. (2013). Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative—Ein effektives Instrument direkter Partizipation? Bachelor thesis. Retrieved September 7, 2015, from https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15085/1/Duinkerken_Final_41.pdf

  • Dunne, K. (2009). Cross cutting discussion: A form of online discussion discovered within local political online forums. Information Polity, 14(3), 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunne, K. (2015). ICTs: Convenient, yet subsidiary tools in changing democracy. International Journal of E-Politics, 6(2), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC—European Commission. (2001). European governance. A White Paper, COM(2001) 428 final, 25.7.2001, Brussels, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC—European Commission. (2009). European eParticipation summary report (ICT for Government and Public Services), Brussels, Belgium.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC—European Commission. (2010). Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the Council on the citizens’ initiative. COM(2010) 119 final, Brussels, March 31, 2010. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/citizens_initiative/docs/com_2010_119_en.pdf

  • EC—European Commission. (2011). A new right for EU citizens. You can set the agenda! Guide to the European Citizens’ Initiative, Brussels. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/secretariat_general/citizens_initiative/docs/guide_eci_en.pdf

  • EC—European Commission. (2014). Communication from the European Commission on the European Citizens’ Initiative “Water and sanitation are a human right! Water is a public good, not a commodity!”. COM (2014) 177 final, Brussels, March 19, 2014. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/com_r2w_en.pdf

  • EC—European Commission. (2015). Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Report on the application of Regulation (EU) No 211/2011 on the citizens’ initiative. COM(2015) 145 final, Brussels, March 31, 2015. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2015/EN/1-2015-145-EN-F1-1.PDF

  • Eder, K. (2007). The public sphere and European democracy. Mechanisms of democratisation in the transnational situation. In J. Fossum & P. Schlesinger (Eds.), The European Union and the public sphere: A communicative space in the making? (pp. 44–64). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison, N., & Hardey, M. (2013). Developing political conversations? Social media and English local authorities. Information Communication & Society, 16(6), 878–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmanouilidis, J. A., & Stratulat, C. (2010). Implementing Lisbon: a critical appraisal of the Citizens’ Initiative, EPC Policy Brief, Brussels. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_1135_implisbon.pdf

  • EP—European Parliament. (2014). European Citizens’ Initiative—First lessons of implementation. Directorate General for Internal Policies. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/509982/IPOL_STU%282014%29509982_EN.pdf

  • EU. (2010, March 30). Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, 53.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ombudsman. (2015). Annual report 2014. Brussels, Belgium: European Ombudsman’s Office. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/showResource?resourceId=1432800522448_AnnualReport2014_EN_web_final.pdf&type=pdf&download=true&lang=en

  • Fuchs, C. (2006). eParticipation research: A case study on political online debate in Austria. ICT&S Center, Austria, Paper No. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy. Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, R. K. (2006). Protest in an information society: A review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information Communication & Society, 9(2), 202–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, J. (2013). A comparison of deliberative designs and policy impact in the EU and across the globe. In R. Kies & P. Nanz (Eds.), Is Europe listening to us? Successes and failures of EU citizen consultations (p. 217). Surrey, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Głogowski, P., & Maurer, A. (2013). The European citizens’ initiative—Chances, constraints and limits, political science series. Vienna, Austria: Institute for Advanced Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande, E. (2000). Post-national democracy in Europe. In M. T. Greven & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Democracy beyond the state? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graziano, P. R., & Halpern, C. (2015, February 23). EU governance in times of crisis: Inclusiveness and effectiveness beyond the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ law divide. Comparative European Politics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, J. (2012). The European citizens’ initiative and EU civil society organisations. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13(3), 325–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, K., Strandberg, K., & Himmelroos, S. (2009). The challenge of deliberative democracy online—A comparison of face-to-face and virtual experiments in citizen deliberation. Information Polity, 14(3), 187–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A., Banse, G., Coenen, C., & Hennen, L. (2006). Netzöffentlichkeit und digitale Demokratie. Tendenzen politischer Kommunikation im Internet. Studien des Büros für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim deutschen Bundestag, Bd. 18, Berlin, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatton, L. (2014). The European Citizens’ Initiative and the activation of EU demoi. The role of knowledge and expertise. In C. Holst (Ed.), Expertise and democracy (ARENA Report No 1/14, pp. 239–269). Oslo, Norway: Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidelberger, C. A. (2009). Electronic participatory budgeting: Supporting community deliberation and decision-making with online tools. Conference Paper Midwest Decision Sciences Institute Conference, Miami University, Oxford, OH, April 16–18, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidemann, J. (2010). Online social networks—Ein sozialer und technischer Überblick. Informatik-Spektrum, 33(3), 262–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, E. S. (2009). Evaluating social network tools for distance learning. In TCC 2009 Proceedings (pp. 92–100).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohberg, B., Lübcke, M., & Hagedorn, H. (2014). Das BürgerForum—Ein überregionales, nachhaltiges Beteiligungsformat. In K. Voss (Ed.), Internet und partizipation (pp. 323–336). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hrbek, R. (2012a). National and European political parties and the European citizens’ initiative. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13(3), 370–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrbek, R. (2012b). Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen eines neuen Elements im EU-Entscheidungssystem. Integration, 35(1), 35–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurrelmann, A. (2015). Demoi-cratic citizenship in Europe: An impossible ideal? Journal of European Public Policy, 22(1), 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 43–62). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Politica, 40(3), 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J. L. (2003). Virtual democratic dialogue? Bringing together citizens and politicians. Information Polity, 8(1, 2), 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and metagovernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. In H. P. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication (pp. 101–116). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampen, J. K., & Snijkers, K. (2003). E-democracy. A critical evaluation of the ultimate e-dream. Social Science Computer Review, 21(4), 491–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamps, K. (1999). Perspektiven elektronischer Demokratie. In K. Kamps (Ed.), Elektronische Demokratie? Perspektiven politischer Partizipation (pp. 7–20). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kann, M. E., Berry, J., Gant, C., & Zager, P. (2007). The Internet and youth political participation. First Monday, 12(8).

