Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Citizen Participation Pros and Cons
Interesting article on pros and cons of citizen participation...
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
very timely when talking about community development and citizen empowerement, etc.
p. 8 is especially interesting :
---
following describe several considerations of what may
be described as ideal conditions for implementation of enhanced
citizen participation in agency decision making.
Low-Cost Indicators
• Citizens readily volunteer for projects that benefit the
entire community.
• Key stakeholders are not too geographically dispersed;
participants can easily reach meetings.
• Citizens have enough income to attend meetings without
harming their ability to provide for their families.
• The community is homogenous, so the group requires
fewer representatives of interest groups; smaller groups
speed decision making.
• The topic does not require representatives to master
complex technical information quickly.
High-Benefit Indicators
• The issue is gridlocked and a citizen mandate is needed
to break the gridlock.
• Hostility toward government entities is high, and the
agency seeks validation from community members to
successfully implement policy.
• Community representatives with particularly strong
influence are willing to serve as representatives.
• The group facilitator has credibility with all representatives.
• The issue is of high interest to stakeholders and may
even be considered at “crisis stage” if actions are not
changed.
Non-Ideal Conditions for Citizen
Participation
Conversely, citizen participation may be ineffective and
wasteful compared to traditional, top-down decision making
under certain conditions.
High-Cost Indicators
• An acquiescent public is reluctant to get involved in what
is considered the job of government employees.
• The region is geographically large or presents other
obstacles (such as heavy traffic) that make regular faceto-
face meetings difficult.
• Many competing factions and socioeconomic groups
require a very large participatory group.
• Low-income residents are key stakeholders for the issue
at hand and should be included, yet they cannot because
of work and family priorities.
• Complex technical knowledge is required before participants
can make decisions.
• The public does not recognize the issue under consideration
as a problem, nor are potential competing policy
alternatives familiar to the public.
Low-Benefit Indicators
• The public is generally not hostile toward government
entities.
• The agency has had prior success in implementing policy
without citizen participation (that is, the voting process
is sufficient to guide policy-making behavior).
• The population is large, making it difficult for involved
stakeholders to influence a significant portion of the
population.
• The decisions of the group are likely to be ignored, no
matter how much effort goes into their formation (the
group does not have authority to make policy decisions).
• The decisions of the group are likely to be the same
decisions produced by the government entity.
Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55-65.
very timely when talking about community development and citizen empowerement, etc.
p. 8 is especially interesting :
---
following describe several considerations of what may
be described as ideal conditions for implementation of enhanced
citizen participation in agency decision making.
Low-Cost Indicators
• Citizens readily volunteer for projects that benefit the
entire community.
• Key stakeholders are not too geographically dispersed;
participants can easily reach meetings.
• Citizens have enough income to attend meetings without
harming their ability to provide for their families.
• The community is homogenous, so the group requires
fewer representatives of interest groups; smaller groups
speed decision making.
• The topic does not require representatives to master
complex technical information quickly.
High-Benefit Indicators
• The issue is gridlocked and a citizen mandate is needed
to break the gridlock.
• Hostility toward government entities is high, and the
agency seeks validation from community members to
successfully implement policy.
• Community representatives with particularly strong
influence are willing to serve as representatives.
• The group facilitator has credibility with all representatives.
• The issue is of high interest to stakeholders and may
even be considered at “crisis stage” if actions are not
changed.
Non-Ideal Conditions for Citizen
Participation
Conversely, citizen participation may be ineffective and
wasteful compared to traditional, top-down decision making
under certain conditions.
High-Cost Indicators
• An acquiescent public is reluctant to get involved in what
is considered the job of government employees.
• The region is geographically large or presents other
obstacles (such as heavy traffic) that make regular faceto-
face meetings difficult.
• Many competing factions and socioeconomic groups
require a very large participatory group.
• Low-income residents are key stakeholders for the issue
at hand and should be included, yet they cannot because
of work and family priorities.
• Complex technical knowledge is required before participants
can make decisions.
• The public does not recognize the issue under consideration
as a problem, nor are potential competing policy
alternatives familiar to the public.
Low-Benefit Indicators
• The public is generally not hostile toward government
entities.
• The agency has had prior success in implementing policy
without citizen participation (that is, the voting process
is sufficient to guide policy-making behavior).
• The population is large, making it difficult for involved
stakeholders to influence a significant portion of the
population.
• The decisions of the group are likely to be ignored, no
matter how much effort goes into their formation (the
group does not have authority to make policy decisions).
• The decisions of the group are likely to be the same
decisions produced by the government entity.
