Nowadays there is an imperative for governments to be more responsive to community needs, and public sector modernisation programmes are introducing opportunities for citizen participation. We look at citizen participation initiatives through the lenses of institutional and stakeholder theories. Using survey data and exogenous variables we analyse experiences in thirty OECD and MERCOSUR local governments. We find that the possible gains in legitimacy and trust explain the efforts made towards citizen participation. In addition, the different levels of commitment towards meaningful citizen participation suggest that factors such as power and urgency can be complementary to legitimacy when analysing citizen participation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlamM, 2006, “Stakeholder theory”, in Methodological Issues in Accounting Research: Theories, Methods and Issues Ed. HoqueZ (Spiramus Press, London) pp 183–206
2.
AndersenH Tvan KempenR, 2003, “New trends in urban policies in Europe: Evidence from the Netherlands and Denmark”Cities2077–86
3.
ArnsteinS R, 1969, “Ladder of citizen participation”Journal of the American Institute of Planners35216–224
4.
BourasCKatrisNTriantafillouV, 2003, “An electronic voting service to support decisionmaking in local government”Telematics and Informatics20255–274
5.
BrignallSModellS, 2000, “An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’”Management Accounting Research11281–306
6.
BroadbentJLaughlinR C, 2003, “Control and legitimation in government accountability processes: The private finance initiative in the UK”Critical Perspectives on Accounting141–22
7.
BrysonJ M, 2004, “What to do when stakeholders matter”Public Management Reviews621–53
8.
BrysonJ M, 2008, “Stakeholder theory. A European perspective”International Public Management Journal11486–490
9.
BučekJSmithB, 2000, “New approaches to local democracy: Direct democracy, participation and the ‘third sector’”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy183–16
10.
BuchyMRaceD, 2001, “The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource management in Australia: What is missing?”Journal of Environmental Planning and Management44293–308
11.
BurbyR J, 2003, “Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action”Journal of the American Planning Association6933
CornwallA, 2008Democratising Engagement: What the UK Can Learn from International Experience (Demos, London)
16.
CornwallARomanoJShanklandA, 2008Brazilian Experiences of Participation and Citizenship: A Critical Look (Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, Sussex)
17.
CunninghamCTiefenbacherJ, 2008, “Evaluating the effectiveness of public participation efforts by environmental agencies: Repermitting a smelter in El Paso, Texas, USA”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26841–856
18.
DaviesB BBlackstockKRauschmayerF, 2005, “‘Recruitment’, ‘composition’, and ‘mandate’ issues in deliberative processes: Should we focus on arguments rather than individuals?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy23599–615
19.
DeeganC, 2006, “Legitimacy theory”, in Methodological Issues in Accounting Research: Theories, Methods and Issues Ed. HoqueZ (Spiramus Press, London) pp 161–182
20.
DeeganCUnermanJ, 2006Financial Accounting Theory (McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, Berks)
21.
DeeganCRankinMTobinJ, 2002, “An examination of the corporate social and environmental disclosures of BHP from 1983–1997: A Test of legitimacy theory”Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal15312
22.
DiMaggioP JPowellW, 1983, “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields”American Sociological Review48147–160
23.
DunleavyPHoodC, 1994, “From old public-administration to new public management”Public Money and Management149–16
24.
DutilP AHowardCLangfordJRoyJ, 2007, “Rethinking government public relationships in a digital world: Customers, clients, or citizens?”Journal of Information Technology and Politics477–90
25.
EdelenbosJKlijnE H, 2006, “Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making: A Comparative analysis of six interactive processes in the Netherlands”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16417–446
26.
European Commission, 2004Green Paper on Public - Private Partnerships and Community Law on Public Contracts and Concessions (Commission of the European Communities, Brussels)
27.
FreemanE, 1984Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach (Pitman, Boston, MA)
28.
FungA, 2006, “Varieties of participation in complex governance”Public Administration Review6666–75
29.
FungAWrightE O, 2001, “Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance”Politics and Society295–41
HoodC, 1995, “The new public management in the 1980s: Variations on a theme”Accounting Organizations and Society2093–109
32.
HungM, 2001, “Accounting standards and value relevance of financial statements: An international analysis”Journal of Accounting and Economics30401–420
33.
IDEA, 2001Democracy at the Local Level: The International IDEA Handbook on Participation, Representation, Conflict Management, and GovernanceInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Stockholm
34.
Involve, 2005, “People and participation: how to put citizens at the heart of decision making”http://www.involving.org
35.
IrvinR E AStansburyJ, 2004, “Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort?”Public Administration Review6455–65
36.
KakabadseAKakabadseN KKouzminA, 2003, “Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology?”Public Administration Review6344–60
37.
KluversRPillayS, 2009, “Participation in the budgetary process in local government”Australian Journal of Public Administration68220–230
38.
LetzaS RSmallmanCSunX, 2004, “Refraining privatisation: Deconstructing the myth of efficiency”Policy Sciences37159–183
39.
LichaI, 2002Citizen Participation and Local Government in Latin America: Advances, Challenges and Best PracticesInter American Development Bank, Washington, DC
40.