    Google Scholar 

  • Karatzia, A. (2013). The European Citizens’ Initiative: Giving voice to EU citizens. King’s student law review. London: King’s College London. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/kslreuropeanlawblog/?p=452#.VIbxlsnm59M

  • Karlsson, M. (2011). Connecting citizens to the European parliament: E-consultations as a tool for political representation. In Z. Sobaci (Ed.), E-parliament and ICT-based legislation: Concept, experiences and lessons (pp. 80–102). Hershey, PA: IGI-Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, B. (2012). Transnational ‘Babystep’: The European citizens’ initiative. In M. Setala & T. Schiller (Eds.), Citizens’ initiatives in Europe. Procedures and consequences of agenda-setting by citizens (pp. 101–116). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kentmen-Cin, C. (2014). Explaining willingness to use the European citizens’ initiative: Political cynicism, anti-EU attitudes and voting weight of member states. Comparative European Politics, 12(3), 301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kies, R., Leyenaar, M., & Niemöller, K. (2013). European citizens’ consultation: A large consultation on a vague topic. In R. Kies & P. Nanz (Eds.), Is Europe listening to us? Successes and failures of EU citizen consultations (pp. 59–78). Surrey, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kies, R., Mendez, F., Schmitter, P., & Trechsel, A. (2002). Evaluation of the use of new technologies in order to facilitate democracy in Europe. STOA Working Paper 116 EN, European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kies, R., & Nanz, P. (Eds.). (2013). Is Europe listening to us? Successes and failures of EU citizen consultations. Surrey, England: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klages, H. (2006). Bürgerhaushalt Berlin-Lichtenberg, Partizipative Haushaltsplanaufstellung, -entscheidung und -kontrolle im Bezirk Lichtenberg von Berlin. Begleitende Evaluation des ersten Durchlaufs. Abschlussbericht. Deutsches Forschungsinstitut für öffentliche Verwaltung Speyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knaut, A. (2013). Die Europäische Bürgerinitiative—innovativ, transnational und demokratisch? Paper zum Panel “Demokratische Innovationen im Kontext gesellschaftlicher Diversität”, POLITIK DER VIELFALT. Drei-Länder-Tagung der ÖGPW, DVPW und SVPW, September 19–21, 2013, Universität Innsbruck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Koch, B., & Quittkat, C. (2013). De-mystification of participatory democracy. EU governance and civil society. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kubicek, H. (2010). The potential of e-participation in urban planning: A European perspective. In C. Nunes Silva (Ed.), Handbook of research on e-planning: ICTs for urban development and monitoring (pp. 168–194). Hershey, PA: IGI-Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kubicek, H., Aichholzer, G., Allhutter, D., Cimander, R., Pina, V., Strauß, S., et al. (2010). Comparative evaluation of the impact of e-participation in local climate change policy programs. In J.-L. Chappelet, O. Glassey, M. Janssen, A. Macintosh, J. Scholl, E. Tambouris, et al. (Eds.), Electronic government and electronic participation. Joint Proceedings of Ongoing Research and Projects of IFIP EGOV and ePart 2010 (pp. 377–382). Linz, Austria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubicek, H., Lippa, B., & Koop, A. (2011). Erfolgreich beteiligt? Nutzen und Erfolgsfaktoren internetgestützter Bürgerbeteiligung—Eine empirische Analyse von 12 Fallbeispielen. Gütersloh, Germany: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubicek, H., Lippa, B., Westholm, H., & unter Mitarbeit von Kohlrausch, N. (2007). Medienmix in der lokalen Demokratie. Die Integration von Online-Elementen in Verfahren der Bürgerbeteiligung. Abschlussbericht an die Hans Böckler Stiftung (Teil I). Institut für Informationsmanagement Bremen GmbH (ifib).