Since the 1990s, more local governments across China have launched Internet-based citizen participation in government performance evaluation. However, we know little about how it is perceived by bureaucrats whose attitudes are critical in determining the outcome of this citizen participation. In this article, we present an analytical framework to identify major factors influencing bureaucratic perceptions of the effectiveness of online citizen participation. We use survey data collected from local government bureaucrats in Guangdong Province, China, to test our research hypotheses. The results suggest that the effectiveness of online civic participation is primarily a function of citizens’ capacity and motivation, inter-agency difference, and administrative burden. This article concludes with a discussion about how our study extends previous research on citizen participation and the implications for practitioners and future research.
BehnR. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63, 586-606.
2.
BrownK.CoulterP. B. (1983). Subjective and objective measures of police service delivery. Public Administration Review, 43, 50-58.
3.
BurdenB. C.CanonD. T.MayerK. R.MoynihanD. P. (2012). The effect of administrative burden on bureaucratic perception of policies: Evidence from election administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 741-751.
4.
ChadwickA.MayC. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the Internet: E-government in the United States, Britain and the European Union. Governance, 16, 271-300.
5.
ChenH. (2010). Citizens’ appraisal of government performance: Institutional dilemma and transcendence: A case study of Wenzhou [in Chinese]. Administrative Institute of Assets and Finances, 2, 23-27.
6.
ChenR. (2002). Administrative reform in Guangdong Province and its characteristics. Chinese Public Administration Review, 1, 17-24.
ChouB. K. P. (2009). Government and policy-making reform in China: The implications of governing capacity. New York, NY: Routledge.
9.
CourseyD. H.YangK.PandeyS. K. (2012). Public service motivation (PSM) and support for citizen participation: A test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s reformulation of PSM theory. Public Administration Review, 72, 572-582.
10.
DahlR. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
11.
DalehiteE. G. (2008). Determinants of performance measurement: An investigation into the decision to conduct citizen surveys. Public Administration Review, 68, 891-907.
12.
deLeonP. (1992). The democratization of the policy sciences. Public Administration Review, 52, 125-129.
13.
DengG.LiY. (2006). Internet-based citizens assessment on the government: Effectiveness and improving strategies [in Chinese]. Statistics and Decision, 10, 54-56.
14.
DengR. (2011). Online assessment on the government performance: A new trend of citizens’ political participation in the information society [in Chinese]. Theoretical Circle, 3, 21-23.
15.
DenhardtR. B.DenhardtJ. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering. Public Administration Review, 60, 549-559.
DunleavyP. (1991). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: Economic explanations in political science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
FredericksonH. G. (1991). Toward a theory of the public for public administration. Administration & Society, 22, 395-417.
19.
HeikkilaT.IsettK. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special-purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67, 238-248.
20.
HoA. (2002). Reinventing local governments and the e-government initiative. Public Administration Review, 62, 434-444.
21.
HoA.CoatesP. (2004). Citizen-initiated performance assessment: The initial Iowa experience. Public Performance & Management Review, 27(3), 29-50.
22.
HolzerM.KlobyK. (2005). Public performance measurement: An assessment of the state-of-the-art and models for citizen participation. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54, 517-532.
23.
JingY.CuiY.LiD. (2015). The politics of performance measurement in China. Policy and Society, 34, 49-61. doi:10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.02.001
24.
KimS.LeeJ. (2012). E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Administration Review, 72, 819-828.
25.
KingC. S.FelteyK. M.SuselB. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58, 317-326.
26.
KweitM. G.KweitR. W. (1981). Implementing citizen participation in a bureaucratic society: A contingency approach. New York, NY: Praeger.
27.
KweitM. G.KweitR. W. (1984). The politics of policy analysis: The role of citizen participation in analytic decisionmaking. Review of Policy Research, 3, 234-245.
28.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
29.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2006). Cops, teachers, counselors. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
30.
MichelsR. (1949). Political parties. New York, NY: Free Press.
31.
MoonM. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality?Public Administration Review, 62, 424-433.
32.
MoynihanD. P. (2003). Normative and instrumental perspectives on public participation: Citizen summits in Washington, D.C. American Review of Public Administration, 33, 164-188.
33.
MoynihanD. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
34.
MussoJ. A.WeareC.HaleM. C. (2000). Designing web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy?Political Communication, 17, 1-19.
35.
NiX. (2008). Reflections on contemporary performance measurement practices in the Chinese government [in Chinese]. Journal of Sun Yat-sen University (Social Science Edition), 3, 134-141.
36.
NorrisD. F.MoonM. J. (2005). Advancing e-government at the grassroots: Tortoise or hare?Public Administration Review, 65, 64-75.
37.
PiotrowskiS. J.ZhangY.LineW.YuW. (2009). Key issues for implementation of Chinese open government information regulations. Public Administration Review, 69, S129-S135.
38.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
39.
PorumbescuG. (2015). Linking transparency to trust in government and voice. American Review of Public Administration, 47, 520-537. doi:10.1177/0275074015607301
40.
RadinB. A. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
41.
RaineyH. G. (1997). Understanding and managing public organizations (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42.
RobbinsM. D.SimonsenB.FeldmanB. (2008). Citizens and resource allocation: Improving decision making with interactive web based citizen participation. Public Administration Review, 68, 564-575.
43.
SchachterH. L. (1995). Reinventing government or reinventing ourselves: Two models for improving governance performance. Public Administration Review, 55, 530-537.
44.
StipakB. (1979). Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review, 39, 46-52.
45.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
46.
VigodaE. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review, 62, 527-540.
47.
VogelE. F. (1990). One step ahead in China: Guangdong under reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
48.
WangR. (2013). The system research of democratic appraisal of governance activities and professional conducts in the Internet environment [in Chinese]. Journal of Nanjing Normal University, 3, 18-23.
49.
WangX. (2001). Assessing public participation in U.S. cities. Public Performance and Management Review, 24, 322-336.
50.
WelchE. W.HinnantC. C.MoonM. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 371-391.
51.
WilsonJ. Q. (1995). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
52.
YangK.CallahanK. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67, 249-264.
53.
YangK.PandeyS. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?Public Administration Review, 71, 880-892.
54.
ZengL.LiJ. (2013). The fitness study of citizens’ subjective evaluation and objective measure of public service: Empirical analysis based on the street-level police service in H city [in Chinese]. Journal of Public Administration, 2, 72-103.
55.
ZhangN. (2009). Dilemma and resolutions of the arrangement of government performance evaluation system [in Chinese]. Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social Science Edition), 2, 38-44.
56.
ZhengF.LiaoP. (2013). Government performance management: Target, location and top-level design [in Chinese]. Chinese Public Administration, 5, 15-20.
57.
ZhouK. (2008). China’s grassroots movement toward greater freedom. Washington, DC: Center for International Private Enterprise.