McGeeRBazaaraNGaventaJNierrasRRaiMRocamoraJSauleN JWilliamsEZermeñoS, 2003Legal Frameworks for Citizen ParticipationLogolink and Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
41.
MartinSBoazA, 2000, “Public participation and citizen-centred local government: Lessons from the Best Value and Better Government for Older People pilot programs”Public Money and Management2047–53
42.
MeyerJ WRowanB, 1977, “Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony”The American Journal of Sociology83340–363
MitchellR KAgleB RWoodD J, 1997, “Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts”The Academy of Management Review22853–886
45.
MizrahiSVigoda-GadotECohenN, 2010, “Trust, participation and performance”Public Management Review1299–126
46.
MussoJWeareCHaleM, 2000, “Designing web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy?”Political Communication171–19
OECD, Paris2001Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making
51.
OECD, Paris2003The E-government Imperative: Main Findings
52.
OECD, Paris2005aTrust is the Key
53.
OECD, Paris2005bE-government for Better Government
54.
OECD, Paris2009Focus on Citizens: Public Engagement for Better Policy and Services
55.
OliverC, 1991, “Strategic responses to institutional processes”Academy of Management Review16145–179
56.
OsborneDPlastrikP, 1997Banishing Bureaucracy: The Five Strategies for Reinventing Government (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA)
57.
OsborneDPlastrikP, 2000The Reinventor's Fieldbook: Tools for Transforming Your Government (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA)
58.
PatemanC, 1970Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
59.
PetersB G, 2006The Future of Governing: Four Emerging Models (University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KA)
60.
PfefferJSalancikG R, 1978The External Control of Organizations (Harper and Row, New York)
61.
PinaVTorresL, 2001, “Analysis of the efficiency of local government services delivery: An application to urban public transport”Transportation Research A: Policy and Practice35929–944
62.
PinaVTorresLAcereteB, 2007a, “Are ICTs promoting government accountability?: A comparative analysis of e-governance developments in 19 OECD countries”Critical Perspectives on Accounting18583–602
63.
PinaVTorresLRoyoS, 2007b, “Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU regional and local governments? An empirical study”Public Administration85449–472
64.
PinaVTorresLYetanoA, 2009, “Accrual accounting in EU local governments: One method, several approaches”European Accounting Review18765–807
65.
PindadoFRebolloOMartiJ, 2002, “Tools for civic participation: foundations, methods and techniques”, http://www.amsu.edu/articles/
66.
PollittCBouckaertG, 2000Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
67.
RauschmayerFvan den HoveSKoetzT, 2009, “Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric?”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy2742–58
68.
ReddelT, 2002, “Beyond participation, hierarchies, management and markets: ‘new’ governance and place” policies”Australian Journal of Public Administration6150–63
69.
RibeiroJ AScapensR W, 2006, “Institutional theories in management accounting change: Contributions, issues and paths for development”Qualitative Research in Accounting and Management394–111
70.
RodriguesL LGraigR, 2007, “Assessing international accounting harmonization using Hegelian dialectic, isomorphism and Foucault”Critical Perspectives on Accounting18739–757
71.
ShandDArnbergM, 1996, “Background paper”, in Responsive Government: Service Quality Initiatives Ed. OECD (OECD, Paris) pp 15–38
72.
SmithGWalesC, 2000, “Citizens' juries and deliberative democracy”Political Studies4851–65
73.
SmythPReddelT, 2000, “Place management: A New way forward in redressing social exclusion in Queensland”National Housing Action149–14
74.
SuchmanM C, 1995, “Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches”The Academy of Management Review20571–610
75.
SummervilleJ AAdkinsB AKendallG, 2008, “Community participation, rights, and responsibilities: The governmentality of sustainable development policy in Australia”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy26696–711
76.
TaylorM, 2007, “Community participation in the real world: Opportunities and pitfalls in new governance spaces”Urban Studies44297–317
77.
ThomasJ C, 1990, “Public involvement in public management: Adapting and testing a borrowed theory”Public Administration Review50435–445
78.
TorresL, 2004, “Trajectories in public administration reforms in European continental countries”Australian Journal of Public Administration6399–112
79.
TorresLPinaV, 2002, “Changes in public service delivery in the EU countries”Public Money and Management2241–48
80.
TorresLPinaVAcereteB, 2005, “E-government developments on delivering public services among EU cities”Government Information Quarterly22217–238
81.
TorresLPinaVAcereteBRoyoS, 2009, “E-government and accountability in EU local governments”, in Handbook of Research on Strategies for Local E-Government Adoption and Implementation: Comparative Studies Ed. ReddickC (IGI Global, Hersey, PA) pp 186–205
82.
VigodaE, 2002, “From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration”Public Administration Review62527–540
83.
WaltersL CAydelotteJMillerJ, 2000, “Putting more public in policy analysis”Public Administration Review60349–359
84.
WelchE WHinnantC CMoonM J, 2004, “Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory15371–391
85.
YangK F, 2005, “Public administrators' trust in citizens: A Missing link in citizen involvement efforts”Public Administration Review65273–285
86.
YangK FCallahanK, 2007, “Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality”Public Administration Review67249–264
87.
YangK FHolzerM, 2006, “The performance - trust link: Implications for performance measurement”Public Administration Review66114–126