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leggewie, C. (2003). Von der elektronischen zur interaktiven Demokratie. Das Internet für demokratische Eliten. In D. Klumpp, H. Kubicek, & A. Roßnagel (Eds.), Next generation information society? Notwendigkeit einer Neuorientierung (pp. 115–128). Mössingen, Germany: Talheimer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, P. (2002). Can the Internet save democracy? Toward an on-line commons. In R. Hayduk & K. Mattson (Eds.), Democracy’s moment: Reforming the American political systems (pp. 121–137). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyenaar, M., & Niemöller, K. (Eds.). (2010). European citizens’ consultations 2009. Evaluation report. Brussels, Belgium: King Baudouin Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, R. (2007). Politischer Wandel durch digitale Netzwerkkommunikation? Strategische Anwendung neuer Kommunikationstechnologien durch kanadische Parteien und Interessengruppen. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, R. (2008). E-Konsultationen in Kanada – Vorbild für Deutschland oder Sonderfall? In TAB Brief, Nr. 34, Dezember 2008 (pp. 14–19).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, R. (2009). Communication and campaign strategies of intermediary organizations—A comparative analysis. In S. Baringhorst, J. Niesyto, & V. Kneip (Eds.), Political campaigning on the web (pp. 235–257). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, R., Coenen, C., & Riehm, U. (2008). Zur Öffentlichkeit des Petitionsverfahrens beim Deutschen Bundestag und beim Schottischen Parlament. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, Heft, 3, 530–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2008). Modernisierung des Petitionswesens und der Einsatz neuer Medien. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, Heft, 3, 495–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2009). Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. International parliamentary e-petition systems in comparative perspective. JeDEM – eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 1(1), 1–11. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.jedem.org/article/view/3

  • Lindner, R., & Riehm, U. (2011). Broadening participation through e-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German parliament. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 1–23. Article 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lührs, R., Albrecht, S., Hohberg, B., & Lübcke, M. (2004). Online Diskurse als Instrument politischer Partizipation—Evaluation der Hamburger Internetdiskussion zum Leitbild ‘Wachsende Stadt‘. kommunikation@gesellschaft, 5, Beitrag 1, 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lührs, R., Feil, B., & Rathmann, H. (2010). E-participatory planning: Necessity and advantage. In J. Gøtze & C. B. Pedersen (Eds.), State of the eUnion—Government 2.0 and onwards (pp. 217–231). Blumington, IN: Authorhouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, A. (2003). Using information and communication technologies to enhance citizen engagement in the policy process. In OECD (Ed.), Promise and problems of e-democracy. Challenges of online citizen engagement (pp. 19–142). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., & Lalljee, M. (2005). E-Methods for public engagement. Helping local authorities to communicate with citizens. Research Report. Bristol City Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an evaluation framework for eParticipation. Transforming Government: People, Process & Policy, 2(1), 16–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: The cyberspace ‘revolution’. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Märker, O., & Wehner, J. (2013). E-Partizipation—Politische Beteiligung als statistisches Ereignis. In J. H. Passoth & J. Wehner (Eds.), Quoten, Kurven und Profile. Zur Vermessung der sozialen Welt (pp. 273–291). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matheus, R., Ribeiro, M. M., Vaz, J. C., & de Souza, C. A. (2010). Case studies of digital participatory budgeting in Latin America: Models for citizen engagement. In ICEGOV’10 Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (pp. 31–36).

    Google Scholar 

  • Millard, J., Nielsen, M., Warren, R., Smith, S., Macintosh, A., Tarabanis, K., et al. (2009). European eParticipation summary report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Min, S.-J. (2007). Online vs. face-to-face deliberation: Effects on civic engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1369–1387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miori, V., & Russo, D. (2011). Integrating online and traditional involvement in participatory budgeting. Electronic Journal of e-Government, 9(1), 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mkude, C. G., Perez-Espes, C., & Wimmer, M. A. (2014). Participatory budgeting: A framework to analyze the value-add of citizen participation. In Proceedings of 47th International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 6–9 January 2014, Waikoloa, HI (pp. 2054–2062).

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, E. (2012). Assessing participation and democracy in the EU: The case of the European citizens’ initiative. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 13(3), 285–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion. How not to liberate the world. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosca, L., & Santucci, D. (2009). Petitioning online. The role of e-petitions in web campaigning. In S. Baringhorst, V. Kneip, & J. Niesyto (Eds.), Political campaigning on the web (pp. 121–146). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nanz, P. (2007). Multiple voices: An interdiscursive concept of the European public sphere. In J. E. Fossum, P. Schlesinger, & G. Kvaerk (Eds.), Public sphere and civil society? Transformations of the European Union (ARENA Report No 2, pp. 11–28). Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/projects/cidel/old/Reports/702.pdf

  • OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy—Challenges of online citizen engagement. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD—Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Participative web and user-created content. Web 2.0, Wikis and social networking. Paris: OECD. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://akgul.bilkent.edu.tr/oecd/9307031E.pdf

  • Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2009). eParticipation good practice cases and diffusion. Deliverable 4.2c, Demo_Net – Network of Excellence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peixoto, T. (2009, March). Beyond theory: E-participatory budgeting and its promises for eParticipation. European Journal of ePractice, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, J., & Abud, M. (2009). E-consultation: Enabling democracy between elections. IRPP Choices, 15(1), 2–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • PETI (Committee on Petitions). (2011). Report on the activities of the Committee on Petitions in 2010. June 17, 2011, 2010/2295(INI). European Parliament. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2011-0232+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN

  • Petrescu, O.-M. (2014). The European citizens’ initiative: A useful instrument for society and for citizens? Revista Chilena de Derecho, 41(3), 993–1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pichler, J. W. (2011). The citizens’ participatory democracy’s “holistic” architecture beyond the ECI – from articles 10.3 to 11.1 to 11.2 to 11.3 to 11.4 TEU to Art. 17 TFEU and to Art. 24 TFEU. In J. W. Pichler, & B. Kaufmann (Eds.), Modern transnational democracy. How the 2012 launch of the European Citizen’s Initiative can change the world. Schriften zur Rechtspolitik (Bd. 33, pp. 21–26). Wien-Graz: Neuer Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plake, K., Jansen, D., & Schuhmacher, B. (2001). Öffentlichkeit und Gegenöffentlichkeit im Internet. Opladen, Germany: VS Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • POST (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology). (2009). E-democracy. Postnote, January 2009, 321. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn321.pdf

  • Pratchett, L., Durose, C., Lowndes, V., Smith, G., Stoker, G., & Wales, C. (2009). Empowering communities to influence local decision making. A systematic review of the evidence. London: Communities and Local Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, E. (2013). Social media and democracy. Australian Journal of Political Science, 48(4), 519–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, V., & Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in campaign 2000. IT and Society, 1(1), 303–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quittkat, C. (2011). The European Commission’s online consultations: A success story? Journal of Common Market Studies, 49(3), 653–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quittkat, C., & Finke, B. (2008). The EU Commission consultation regime. In B. Kohler-Koch, D. De Bièvre, & W. Maloney (Eds.), Opening EU-governance to civil society. gains and challenges (pp. 183–222). CONNEX Report Series No. 05. Mannheim, Germany: University of Mannheim, Mannheim Centre for European Social Research (MZES).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rantamäki, J. (2008). Perceived user value of social networking. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.cse.hut.fi/en/publications/B/1/papers/Rantamaki_final.pdf

  • Riehm, U., Boehle, K., & Lindner, R. (2014). Electronic petitioning and modernization of petitioning systems in Europe. Technology Assessment Studies Series 6. Norderstedt, Germany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riehm, U., Coenen, C., Lindner, R., & Blümel, C. (2009). Bürgerbeteiligung durch E-Petitionen. Analysen von Kontinuität und Wandel im Petitionswesen. Berlin, Germany: Edition Sigma.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Röcke, A. (2014). Framing citizen participation, participatory budgeting in France, Germany and the United Kingdom. London: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roeder, S., Poppenborg, A., Michaelis, S., Märker, O., Salz, S. R. (2005). Public budget dialogue—An innovative approach to e-participation. In M. Böhlen, J. Gamper, W. Polasek, & M. A. Wimmer (Eds.), E-Government: Towards Electronic Democracy. International Conference, TCGOV 2005, LNAI 3416, Bolzano, Italy, March 2005, Proceedings (pp. 48–56).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J., & Sanford, C. S. (2007). Mapping eParticipation: Four central research challenges. Communications of the AIS, 20(55), 909–943.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rustema, R. (2014). Why the ECI needs a community-developed online collection system. In C. Berg & J. Thomson (Eds.), An ECI that works! Learning from the first two years of the European Citizens’ Initiative. The ECI campaign (pp. 104–106). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://ecithatworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/An_ECI_That_Works.pdf

  • Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sangsari, M. (2013). The European Citizens’ Initiative: An early assessment of the European Union’s new participatory democracy instrument. Policy Paper, Canada-Europe Transatlantic Dialogue: Seeking Transnational Solutions to 21st Century Problems. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://labs.carleton.ca/canadaeurope/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/CETD_Sangsari_ECI_Policy-Paper.pdf

  • Saurugger, S. (2010). The social construction of the participatory turn: The emergence of a norm in the European Union. European Journal of Political Research, 49(4), 471–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaefer, C. (2008). Motivations and usage patterns on social network sites. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Galway, Ireland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Economic integration, democracy and the welfare state. Journal of European Public Policy, 4(1), 18–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schefbeck, G. (2010). Electronic support for the legislative consultation process: Theoretical concepts and practical requirements. JeDEM – eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 2(1), 28–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scolve, R. (1995). Democracy and technology. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, N., Lehnert, K., & Bostick, N. (2012). Global social media usage: Insights into reaching consumers worldwide. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(5), 683–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sintomer, Y., Carsten Herzberg, C., & Röcke, A. (2008). Participatory budgeting in Europe: Potentials and challenges. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 164–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, J. (2012). Social media and revolution: The Arab Spring and the occupy movement as seen through three information studies paradigms. Working Papers on Information Systems. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://sprouts.aisnet.org/11-169

  • Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations. Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2011). Why American use social media. Pew Research Center Report. Retrieved July 9, 2015¸ from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2011/Why%20Americans%20Use%20Social%20Media.pdf

  • Smith, S., & Dalakiouridou, E. (2009, March). Contextualising public (e)Participation in the governance of the European Union. European Journal of ePractice, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starskaya, M., & Çagdas, Ö. (2012). Analysis of the online collection software provided by the European Commission for the European Citizens’ Initiative. Working Papers on Information Systems, Information Business and Operations, 01/2012. Vienna, Austria: Vienna University of Economics and Business. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://epub.wu.ac.at/3643/

  • Stein, R., & Wenda, G. (2012, July). Europäische Bürgerinitiative in Kraft – Mitpartizipieren auch online. eGovernment Review, 10, 20–22. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://egovernment-review.org

  • Strandberg, K. (2014). A social media revolution or just a case of history repeating itself? The use of social media in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections. New Media & Society, 15(8), 1329–1347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauß, S., & Nentwich, M. (2013). Social network sites: Potentials, impacts and major privacy challenges. Deliverable No. 4 of the STOA project “European Perspectives on impacts and potentials of Cloud Computing and Social Network Sites”. Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA), European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Street, J., & Scott, A. (2001). From media politics to e-protest. The use of popular culture and the new media in parties and social movements. In F. Webster (Ed.), Culture and politics in the information age: A new politics (pp. 32–51). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Susha, I., & Grönlund, Å. (2014). Context clues for the stall of the citizens’ initiative: Lessons for opening up e-participation development practice. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 454–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szeligowska, D., & Mincheva, E. (2012). The European Citizens’ Initiative—Empowering European citizens within the institutional triangle: A political and legal analysis. In L. Bouza García, V. Cuesta-López, E. Mincheva, & D. Szeligowska (Eds.), The European Citizens’ Initiative—A first assessment (pp. 52–81). Bruges Political Research Papers, No. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talpin, J. (2012). When democratic innovations let the people decide. An evaluation of co-governance experiments. In B. Geissel & K. Newton (Eds.), Evaluating democratic innovations: Curing the democratic malaise? (pp. 184–206). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., Wimmer, M., Vedel, T., Westholm, H., et al. (2007). Introducing eParticipation. DEMO-net booklet series, 1. Retrieved September 7, 2015, from www.ifib.de/publikationsdateien/Introducing_eParticipation_DEMO-net_booklet_1.pdf

  • Tenreiro, M. (2014). Citizens’ Initiative: What’s next? In C. Berg & J. Thomson (Eds.), An ECI that works! Learning from the first two years of the European Citizens’ Initiative. The ECI campaign (pp. 84–88). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://ecithatworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/An_ECI_That_Works.pdf

  • TEU—Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union. (2008). Official Journal of the European Union. C115, Vol. 51, 9 May 2008. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:FULL&from=en

  • Thomson, J. (2014a). A space inside Europe for the public. Briefing paper. Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://www.involve.org.uk/blog/2010/12/31/eci-a-space-inside-europe-for-the-public-before-a-european-public-space/

  • Thomson, J. (2014b). What didn’t happen with the European Citizens’ Initiative…and what did. In C. Berg & J. Thomson (Eds.), An ECI that works! Learning from the first two years of the European Citizens’ Initiative. The ECI campaign (pp. 73–76). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from http://ecithatworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/An_ECI_That_Works.pdf

  • Tolbert, C. J., & Mcneal, R. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomkova, J. (2009, March). E-consultations: New tools for civic engagement or facades for political correctness? European Journal of ePractice, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H. (1997). The tyranny of light: The temptations and the paradoxes of the information society. Futures, 29(9), 827–843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TWFY. (2010). Theyworkforyou.com. Retrieved July 9, 2015, from http://www.theyworkforyou.com

  • Walter, F., & Rosenberger, S. (2007). Skilled voices? Reflections on political participation and education in Austria. EDU Working Paper No. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westholm, H. (2009). Wandel der Formen politischer Partizipation und der Beitrag des Internet. Schlussfolgerungen aus Bevölkerungsbefragungen in Deutschland. In ITA manuscript, No. 09-03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, A., Renton, A., & Macintosh, A. (2005). eDemocracy from the top down: An evaluation of eDemocracy activities initiated by councils and government. Bristol City Council for The Local eDemocracy National Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, A. G. (1999). Virtual sounding boards: How deliberative is online political discussion? In B. N. Hague & B. D. Loader (Eds.), Digital democracy. Discourse and decision making in the information age (pp. 153–178). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, J. (2009). The publics behind political web campaigning. The digital transformation of ‘classic’ counter-public spheres. In S. Baringhorst, V. Kneip, & J. Niesyto (Eds.), Political campaigning on the web (pp. 31–51). Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R. (2007). Online deliberation. Towards a research framework for the assessment of online debates. In A. Avdic, K. Hedström, J. Rose, & Å. Grönlund (Eds.), Understanding eParticipation. Contemporary PhD eParticipation research in Europe (pp. 183–201). Örebro, Sweden: University Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, R., Kozeluh, U., & Brandstetter, G. (2006). Deliberation im europäischen Kontext: Online Debatten und Online Konsultationen auf der EU Platform‚Your Voice in Europe’. In W. R. Langenbucher & M. Latzer (Eds.), Europäische Öffentlichkeit und medialer Wandel. Eine transdisziplinäre Perspektive (pp. 378–400). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wojcik, S. (2007). How does eDeliberation work? A study of french local electronic forums. In A. Avdic, K. Hedström, J. Rose, & Å. Grönlund (Eds.), Understanding eParticipation. Contemporary PhD eParticipation research in Europe (pp. 153–166). Örebro, Sweden: University Library.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Strohgasse 45/5, Vienna, 1030, Austria

    Georg Aichholzer & Stefan Strauß

Authors
  1. Georg Aichholzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Strauß
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georg Aichholzer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Innovation Research (ISI), Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Ralf Lindner

  2. Austrian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA), Vienna, Austria

    Georg Aichholzer

  3. ITAS, c/o Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft, Karlsruher Institute of Technology (KIT), Bonn, Germany

    Leonhard Hennen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Aichholzer, G., Strauß, S. (2016). Electronic Participation in Europe. In: Lindner, R., Aichholzer, G., Hennen, L. (eds) Electronic Democracy in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27419-5_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation